Sense at last!
RallyBiker
Posts: 378
Comments
-
It'll never happen. New Labour made the same grumblings many years back and zero became of it. It seems that every new government tries to appease voters with this Joker card.
For "the reasons of safety" it will remain at 70MPH, guaranteed
It's ironic that we're still bound by a speed limit that was set when cars had cross ply tyres and drum brakes.0 -
doesn't really matter, its rare that you can get over 70 these days because of al the traffic/average speed cameras!0
-
-
Is there a speed limit on motorways? Since when?Uncompromising extremist0
-
impossible to bring in never mind the higher performance cars or better brakes etc etc
a lot and I mean a lot of trunk roads and motorways in the uk dont meet 70mph design standards never mind 80mph. Basically hammond would have to accept responsability for his decision, to do this he would have to carryout a safety audit and sign off the exception report for every slip or junction that doesnt meet standards.
if he didnt and there was a speed related accident hello Manslaughter Act goodbye liberty
boring but our roads where built by the rushed and the short sighted0 -
mak3m, I don't understand. You're suggesting that every road has to be safely negotiable at the maximum speed limit. Whereas in actuality we have narrow twisty A and B-roads which really are not do-able at 60mph, even though that's the limit.0
-
None of the roads have ever broken when I've not been driving over 70mph ever weekendmak3m wrote:a lot and I mean a lot of trunk roads and motorways in the uk dont meet 70mph design standards never mind 80mph.
:twisted:It takes as much courage to have tried and failed as it does to have tried and succeeded.
Join us on UK-MTB we won't bite, but bring cake!
Blender Cube AMS Pro0 -
a higher speed limit would be a good idea i think but if folk do, lets say 85-90 when the speed limit is 70, will they be satisfied with the higher legal limit or will it move their own "safe" driving speed parameters even higher?
best thing to do would be to keep the legal limit as it is but be more lenient with folk driving over that limit.0 -
Have no limits and fit battering rams to the front of all carsFormally known as Coatbridgeguy0
-
sheepsteeth wrote:a higher speed limit would be a good idea i think but if folk do, lets say 85-90 when the speed limit is 70, will they be satisfied with the higher legal limit or will it move their own "safe" driving speed parameters even higher?
That's that 85th percentile thing isn't it? I mean, personally I cruise at 80 on the motorway most of the time, my car's happy there and it feels about right. Can't say the speed limit is a consideration in that at all. Loads of other people are at the same speed but are they thinking the same or are they saying "Oh, better not go more than 10mph over"?Uncompromising extremist0 -
-
most folk i know drive at 85 ish on the motorway by their own admission, i wonder if this is because they see it as a reasonable ammount over the legal limit.
so if 15mph is a reasonable amount now, would that mean they will drive at 95 insted with a speed limit of 80?
i drive at 70 on the motorway, i occasionally accidentally drift towards 75 but always return to 70 as soon as i notice.
i find it less stressful to drive this way and i dont have to spend any effort looking behind me for coppers looking for speeders.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:mak3m, I don't understand. You're suggesting that every road has to be safely negotiable at the maximum speed limit. Whereas in actuality we have narrow twisty A and B-roads which really are not do-able at 60mph, even though that's the limit.
TL:DR at bottom :P
well i was limiting it to Trunkroads and motorways, should have said dual carriageways as thats the only place the 80 could really be considered.
but twisty a's and b's are a good example to try and illustrate what i mean.
If I was asked to look at a new access on a 60mph twisty A road I would need to make sure that the forward visibility to the junction and the visibility from a 2.4m set back on the minor road, was a minimum of 215m. As you correctly state travelling to the speed limit isnt always possible, 60mph isnt actually the limit the road is derestricted and you can travel upto 60 if conditions allow. Therefore its unreasonable to apply the maximum standards on twisty sections, for one thing its physically impossible. i would do another study into the actual traffic speeds and base the standards on that. If i accepted a lower value and there was a fatal accident involving speed and visibility I would be able to keep out of prision as i could demonstrate that i investigated the junction and traffic and used sound reasoning and judgement.
If i was secertry for state and I decided that i wanted to raise the NSA on derestricted A roads to 70mph, thats a change from an accepted base thats been in place for years. I would have to carryout an absouloutly massive amount of investigation to ensure that i wasnt introducing a hazzard. on a blanket decision like this you would leave yourself wide open to claims should an accident directly relating to speed occured.
If i havent put you to sleep already I will bring it back to duals and mways. The country is littered with slip roads and junctions that do not meet current standards. 95% of all duals and mways are designed to a design speed of 120kph or 74 mph. currently there are slips with forward visibility with a design speed of 70kph or 43mph, so you are driving along on a road designed for 70 you indicate to pull off the slip, you are still doing 70 and the slip comes into view and its rushour and traffic is queued back onto the mway, you apply the brakes but its too late and plunge into the back of the queue.
This slip would have a safety audit and an exception report associated to it, basically they have seen the problem they have tried to mitigate, signs lines etc then somebody signed off the exception ie took responsability for the safety. Old Hammond would need to update every safety audit on the principal road network to 80mph, a massive task which would probably take longer than it did to build the network in the first place.
TL:DR Version:
No mate you set standards based on the acheivable speed not the speed limit0 -
I did read the whole post, but I still don't get it. You're suggesting that the motorway and dual carriageway speed limit is a "safe" speed, based on design factors. In reality it isn't. People shouldn't expect to be able to gun it at 70 in ice, snow, or heavy rain, and if they crash in those conditions, it's THEIR fault.mak3m wrote:No mate you set standards based on the acheivable speed not the speed limit
Why would the onus of responsibility be placed upon the guy who called for 80mph, if people were crashing their cars due to stupidity then?0 -
Seeems to make sense. I tend to stick to 80-90, because the car feels comfortable at that speed. much higher than that, and it becomes a practice in focus when driving long distances.Northwind wrote:sheepsteeth wrote:a higher speed limit would be a good idea i think but if folk do, lets say 85-90 when the speed limit is 70, will they be satisfied with the higher legal limit or will it move their own "safe" driving speed parameters even higher?
That's that 85th percentile thing isn't it? I mean, personally I cruise at 80 on the motorway most of the time, my car's happy there and it feels about right. Can't say the speed limit is a consideration in that at all. Loads of other people are at the same speed but are they thinking the same or are they saying "Oh, better not go more than 10mph over"?
Like you, I don't base it on the speed limit at all.
A lot of my biker mates (of the engined variety) routinely travel everywhere at over twice the limit, and their decision likewise has nothing to do with speed limits. They're not going to go at 150 instead of 140 just because the limit has been raised 10mph.
(ahem, I only do 80-90 on Autobhans, of course
) 0 -
Why are you talking about A and B roads? Have you read the article?mak3m wrote:
Also, you say "Driving on a motorway at 70mph in rush hour traffic" WTF!?!? Where do you live that you can achieve even near that speed at that time? I'm guessing you are 12 and dreaming of driving?It takes as much courage to have tried and failed as it does to have tried and succeeded.
Join us on UK-MTB we won't bite, but bring cake!
Blender Cube AMS Pro0 -
Erm, Worth Nails. We have the Arse, otherwise known as the UK superspeedway. It's a dual carriegway (mostly, apart from when it's not) but even during rush hour, the traffic thunders along, quite satisfyingly dangerous.thekickingmule wrote:"Driving on a motorway at 70mph in rush hour traffic" WTF!?!? Where do you live that you can achieve even near that speed at that time? I'm guessing you are 12 and dreaming of driving?
Apart from through the tunnels. For some reason every muppet decides to slow down to 60 to go through "the big tunnel" 0 -
What I want to know is how the hell you can afford to drive so fast.... nowadays, I set the cruise at 65mph and try and stay above 50mpg!0
-
Turbodiesels.0
-
yeehaamcgee Posted: Tue Mar 8, 2011 8:12 pm Post subject:
Turbodiesels.
I have a turbodiesel, still can't afford to drive fast anymore 0 -
Mine seems ok hovering around 80. Got me to Aviemore on a tank of diesel, anyway.0
-
thekickingmule wrote:
Why are you talking about A and B roads? Have you read the article?mak3m wrote:
Also, you say "Driving on a motorway at 70mph in rush hour traffic" WTF!?!? Where do you live that you can achieve even near that speed at that time? I'm guessing you are 12 and dreaming of driving?
kiss my arse i never brought a's and b's into it
I live in the west midlands mate motorways as far as the eye can see, if its not a motorway its a 3 lane dual
A46 Stychle Interchange (coventry) to m40 junction 15 3 lane dual rush hour my ave speed 70+ Warwick 2nd turn off two lane slip regularly blocks back onto A46. Position of slip on 200m left hand radius giving forward visibility on inside lane of about 140m, stopping site distance for 70mph is 295m, see DMRB Vol 6 TD9/930 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:
I did read the whole post, but I still don't get it. You're suggesting that the motorway and dual carriageway speed limit is a "safe" speed, based on design factors. In reality it isn't. People shouldn't expect to be able to gun it at 70 in ice, snow, or heavy rain, and if they crash in those conditions, it's THEIR fault.mak3m wrote:No mate you set standards based on the acheivable speed not the speed limit
Why would the onus of responsibility be placed upon the guy who called for 80mph, if people were crashing their cars due to stupidity then?
no road is ever safe, it can be safely designed but you are still basically letting any idiot with a license climb into a flimsy metal box with a half tonne engine etc and drive at 70mph next to lots of other people in similar boxes
shit happens 99/100 accidents are driver error,
but if a road is designed to be as safe as possible full range of design standards etc have to be adhered too. as i said lots and lots junctions and slips on the primary network dont meet those standards and are subject to exception reports.
if the speed limit changes all of these reports would need to be carried out again and its this mammoth task that would stop it happening. i suppose government could make some all covering act but the law as it stands holds Highway Authority's accountable.
Manslaughter Act test cases are now fully underway, a lot of highway Engineers are getting twitchy0 -
Sounds like a load of interfering bullorks. Why can't people accept their own mistakes?0
-
mak3m wrote:a lot and I mean a lot of trunk roads and motorways in the uk dont meet 70mph design standards never mind 80mph. Basically hammond would have to accept responsability for his decision, to do this he would have to carryout a safety audit and sign off the exception report for every slip or junction that doesnt meet standards.
Perhaps those standards are bullshite then, along with the current 70mph limit, that as mentioned dates back to 1965 standards.
If what you say is even slightly true, they may then not be designed to do 70mph but they sure as hell are perfectly capable of being travelled on at 70mph safely and much more, which occurs day in day out without any issues.0 -
So you travel above 70mph? Did you know the road you're driving on wasn't desgined for that?mak3m wrote:
A46 Stychle Interchange (coventry) to m40 junction 15 3 lane dual rush hour my ave speed 70+ Warwick 2nd turn off two lane slip regularly blocks back onto A46. Position of slip on 200m left hand radius giving forward visibility on inside lane of about 140m, stopping site distance for 70mph is 295m, see DMRB Vol 6 TD9/93It takes as much courage to have tried and failed as it does to have tried and succeeded.
Join us on UK-MTB we won't bite, but bring cake!
Blender Cube AMS Pro0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Sounds like a load of interfering bullorks. Why can't people accept their own mistakes?
nature of the beast, country becoming more like the USA where there is blame theres a claim0 -
thekickingmule wrote:
So you travel above 70mph? Did you know the road you're driving on wasn't desgined for that?mak3m wrote:
A46 Stychle Interchange (coventry) to m40 junction 15 3 lane dual rush hour my ave speed 70+ Warwick 2nd turn off two lane slip regularly blocks back onto A46. Position of slip on 200m left hand radius giving forward visibility on inside lane of about 140m, stopping site distance for 70mph is 295m, see DMRB Vol 6 TD9/93
Its a relativly easy concept to grasp
in my example the main carriageway way is designed to a minimum of120kph the slip is designed to 70kph.0 -
Yeah... You're still not making sense, really.0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:Yeah... You're still not making sense, really.
not sure what else i can do then tbh which bit doesnt make sense
what im badly trying to say is that Health and safety as it stands in this country would not allow a blanket change to the speed limit, the exercise required to do it would take years and a shedload of money that the public sector doesnt have, imo based on being a Civil Engineer speacialising in Highway Design
might just have to agree to disagree, but im not 12 and im not lieing to increase my e-peen as some are suggesting0
