Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.

Have a nice weekend everyone.  I have a couple of case to win next week.

I wish you success.

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.

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.

That would include me. But at least I'd be in the correct lane.

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.

By the way would this requested 100mph limit apply when it's raining, or reduce like they do in France?

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.