Author Topic: Driving law proposals could see motorway speed limits raised to 100mph to 'reduce congestion'  (Read 1070 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

guest968

  • Guest
There's already a law against that. Maybe it should be subject to civil enforcement, with TFL given the relevant powers to enforce it on the M25? It would certainly help plug the recent budget hole from the 900 appeals they lost.
I've spent more hours than I wish I had on the M25.   Don't think I ever once saw anybody driving so slowly in any middle/outer lanes that a convincing case could be made that they were impeding the safe forward progress of other vehicles, or  driving without reasonable consideration for other road users.

guest968

  • Guest
Frankly if it were up to me the motorways would have no limit at all, in Germany I found 110 / 115 mph brought a fair balance between making progress and fuel stops.
In Germany there are 75% more fatal accidents on unrestricted sections than on ones with a speed limit.

guest968

  • Guest
Have a nice weekend everyone.  I have a couple of case to win next week.
I wish you success.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Frankly if it were up to me the motorways would have no limit at all, in Germany I found 110 / 115 mph brought a fair balance between making progress and fuel stops.
In Germany there are 75% more fatal accidents on unrestricted sections than on ones with a speed limit.
Source?
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

tonys

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
It's GB News - what do you expect?
I'd not looked at before seeing it cited here as a news source. After looking at the site I thought maybe it was just posted as a joke.

DWMB2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 885
  • Karma: +25/-0
    • View Profile
Frankly if it were up to me the motorways would have no limit at all, in Germany I found 110 / 115 mph brought a fair balance between making progress and fuel stops.
In Germany there are 75% more fatal accidents on unrestricted sections than on ones with a speed limit.
Source?

S&S may be referring to this 2019 piece in Der Spiegel.

There's also this useful article from German fact-checking website Correktiv, that cites the Spiegel article among others. Both articles are in German so you may need to rely on Google Translate.

Having lived in Germany for a period, I did find their Autobahn network fairly good. As noted in one of the articles above, the unrestricted sections are generally only on the safer stretches of motorway, i.e. those that are generally quiet, no major junctions, away from big cities etc.

In my experience too, most people were fairly sensible on the unrestricted sections and adjusted their speed to suit the road and conditions. Partly because, just like in the UK, just because one isn't speeding, doesn't mean one isn't driving carelessly.

slapdash

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Frankly if it were up to me the motorways would have no limit at all, in Germany I found 110 / 115 mph brought a fair balance between making progress and fuel stops.

About 35% (and increasing) of Autobahn 130kph, Only about 10% is fully derestricted.

The balance has a variable limit based on traffic. It is often derestricted in the evenings.

It seems to work reasonably well overall. The speeds you describe would be common.

I don't think it would work particularly well here though, not until folk had a better idea of lane discipline. High speed differentials are difficult.

tonys

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
I don't think it would work particularly well here though, not until folk had a better idea of lane discipline. High speed differentials are difficult.
Over here you'd have a bunch of drivers, eyes glued to their speedometer, making sure they maintained 111mph and didn't hit 112.
Funny Funny x 1 View List

slapdash

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
That would include me. But at least I'd be in the correct lane.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
I don't think it would work particularly well here though, not until folk had a better idea of lane discipline. High speed differentials are difficult.
That's where variable speed limits come in. Pretty much the entire length of the M25 has variable speed limits, which would be in force most of the time if there were no maximum limit. However at 3 am when you have five empty fully lit lanes, the only real limit should be the capabilities of the vehicle and the driver.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

guest968

  • Guest
Source?
Here https://www.statista.com/chart/25098/fatality-rate-and-speed-limit-on-european-motorways/ and their link to an article in Der Spiegel https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/tempolimit-koennte-jaehrlich-bis-zu-140-todesfaelle-verhindern-a-1254504.html

I'm not one of those who has an unthinking "speed kills" position, and the Statista table shows that there really is no link like like that - all sorts of other factors are involved.  Which is why the German experience is interesting, as it removes all the factors like vehicle condition, driver training/skills, roadway quality etc.  Even though there are fewer accidents on the unrestricted sections, because only the safest stretches are unrestricted, the casualty rates are higher.

Does that mean we shouldn't have a higher limit on our motorways?   Not necessarily.  I'm not ideologically opposed to it, and I've long thought that if we are going to vary speed limits for traffic management purposes there'd probably be better buy-in from drivers for lower limits when necessary if they also saw the same electronic signs showing higher limits when possible.

Should that higher limit top out at 100?  Possibly.  80? Why not - it's common enough in other countries.  120? Possibly.   Unlimited?  Hmmm.  Driver skills start to become a problem,

(a) for the fast driver, although different training and testing could perhaps be introduced.  Could even be a money-spinner - I can envisage that someone able to afford a super/hypercar would happily pay a couple of K (to the police?) for advanced training and the right to have a numberplate showing the speed he's rated for.

But there's the (b) of all the dozy half-wits out there who don't pay attention, and the consequences of one of them pulling in front of someone doing 150 vs 70 are a lot more gripping.

None of the issues I brought up in my earlier replies were meant to be "no we shouldn't cos...", but they are things which should be considered when balancing competing interests.  Is there actually any practical point to a 100 limit (other than a psychological sense of fair play)? We already tolerate a certain casualty rate, knowing it could be lowered if we lower speed limits, which is happening in urban areas, but we would need to decide to risk higher rates if we raise the limit.  And of course it's not just the occupants of a fast car who face a higher risk, it's also anybody they hit.

The extra fuel consumption isn't just a matter for the driver's wallet - it means extra emissions.   And my, what an EV carrot that could be - EVs allowed to go at 120, or 150, petrol/diesel kept at 70.

Things are often never as simple as at first they may appear, but the implications of a higher speed limit could be properly examined, and made a subject of public debate, if there was political will.

In other words it aint gonna happen.

tonys

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
And my, what an EV carrot that could be - EVs allowed to go at 120, or 150, petrol/diesel kept at 70.

Electricity produces emissions as well. Gas is the only source that can be quickly scaled up or down, so any incremental increase in electricity use is effectively wholly gas generated.

The idea being pushed seems to be "it doesn't matter how much energy is used as long as it's electricity". I guess it's politically easier to encourage people to buy a new car than encourage energy saving.

tonys

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
By the way would this requested 100mph limit apply when it's raining, or reduce like they do in France?

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Karma: +13/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
A completely new driving test would need to be introduced.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
A completely new driving test would need to be introduced.
Police drivers can go a lot faster because they have extra training, which isn't actually that expensive it's less than the cost of a racing licence.

As a "high speed licence test" is plainly a premium service, the government could introduce a test fee of 5k and I still think they'd have people queing round the block for it. It would certainly help the public finances.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order