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.

tonys

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Variable speed limits seem to be coming everywhere anyway.
You could well be correct. I think I've pretty much only seen variable limits as part of the "smart motorway" thing which is a huge amount of work. But no reason why variable limits couldn't be implemented without all the other stuff.

sparxy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • [ib90xi8p]
    • View Profile
I've no issue raising the limit but 100mph with drivers having taken a test some 30-40-50 years prior is a bit concerning, especially since some can't even use their indicators properly... Perhaps this will be feasible when the majority of cars on the road have some kind of active front protection and lane assist, so as to reduce the risk of forward collisions and lane deviation at speed.

Having a different rule for those with an "enhanced licence" seems like a LOT of extra admin work for the ticket offices, what with sending out routine s172's, and a pain in the arris for those who want to drive faster.

roythebus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Restoring old buses since 1969.
  • Location: Somewhere in South East England
    • View Profile
Going back many years to the early 1980s, I remember a conversation on Capital Radio when they had chat shows, Alan Hargreaves talking to a Swedish road safety lady, she made the point that to drive at a certain speed, say 50 mph would cost you say 6 hours work. If you drove at 70 mph it would cost you 7 hours work. So the save half an hour's drive time, you'd have to work an extra hour to pay for it.

But then we have the scenarion I mentioned earlier, that the time saved may get you ahead of the delay at the next set of traffic lights or the one who drives through the Dartford Tunnel at 30 and delays everything for the rest of the day.

Having usually spent a day driving a bus in London traffic for a 10 hour shift at a top speed of 20mph if I'm lucky, it's a pleasure to drive home late at night with an almost empty motorway. Last weekend's bus was Canning Town to Tower Gateway, 4 miles each way
according to google maps. A round trip took five hours fifty minutes. Blackwall tunnel South closed, Limehouse Link tunnel partially closed, Rotherhithe Tunnel traffic blocking back 2 miles, then demonstrators blocked Tower Bridge for most of the day. One bus took 2 and a half hours to get round the block at Tower Gateway!
« Last Edit: April 18, 2024, 06:19:04 pm by roythebus »
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.

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
  • Karma: +6/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
The amount of skill necessary to safely drive at 100mph on a quiet motorway is perhaps less than some might assume.
The amount of skill demonstrated by many drivers, unfortunately is less still.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the biggest danger from driving at high speed on a quiet motorway is that no matter how good your reactions and car control, you have no control over the f**ktards that pull out in front of you without looking. The solution to make 100mph variable motorway speed limits workable is not an advanced test for those that will be doing 100, but regular re-testing for all drivers, and bad driving penalised (as opposed to the current fetish for blaming speed for everything and persecuting speeders because speed is much easier to measure/prove).

As the saying goes, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
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
To be honest I don't think 100 mph needs an advance driving test, though if you're going to let people drive at 130+ then it might be a good idea.

I do think we need a lot more enforcement of all the things other than excess speed that causes all the problems, and that requires traffic cops, a whole load of them.
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
Admittedly, a single incident is not statistically significant, but my experience of traffic police and addressing bad driving is not promising.

Some years ago, the M4 westbound unusually had a large number of vehicles in lanes 1 and 2, travelling at a reasonable speed but far too close together, so much so, that I felt uncomfortable driving in said lanes, and pretty much no traffic in lane 3 - which was far more comfortable due to the lack of an apparent 5 mile pile-up if anyone happened to sneeze. Obviously, it is rude to sit in lane 3 without overtaking the vehicles in the lower lanes, and my  car at the time (a 2.9 Granada) effortlessly picked up speed.

Cutting a long story short, after a marked traffic car stopped coming to a stop on an overbridge (junction) when he saw me "making progress" in lane 3, sat on my outside as if the passenger was trying to syphon petrol out of my tank for about half a mile at 65mph (having seen the marked traffic car react to my progress, I had ceased making progress) before shooting off at 140+mph because he was pissed off that he couldn't follow check me at ~120, I got pulled by an unmarked car, which had only managed to record my speed at 96 (which was too low for their internal rules to process) and was majorly p*ssed off at the at least 6 cars that had pulled out in front of me causing me to brake sharply when the unmarked car was hoping to clock me at ~120.

TL;DR - real (unmarked) traffic police's opinion of lemmings dangerously pulling out in front of a car travelling at a far higher speed is that this was a problem because it prevented them catching me for a worthwhile speed.

Also had a few choice quotes. Opening gambit was "If it wasn't for that traffic car, you'd be getting a ticket now", followed by "stop smirking", and (considering that it was an unmarked car) "we're surprised you didn't see us".
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.

roythebus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Restoring old buses since 1969.
  • Location: Somewhere in South East England
    • View Profile
In a similar vein back in the 1980s a workmate who lived in Farnham and worked at Waterloo (train drivers) used to ride a very quick Italian motorcycle and used to use its full capacity in the early hours along the M3. He told that one early morning on the empty M3 a set of headlights followed him at about 110 then dropped back. A bit further another set of headlamps caught up with him so he accelerated a bit more. The bike had been tested by a magazine at about 140 mph. The headlights dropped back. He carried on along the Chertsey Road at a slower pace (pre-speed camera days) and found a police road block on the roundabout at Twickenham. He asked the officers what was the problem, "you". He was asked how fast he thought he was going on the M3. "Don't know" he replied I was busy watching the road". He was told it had taken the officers of 3 police forces to catch him, they didn't have anything fast enough to record his speed so the road block was their way of stopping him. Fearing the worse when he got the court papers through he was charged with exceeding the 70mph limit on the motorway. As they couldn't prove how fast he was going it was a nominal fine. I can't remember if they done penalty points in those days.
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
As they couldn't prove how fast he was going it was a nominal fine. I can't remember if they done penalty points in those days.
They did, a relative of mine tells me they were called endorsements as they were physically put onto your paper licence at the time. He proudly tells me how his licence was extended with a number of supplementary pages that were attached in a concertina pattern that would roll out when he opened it up. They didn't ban him because his garage had a maintenance contract with the police and it would have caused real problems if they had.
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

666

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
As they couldn't prove how fast he was going it was a nominal fine. I can't remember if they done penalty points in those days.
They did, a relative of mine tells me they were called endorsements as they were physically put onto your paper licence at the time. He proudly tells me how his licence was extended with a number of supplementary pages that were attached in a concertina pattern that would roll out when he opened it up. They didn't ban him because his garage had a maintenance contract with the police and it would have caused real problems if they had.
They're still called endorsements, but it's only since the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 that they've had points attached.

Before that there was no totting, but a court could simply take a view that your record merited a ban.

slapdash

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
There was totting (and it was referred to as such colloquially). A similar system.

After 3 endorsements (these were hand written on your paper licence and recorded centrally, so printed on a replacement) you got a 6 month ban. However you could argue hardship. At that point (at least in  '83) a simple "we'll fire them" letter would usually do the trick.

You could repeat this process until the bench eventually disqualified. (I survived 4, but not my 5th).

When you reapplied for your licence it came back with the same XX99 code.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2024, 03:54:49 pm by slapdash »

roythebus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Restoring old buses since 1969.
  • Location: Somewhere in South East England
    • View Profile
Ah yes, endorsements, I've had a few of those over the last 54 years! Including one for driving a bus down a buses only road in 1973!! That is what made me take more than a passing interest in motoring law.
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.

Pastmybest

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Karma: +12/-0
    • View Profile
Some interesting views. Mine, increasing the speed limit for those who believe they have the skill does not account for the fact that the still have to share the roads with skill less numpties.

The driving test needs be far more difficult to pass and people need to understand driving is a privilege not a right, If you do not have the skill nor the inclination to follow the rules then you should not be allowed to drive.

I do not mean every little peccadillo should cost you your licence, mistakes happen, but blatant disregard should.

I would propose a two tiered licence, the second tier allowing motorway driving. Middle lane hogging, tailgating,etc should result in the loss of the privilege of being able to drive on a motorway,for a period of time

Once you educate drivers on the proper way to drive on a motorway then you can experiment with the speed limits.

roythebus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Restoring old buses since 1969.
  • Location: Somewhere in South East England
    • View Profile
The trouble is that drivers in the UK can use motorways without ever having driven on one. Take those in Scotland for instance, no motorway for hundreds of miles, how would they ever get experience?

The only times I ever seem to get nicked for a speeding ticket is after midnight when there's little or no traffic around and the cameras can actually take a photo of a single car! Even then, it's never been more than 10 mph over the limit. I tend to take the view I may as well drive at about 86mph on motorways as the threshold for 3 points is the same for 75 as it is for 86 or whatever the limit is. I've got a mystery ticket coming soon in a hire car last week, I'm not aware of being flashed anywhere, I only drove the car at night.
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.

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
  • Karma: +6/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
Roy, if you're going to apply the 3 point rule, you might as well drive at 95mph - although I don't know what your reactions are like. If they are as good as your retention of facts, I would suggest that we would all be far safer if you sat closer to the back of the bus.

For 75 in a 70 limit, there will be no enforcement.
For 79 to 86 (10%+2 - 10%+9) you would expect to be offered a course if eligible, otherwise
For 79 to 95, you would expect a fixed penalty
For 96 and above, go see the beak.

N.B. the above are based on recorded speed - if the camera over-reads slightly and you can prove you were only doing 95, the beak will not be impressed.

There are many, many ways that the driving test(s) could be improved - but as long as it is a pass once and then do what you like afterwards, driving standards will not significantly improve. As a side-rant (although it doesn't affect me as I passed my bike test pre-direct access), there is no point having multiple tests to ride larger capacity bikes, if they are all the same test, assessed on the same criteria, but taken on larger capacity bikes.
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
I'd be all for mandatory re-testing.
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