UK speed limit to increase

DonDaddyD

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... 80mph.html

This was all over LBC on Sunday.

Thoughts? Rick what do the Dutch do?

bompington

Having visited NL a few times, my observation is that they have a typically dutch solution - they drive as fast as they damn well please, only courteously and safely, always giving way to cyclists

CiB

Didn't we do this a few weeks ago?

A good idea that will have next to no effect in the real world, where those that want to drive at 80 will continue to do so, as will the middle lane plodders & halfwits who think 60 is fine and those who do upwards of 90.

The comments in the article made me laugh. The sky is falling, just because something that is the absolute norm is being legitimised.

notsoblue

I don't really care too much either way about this given that most people were breaking this law before. But what was the rational for making this change in the law? The article mentions that the change "would bring economic benefits when introduced in 2013". But I can't see how this is the case?

Looking forward to other victimless crimes being legitimised. Like weed, and RLJ

mudcow007

Most peoples drive at 80 mph + on the motorway anyways?

weren't they also talking about reducing the NSL on country roads too, down to 50 or summit?

SimonAH

I set the cruise control to 74mph on motorways and find it perfect. No fear of speeding tickets even through average cameras, yet fast enough to keep me bopping along.

Usually beat my Sat Nav's estimated journey time by around 10% too.

While the limit is 70 then (apart from VERY rare overtaking spurts) I don't go north of 77. If the limit changes to 80 and the tolerances remain the same then I'll be cruising at 85. If, on the other hand the tolerances are tightened then I'll keep to the limits.

One important note by the way - most car speedos are reading 5% too fast due to the legislation applied to the manufacturers. You can easily check yours using SatNav on a straight road - the SatNav number will be very accurate, and I bet lower than your speedo.

mudcow007

SimonAH wrote:

One important note by the way - most car speedos are reading 5% too fast due to the legislation applied to the manufacturers. You can easily check yours using SatNav on a straight road - the SatNav number will be very accurate, and I bet lower than your speedo.

aye, the faster you go the more they are off too

EKE_38BPM

I think I've said this before but on motorways, I'd up the speed limits to 100mph but if you are caught doing 100.1+ mph, tailgating, driving in the wrong lane (undertaking, hogging the middle or driving in the overtaking lane when not overtaking etc), driving too fast for the conditions (fog, wet roads etc), ignoring temporary speed limits etc, and you lose your licence for a year (for all of the offences outlined). I don't care if you need to drive for your job, you should have thought of that before breaking the law (if you can't do the time, don't do the crime).
The performance and capability of cars have improved so much since the 70mph motorway limit was introduced that a Fiesta will stop in a shorter distance than an E-type Jag at the same speed and cruise more comfortably at higher speeds (I'm now guessing/making stuff up).

60 mph on NSL roads can be too fast on little windy lanes, so maybe drop that to 50.

Speed cameras: limit their use to accident blackspots.

Parking enforcement (going a little OT here): take it from local councils and give it back to the police. That way it (hopefully) goes back to keeping traffic moving and not about making money for the council.
In St. Albans a few years back, there was a short period of time where the council were between contracts for parking enforcement and people realised they could park where ever they wanted with no tickets being issued. The police ignored these infringments unless cars were parked in a place which caused an obstruction, but if an obstruction was caused, the car was towed as soon as they were notified. I liked that a lot. Park where you want but if you cause an obstruction, the police tow your car and charge you a few hundred quid to get it back.
This would be a problem around, for example, train stations where people park their cars and limit parking spaces for local residents so some workaround would have to be worked out.

I think it is ridiculous that in the UK you are not taught how to drive on a motorway, so learners should have lessons on motorway driving.
Old people should be retested at 60 and then every 5 years and every 2 years from the age of 70. The current system of voluntary re-applying for their licence is just stupid.

All penalties should be increased to draconian levels and the numbers of traffic police should increase drastically. In America there are so many more police around that the drivers generally stick more rigidly to speed limits as you are more likely to see po-po on the roads than you are over here. Hopefully this would also cut down on people using their phone whilst driving.

Driving should be seen as a privilege and not a right. Make it easier to remove someone's licence.

rick_chasey

Depends if they enforce it right?

Most stretches of proper motorway I've been on, people do more or less 80 when they can anyway.

If they don't not much will change.

greg66_tri_v2.0

SimonAH wrote:

I set the cruise control to 74mph on motorways and find it perfect.

Does not compute (at least for me). If I use cc (which I usually only do in ave speed camera sections), I find sooner or later I will be creeping towards a car in front. But the differential is so slow that if I pull out to pass, I will be sitting alongside for a good mile, elephant racing.

I'm sure cc is great when traffic volumes are low, but that ain't so in the S of England.

notsoblue wrote:

The article mentions that the change "would bring economic benefits when introduced in 2013". But I can't see how this is the case?

Petrol consumption goes up at higher rpms, so more fuel gets used, so the Treasury rakes in more tax. Simples!

UndercoverElephant

I notice that the DM said that the French speed limit was 80 mph, this is sort of true - except that if it's raining, the limit drops to 60.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Most stretches of proper motorway I've been on, people do more or less 80 when they can anyway.

Some mways are faster than others. The M40 sticks in my mind as one that, at least a few years ago, if you weren't clocking along at 90-100, you were being left behind. Something about it just works - perhaps it is a bit wider, or the sightlines are better, I don't know.

The M1 by contrast is pretty awful - lots of areas with poor sightlines or long stretches that give the illusion of a queue, leading to brake lights and ripples of slowing cars.

dodgy

The article appears on the Daily Mail website, therefore it's immediately invalidated.

greg66_tri_v2.0

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I notice that the DM said that the French speed limit was 80 mph, this is sort of true - except that if it's raining, the limit drops to 60.

A v good idea, IMO.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Most stretches of proper motorway I've been on, people do more or less 80 when they can anyway.

Some mways are faster than others. The M40 sticks in my mind as one that, at least a few years ago, if you weren't clocking along at 90-100, you were being left behind. Something about it just works - perhaps it is a bit wider, or the sightlines are better, I don't know.

The M1 by contrast is pretty awful - lots of areas with poor sightlines or long stretches that give the illusion of a queue, leading to brake lights and ripples of slowing cars.

Exactly.

So what will change?

Most dangerous roads (like long streches of the A14) are average speed camera'd at 50 anyway.

Having said that, bits of the A1 at 80mph would be lethal.

EKE_38BPM

Greg66 wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

I set the cruise control to 74mph on motorways and find it perfect.

Does not compute (at least for me). If I use cc (which I usually only do in ave speed camera sections), I find sooner or later I will be creeping towards a car in front. But the differential is so slow that if I pull out to pass, I will be sitting alongside for a good mile, elephant racing.

I'm sure cc is great when traffic volumes are low, but that ain't so in the S of England.

I'm looking forward to using radar controlled CC. In the situation you describe, you will creep up to the safe stopping distance behind the car in front and then stay at this distance. On an average speed camera section, stay behind the slower car for a few short while, then apply a quick blast on the loud pedal to overtake and then back to your CC speed. Overall your average speed should be within the limit even if you do exceed the limit for a few seconds (and risk losing you licence for a year under the draconian new laws as explained in my first post).

dodgy

UndercoverElephant wrote:

I notice that the DM said that the French speed limit was 80 mph, this is sort of true - except that if it's raining, the limit drops to 60.

Nope, in rain it drops to 68mph (110kph).

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Most stretches of proper motorway I've been on, people do more or less 80 when they can anyway.

Some mways are faster than others. The M40 sticks in my mind as one that, at least a few years ago, if you weren't clocking along at 90-100, you were being left behind. Something about it just works - perhaps it is a bit wider, or the sightlines are better, I don't know.

The M1 by contrast is pretty awful - lots of areas with poor sightlines or long stretches that give the illusion of a queue, leading to brake lights and ripples of slowing cars.

Exactly.

So what will change?

Most dangerous roads (like long streches of the A14) are average speed camera'd at 50 anyway.

Having said that, bits of the A1 at 80mph would be lethal.

Indeed. If a large proportion of people ignore the current limit and drive at ~80mph (and I think I'm fairly safe in saying that those that do don't correctly increase their braking distance allowance ~141m instead of 96m), then why won't 90-100mph become the 'socially acceptable' speed for driving on 80mph roads?

Whilst cars will be travelling at 80mph+, HGVs, coaches and towing vehicles will still be down at 50 or 60mph, Is this greater differential not going to make things less safe?

Lastly, if speeds increase then due to increased stopping distances, a given stretch of motorway will be able to carry fewer vehicles. How does that square with the 'increased productivity/growth' argument?

bompington

No, you're wrong, 110kmh is actually 68.37675mph

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

Thoughts? Rick what do the Dutch do?

Sit in 10km tailbacks every day?

Mr Sworld

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Most stretches of proper motorway I've been on, people do more or less 80 when they can anyway.

Some mways are faster than others. The M40 sticks in my mind as one that, at least a few years ago, if you weren't clocking along at 90-100, you were being left behind.

That's because the M40 is the most boring streach of road in this country. Everyone just wants to get the frack off it!

(It's also full of idiots... I was coming back from Birmingham and it startrd snowing. It was amazing the amount of people who didn't turn the their lights on. :? )

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

braking distance allowance ~141m instead of 96m

I've always thought that stopping distances are a bit of a red herring on a motorway. They are relevant if someone or something steps in front of you, or if something crosses the central reservation and blocks your path. But unless something stationary suddenly appears in your path, why do braking distances matter?

If you are in a queue at (say) 80mph, the car in front of you is not going to go from 80 to a standstill instantly. So you don't need 141m to brake to a standstill yourself.

CiB

Regardless of what people imagine will be the outcome of this change, the reality is that it's no change. Motorway traffic moves at about 80 - I see it every time I use a m/way; 80 - 85 is the norm. All this jumping up & down waving arms in the air claiming it's the end of civilization / fuel consumption will soar / Co2 emissions will go through the roof / children will die etc is meaningless, 80 is what happens now. It's a no-change change in the law. Perfect.

I do 90, 100+ sometimes but don't want to do that for any kind of distance as it does gobble fuel and doesn't feel safe. 80-85 is fine, and is what happens now all the time. What's the argument?

I don't like the idea that as a political balancing act rural speed limits might drop to 50. My experience of rural roads is that 60 is fine where it's fine; it's not that common to do 60 but where people do it's because that's a perfectly valid speed to do. If the safe speed is 40, that's what people do. Introducing a blanket lower speed limit for such a massively varying type of road that's all bundled under the convenient label of rural roads is a retrograde step if you ask me. Claiming that normalising the m/way speed limit to 80 as a means of improving the economy and then having a blanket lower limit where it's not warranted doesn't make sense.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

braking distance allowance ~141m instead of 96m

I've always thought that stopping distances are a bit of a red herring on a motorway. They are relevant if someone or something steps in front of you, or if something crosses the central reservation and blocks your path. But unless something stationary suddenly appears in your path, why do braking distances matter?

If you are in a queue at (say) 80mph, the car in front of you is not going to go from 80 to a standstill instantly. So you don't need 141m to brake to a standstill yourself.

Until someone misjudges a manoeuvre, clips the central reservation and swerves across three lanes. Or even just some halfwit like the people heading out of London who blast up the outside lane then cut across all three (or is it 4 at that point) at the last minute to take the Heathrow exit because "they are going to MISS their PLANE!". Or you suddenly hit a fog bank, Or...

There's lots of reasons why you need all the braking distance, not just the thinking distance (25m at 80mph if you are paying attention).

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

Until someone misjudges a manoeuvre, clips the central reservation and swerves across three lanes. Or even just some halfwit like the people heading out of London who blast up the outside lane then cut across all three (or is it 4 at that point) at the last minute to take the Heathrow exit because "they are going to MISS their PLANE!". Or you suddenly hit a fog bank, Or...

There's lots of reasons why you need all the braking distance, not just the thinking distance (25m at 80mph if you are paying attention).

But in all of those examples the car in front maintains a goodly amount of forwards speed.

rjsterry wrote:

Or even just some halfwit like the people heading out of London who blast up the outside lane then cut across all three (or is it 4 at that point) at the last minute to take the Heathrow exit because "they are going to MISS their PLANE!".

Oh. Ahem. That's frowned upon, then, is it?

Even if "they" pull it off without crossing any hatched road markings? I thought it was all good if "they" did that. In fact, I thought you were supposed to give a manoeuvre of such pizazz a silent "chapeau".

Hmm. Well, I shall remember to admonish the next person I see doing that, and no mistake...

<wanders off, whistling...>

davmaggs

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

braking distance allowance ~141m instead of 96m

I've always thought that stopping distances are a bit of a red herring on a motorway. They are relevant if someone or something steps in front of you, or if something crosses the central reservation and blocks your path. But unless something stationary suddenly appears in your path, why do braking distances matter?

If you are in a queue at (say) 80mph, the car in front of you is not going to go from 80 to a standstill instantly. So you don't need 141m to brake to a standstill yourself.

I hope (for your passengers) that this isn't a serious post.

Quick examples include idiots changing lanes without a mirror check, a tyre blowing and slowing a car from 80mph to almost nothing in a few seconds (seen this personally), a car clipping the central reservation curb and flipping over on its roof (personally seen this) and driving around the bend of a motorway only to find a tailback sitting there and you need to stop. Whilst you might not go to 0mph, you are going to need a lot of metres to get to almost nothing.

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Until someone misjudges a manoeuvre, clips the central reservation and swerves across three lanes. Or even just some halfwit like the people heading out of London who blast up the outside lane then cut across all three (or is it 4 at that point) at the last minute to take the Heathrow exit because "they are going to MISS their PLANE!". Or you suddenly hit a fog bank, Or...

There's lots of reasons why you need all the braking distance, not just the thinking distance (25m at 80mph if you are paying attention).

But in all of those examples the car in front maintains a goodly amount of forwards speed.

rjsterry wrote:

Or even just some halfwit like the people heading out of London who blast up the outside lane then cut across all three (or is it 4 at that point) at the last minute to take the Heathrow exit because "they are going to MISS their PLANE!".

Oh. Ahem. That's frowned upon, then, is it?

Even if "they" pull it off without crossing any hatched road markings? I thought it wall all good if they did that. In fact, I thought you were supposed to give a manoeuvre of such pizazz a silent "chapeau".

Hmm. Well, I shall remember to admonish the next person I see doing that, and no mistake...

<wanders off, whistling...>

I've probably got a different take on it: growing up near Bristol, pile ups on the bits of the M4 and M5 that are prone to fog (well, most of it down that way) were fairly common on the local news. The bad one last year was a bit of an unwelcome flashback. It's perfectly possible to drive safely at 90-100mph, I'm just unconvinced that enough people would or even could.

corshamjim

If the speed limit increases above 70 I'll simply avoid those roads. Doubtless cars have improved but their drivers haven't, and neither it seems has anyone's understanding of Newtonian physics ( present company excluded of course ).

spen666

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I think I've said this before but on motorways, I'd up the speed limits to 100mph but if you are caught doing 100.1+ mph, tailgating, driving in the wrong lane (undertaking, hogging the middle or driving in the overtaking lane when not overtaking etc), driving too fast for the conditions (fog, wet roads etc), ignoring temporary speed limits etc, and you lose your licence for a year (for all of the offences outlined). I.......

Point of order:

Undertaking is not an offence in England & Wales and is perfectly legal

Monkeypump

corshamjim wrote:

If the speed limit increases above 70 I'll simply avoid those roads. Doubtless cars have improved but their drivers haven't, and neither it seems has anyone's understanding of Newtonian physics ( present company excluded of course ).

You're going to avoid all motorways? Totally impractical for me, but if you can do it, fair play.

okgo

Good.

Another step towards me rationalizing buying an M3.