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.

JoCo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Personally I think 70 mph is plenty fast enough - given that enforcement is 79mph. And in reality you can cruise at 85 or so if you are mindful of cameras.

UK is a relatively small country, so most journeys are < 50 miles. So the savings in time are inconsequential.

For drivers who do longer distances regularly -  I would posit that allowing higher speeds for long journeys will inevitably lead to more accidents due to tiredness, or moments of inattentiveness, as less time to react. The consequences of a crash at 100mph v 70mph are vast.

I have no figures to back this up. But I would wager that the number of deaths from crashes etc to "victims of car crashes", in which I include any non-fault drivers, increment at a higher rate than the speed of accidents.  [ e.g. More that twice as many people die from accidents at 60mph than same number of accidents at 30mph].   Also any accidents at 100mph would inevitably lead to motorways being closed for longer after any accidents due  to damage to infrastructure, and preservation of scene of crime in case of fatalities.     

Additionally ICE Engines are not as efficient at 100mph. So it is more expensive to drive faster.   The driver may be happy to offset the cost against convenience, but it is only a zero sum game for the driver.   For everyone else there is more pollution, more noise and more risk.   


   
 

 

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Additionally ICE Engines are not as efficient at 100mph. So it is more expensive to drive faster.  The driver may be happy to offset the cost against convenience, but it is only a zero sum game for the driver.  For everyone else there is more pollution, more noise and more risk. 
I wouldn't be averse to the speed limit being 100 mph for EVs only, and 70 mph remaining the limit for ICE. Would give me a good reason to invest in an EV.
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

Southpaw82

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 350
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
I drove at 125 a few weeks ago, perfectly legally. Nobody died. My journey was seconds shorter. Arguments against raising the speed limit on motorways donít hold much water.
Like Like x 1 View List

JoCo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I drove at 125 a few weeks ago, perfectly legally. Nobody died.

So?

That's an anecdote. Not an argument, or evidence.

Plenty of drunk drivers have driven home, when nobody died.   

My journey was seconds shorter.

So no real benefit then.

Arguments against raising the speed limit on motorways donít hold much water.

That's just an assertion.

It's for the proposer of changes to argue the benefits, if any.       

Southpaw82

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 350
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Itís about as much use as anyone elseís contributions on this thread.

roythebus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Restoring old buses since 1969.
  • Location: Somewhere in South East England
    • View Profile
Given that the source of the "news" is GB News, I'd take it with a pinch of salt. I live near ashford Kent and have to use the M20 regularly. when they installed the brexit barriers and contra-flow systems over the last few years between j9 and j 8 with single line traffic, the limit was lowered fro 70 to 50. In practice because of the dawdlers, traffic rarely reached 45. I forget my exact calculations but it took about 7 minutes longer to cover that section. 7 minutes x 2 for the 2 of us in the car, x number of time a year we have to use that section of road meant something like an additional 48 hours travelling over the course of a year.

I also drive on the continent fairly regularly where the motorway speeds are higher than in the UK. I occasionally see the aftermath of an RTC, I have witnessed a couple actually happen. Over there the authorities are much quicker at clearing up, the idea being to deal with the casualties first, then get the road open and traffic flowing again. In the UK the road is often closed for hours while police make their investigations purely for Home Office statistics. Abroad the policy seems to be "it's an insurance matter", clear the mess and let them deal with it.


Could the average UK driver deal with increased speeds? I doubt it, one only has to see how long it takes a UK driver to adopt to the higher speeds in France and Belgium on the motorway from Calais. It's not until I get to Lille that the UK plated cars seem to dissipate from dawdling along at 65 mph and lane discipline is restored.

As for fuel consumption, my Range Rover TDV8 was giving 31 mpg on my usual run to work until last week when the engine failed, probably due to old age! At under 65 it was doing about 27 mpg. The average speed shown on the trip meter for the last 6 months has been around 35mph, quite high according to my local Land Rover garage.

But back to the OP, on my "slow" journeys to work that extra 7 minutes it took from j9 to j8 could make the difference between avoiding an incident at the Dartford Crossing and a long wait. As for road casualties, the death rate is about 1800 per year on UK roads and has been fairly static for the last 5years. The majority of thos deaths have been on NSL country lanes, the rest on "normal" roads with very few in 30 and slower limits. I forget the exact amount but posted them on Pepipoo a few weeks ago.
Bus driving since 1973. My advice, if you have a PSV licence, destroy it when you get to 65 or you'll be forever in demand.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Could the average UK driver deal with increased speeds?
Where there's three lanes, you wouldn't expect the average driver to be in lane 3 though. The limit is a maximum limit and not a target, I've seen plenty of UK plated cars in Germany drive at 55 in lane 1, and that doesn't seem to cause any problems. I've also seen many cruise at a sensible 100, and a few go at 120+, never been the cause of any problems. Many people I've spoken to have told me they'd be doing 55 - 65 in lane one and that's absolutely fine.

I also don't see why we shouldn't allow drivers to take a test to allow them to drive at higher speeds. Of course nobody should let me drive any faster than anyone else based on my say-so, but if I pass a test and demonstrate that I have the same level of skill as a police response driver then why shouldn't I be allowed to drive faster?
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

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
  • Karma: +6/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
In principle, and as an IAM member, I find the idea of higher speed limits for drivers who have passed an appropriate advanced driving test to be appealing. However, unless/until we have cars that require a personalised key and biometrics to drive (at which point they will be self-driving and this discussion will be moot), there would appear to be significant hurdles to effective and efficient enforcement of such a scheme.

I realise that this is apples to oranges, as "push bikes" don't have VRMs or RK's and therefore are harder to monetise enforcement of, but the availability of exempt electrically assisted pushbikes has resulted in a vast number of illegal electric motorcycles that are indistinguishable from the legal assisted pushbikes (until they whizz past you at 40mph, uphill, without peddling, at night without lights, or any other legal or safety requirement). Riding a conventional mostly road legal motorcycle with a small number plate, you stand a fair chance of getting pulled for your crime. Riding a completely illegal electric motorcycle that looks like a road legal assisted bike (there are probably at least 2 in the country that are road legal), chances of getting pulled are next to zero.

If some drivers are allowed to do 100mph, and a car is observed doing 96, how do you ascertain whether the driver of that vehicle on that occasion is allowed to do 100? Not as a one off, but as widespread enforcement. There are many, many potential ways to do this, some far less flawed than others.


edit: Obviously we are all missing the real point - the country's richest Roland Rat impersonator needs to do or say something to appeal to the man in the street who voted Tory last time after Labour told him (as a key part of their election campaign) that he voted for Brexit because he was variously stupid and/or racist.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2024, 12:15:21 pm by andy_foster »
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
If some drivers are allowed to do 100mph, and a car is observed doing 96, how do you ascertain whether the driver of that vehicle on that occasion is allowed to do 100? Not as a one off, but as widespread enforcement. There are many, many potential ways to do this, some far less flawed than others.
It's not 100% effective, but one way would be to require your vehicle to be tested to the same standards as a police traffic car (which is obviously a much higher standard than a normal MOT), put the number plates on an online register, and require that you can only exceed 70 mph if you've got a high speed licence and your car is on the high speed register. Speed cameras obviously read number plates so it would be easy to pursue anyone who didn't have an approved high speed vehicle, which you can only register as such if you've done your high speed licence test.

You could even introduce an online account so that if you've lent your car to a normal licence holder you can pause the high-speed registration of the car, and make it an offence to fail to do so unless your friend also has a high-speed licence which you've taken a photo of.

This would also eliminate the problem of someone having a high-speed licence and then trying to see how fast some old banger can go.

In any even most people would not pass the high speed test even if they tried, so scope for abuse would be quite limited.
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
You could even introduce an online account so that if you've lent your car to a normal licence holder you can pause the high-speed registration of the car, and make it an offence to fail to do so unless your friend also has a high-speed licence which you've taken a photo of.
There must be lots of families and couples who share cars, or just one car. Do they need to do this if they swap drivers during a long journey, or when the husband/wife is using the car?

Together with the requirement for variable speed limits on all motorways, it looks like a lot of extra infrastructure and bureaucracy to benefit a relatively few drivers who do over 50,000 miles per year on motorways at night.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
There must be lots of families and couples who share cars, or just one car. Do they need to do this if they swap drivers during a long journey, or when the husband/wife is using the car?
The rules could only apply if a car is being driven at more than the "normal" limit, problem solved. Of course if both drivers have a high-speed licence, then it doesn't matter. If a driver gets pulled over doing 100 in a suitable car but they've not done the high-speed test, they get dealt with as any speeding driver is dealt with today.

Together with the requirement for variable speed limits on all motorways, it looks like a lot of extra infrastructure and bureaucracy to benefit a relatively few drivers who do over 50,000 miles per year on motorways at night.
Variable speed limits seem to be coming everywhere anyway. Maybe it is too complicated, the simple solution is to say drive as fast as you like and the vast majority of people will settle for 80 - 85. Relatively few drivers in Germany actually do 100+, I doubt it would be different here. Just because the maximum limit is higher (or removed altogether) doesn't mean everyone is compelled to driver any faster than they did before.
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

roythebus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Restoring old buses since 1969.
  • Location: Somewhere in South East England
    • View Profile
As one who frequently drives on the continent (or did until the B word put paid to my work abroad), I didn't have a problem with driving with what I considered a comfortable cruising speed of 85-90 mph. The standards of driving do vary between the Benelux countries as indeed they do in France and Germany, where learner drivers aren't allowed to drive on a public road until they've had tuition on private roads. There's no 20 minute drive to see if you can make a car go forwards (don't bother with reverse these days), and 20 minutes how to use a satnav.
A friend moved to Stuttgart about 20 years ago and his daily commute into town was done at 120 mph. In the UK you'd be lucky to commute at 20 mph!!
Also the European police and authorities don't have the same fetish about exceeding the speed limit as the UK does.
Bus driving since 1973. My advice, if you have a PSV licence, destroy it when you get to 65 or you'll be forever in demand.

slapdash

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
I don't think there is that much of a fetish about it. It  is enforced to a modest extent.

There are only a million odd nips produced a year and around 10% of licences have points. That seems to suggest that people in the main are reasonable obedient.

I generally see far more enforcement in other parts of Europe than here.



mickR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
we are edging back to the old argument that "speed doesntkills"
idiots and poor driving kills. and as we know speed cameras aren't very clever at detecting poor driving alone. and the chances of more plod on motorways isn't likely, hopefully more will contribute to operation snap to eradicate to$$ers from our roads. then higher speeds on motorways will be achievable.
Like Like x 1 View List

slapdash

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Speed certainly tends to increase severity of injuries etc. It also tends to increase frequency of incidents. Largely as a result of less time to react to the original cause (usually someone's poor judgement). It's the inappropriate use of speed that is often an issue.

There has been research on lower speed limits increasing crash rates, particularly on dual carriageways etc. The thought was that where limits were low(er) drivers didn't properly take account of conditions because of complacency.  As conditions changed with rain, or gradually increasing traffic for example folk often just carried on regardless.

There is also evidence that increasing safety features encourages certain amounts of risk taking. A belief that the various driver aids will help maintain control and if they don't it's going to be ok with all those airbags.

I doubt there will be an upwards change, but on modern duals and motorways more variable limits based on loadings (both up and down) seems reasonable.