Just to clarify, the logic I've used to base my thoughts around are based on the fact that for any motorist paying attention, there are 3 causes of accidents. Changing direction without taking other roads users into consideration Changing speed without taking other roads users into consideration Driving at a rate that is inappropriate to the conditions. Safety cameras, as you corrected me that they are called, do nothing to prevent anything other than driving too fast, and actually cause road users to drive erratically - changing their speed. The same is true of Police officers - Near where I live by the Queens Drive Flyover Police "ambush" motorists on a dual carriageway that has a 30mph limit on a blind summit. It's plain obvious that they are doing this as it only started once the cuts were announced. As for your comment about cost, I live in Liverpool on the main ring road, and I'd love to see them put the speed limit up to 40. We also have some of the highest council tax in the country, so it's about time that we got value for that money. UK PLC has not been run for the people for a very long time, and the public sectors need to be pulled into line with the commercial realities. That is where I feel that the last government allowed the changes to go on unchecked for too long, but that is a completely different conversation and off topic. The methodology that is being employed currently is a prime example of the nanny state mentality, and governing by Statistics. It's going the same way that Health and safety and political correctness had gone... The current limit is impractically low for a country with 60m people in it paying such high taxes to be on the road. The changes would actually fund themselves if you think about it because the additional amount of fuel consumed by people driving less efficiently actually raises revenue! 70mph was introduced in the 60's as a result of Lotus and other car owners/manufacturers using the M1 as a racetrack. It was a nominal value that they chose back then, and times have moved on considerably since then, you only have to read a recent copy of the highway code and compare it to one from when I passed my driving test (1990's) Maybe 100mph is too fast, but you've got to ask why have a blanket speed limit, and not one that is set based on the conditions - undoubtedly it'll be due to cost, not because of safety. The reason that there are 2+ lanes on dual carriageways etc are for overtaking. If people were driving as they were taught, then the only times that we'd need to use that outside lane would be to overtake that car entering the flow of traffic. With more active policing and enforcement this could be changed, but as it is nothing will change, just the number of users being crammed onto the ash-felt at an ever slowing rate.
What's with all the people saying your allowed to do 80mph 90mph because of the speedo being innacurate. That's nonsense. Speedos are roughly 3-4Mph out. You can confirm this if you own a sat nav... it gives you the real speed your going. P.S. If you get caught doing 80Mph on the motorway around here. You WILL be stopped and booked. None of this silly talk of margin for error. I'm all for the 80Mph increase. It wont make much difference I don't think other than allowing you to travel an extra 10 miles every hour. Can't be bad!
Rubbish. If more money was put into a better standard of teaching for drivers then it might change. And perhaps if the majority of the British weren't so arrogant and impatient on the road it might change. Where on earth did you get your facts to conclude those 'three causes of accidents'? They are wholly incorrect. What's your council tax got to do with increasing a speed limit on a ring road? Even your vehicle tax has nothing to do with that. There is a blanket speed limit because everything has to be taken into consideration. The courts can't just go, "Oh well it was dry and sunny, and he was in a brand new Volvo, so 140mph was fine". What has cost got to do with the speed limit? You think the Parliament agreed a speed limit purely so they can make some money out of speed cameras? Dual carriageways are not there solely for overtaking. They are there to allow traffic to filter better and prevent congestion.
I'd vote yes - cars are much safer nowadays and if it's a clear road in good conditions, I don't see why it can't be even higher. Sitting in my dad's Accord, I often don't even realise when he tops 100mph on deserted stretches until I look at the speedo, it's that smooth and quiet. If you want to save fuel, are not comfortable driving at high speeds, or your car can't handle it smoothly (which is me on all three counts), there's always the outside lane and the option of slowing down. Finally, drive according to the conditions, and back off the throttle if there's anything ahead you're unsure or uneasy about (sudden rain, traffic bunching up or van drifting across lanes). Remember, it's a limit, not a target speed.
Unfortunatly there are people that see the limit as a target - even when the weather is grim and visibility is poor. These people also won't learn until they are taught the hard way aswell.
That's a very interesting response. What other reasons can you find for accidents OTHER than the three that I've given? How else do accidents happen if they aren't two or more vehicles traveling at different speeds, or in different directions, or driving inappropriately? I look forward to seeing your examples rather than the blanket "poo-poo" As for Dual Carriageways, I refer you to the highway code. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070308 Item 137 reads: "On a two-lane dual carriageway you should stay in the left-hand lane. Use the right-hand lane for overtaking or turning right. After overtaking, move back to the left-hand lane when it is safe to do so." If more people did this as opposed to treating as you described then the roads would move as designed, but unfortunately your view seems to be a commonly held misconception among most road users. Policing would simply reinforce this. The comments about funding are in response to the comment made by Atomic about how do we pay for additional police as opposed to using Safety cameras. I can't agree more with you, Booxy and R3loaded - there are too many people who see speed limits as a Target, and we need to educate drivers - safety cameras (I cringe every time I read that) definitely don't educate - they'd have the speed limit on the back of them at the least
I'm a cop and I've attended hundreds of road traffic crashes, there are plentiful reasons why they happen: Driver inexperience Use of mobile phone Drink driving Failing to heed to road signs Driver age (namely, too old to drive) Road conditions regardless of 'rate of speed' Failure to maintain your vehicle unexpected vehicle defect I could create quite a list if you wish. As for the highway code bit, that's selective reading at it's best. You implied the reason they created a second lane is for overtaking, I was merely arguing that isn't the only reason. If more people drove at the correct speed and took others into consideration, surely there is no necessity for a second lane (obviously taking into consideration motorways, whereby lorries etc have different speed restrictions)? My view is not a 'commonly held misconception' whatsoever. If they are 'only' for overtaking, why do some motorways have 4/5/6 lanes? Multiple lanes help the flow of heavy traffic, simple. This post still bugs me, what exactly do you mean?
Hi Fishlock I don't want this to get argumentative, but I do feel you've missed my point. The list you've made is a list of reasons why people change direction, change speed, or don't drive appropriately. You can never legislate to allow people to drive while using a mobile phone, or drink - they are against the law in themselves and should not be happening on the road whether the limit is 1 mph or 1000mph! As for lanes on the motorway, cars being overtaken can them self be overtaken. Having more lanes helps move more cars along, but accidents on these roads are not caused by people speeding - they are caused by people changing lane (comes under my definition of changing DIRECTION) or people breaking (... or changing speed). There's no mention in the highway code (that I can find) of using lanes for any purpose other than that which I've stated. As part of the driving instruction I received when I did my driving tests (CBT and previously CAR) it was always emphsised that overtaking was the ONLY reason to use that lane. The case that's always been argued for NOT increasing the speed limit is that it reduces the fatalities when accidents happen or that the driver can react to a potential incident better at 70 than if they were at a higher speed. As for: Originally Posted by Tattysnuc View Post It's plain obvious that they are doing this as it only started once the cuts were announced. I'm sorry, but I've explained this once before. The police use secreted mobile cameras at the bottom of the queens drive flyover, placing the camera in a concealed location so that any driver going over the brow of the flyover at a speed GREATER than the speed limit has no time to react, causing vehicles to slam on on what is a straight bit of road, where cars 50 meters behind have no visibility of their actions. There is normally no other reason to break on this fast flowing stretch of road, and no roads where slow moving vehicles should be pulling out, so this act in itself causes a hazard. It's dangerous, and unnecessary, and can ONLY be there to catch motorists as opposed to educate them. Its' damned well irresponsible, ergo I feel justified in feeling it is a fund raising method, and nothing more. There have been other examples I can give, (30 mph stretches of the M4 outside Cardiff during the Rally GB, with mobile safety camera monitoring the EMPTY stretch of motorway) but none are a better example of irresponsible policing than this. There's NO-ONE that benefits from this. Why do I feel qualified to comment on this, I drive and ride a motorbike, as well as living on the road that I refer to. I'm no cop, but I do have nearly 18 years driving experience which until recently averaged 30-40k miles per year in my own and works vehicles. To clarify, I'd love for a higher police presence simply because it's a deterrent for other offenses as well as speeding. On motorways I still believe that the speed limit could be increased and with a positive effect on traffic flow, if policed. Maybe they should introduce some sort of toll road to trial this on and fund the policing of it?
All very well but the government aren't proposing to give police extra budget to patrol the motorways but are in fact doing the oposite and cutting police budgets. I can see the merits in a small increase in the motorway speed limit (but not an increase on not A-Roads) to maybe 90mph, but I think that the idea of 150mph is just ludicrous and unsafe. I also think the punishment for breaking an increased limit should also be higher to show that whilst you are allowed to do a higher speed it is not an excuse to break the new law and do even higher illegal speeds. The M6 Toll would be the perfect road to trial an increase in speed limits as it is most likely least crowded motorway in the UK and has no scheduled roadworks.
Maybe it should be; the more experienced the driver the faster he allowed to drive? So people like longweight etc can only go like 40mph but others like parge, noizdemon,atomic and me ofcourse can go 300+
Reported. Stop baiting. Stop trolling. All this bickering is dragging the forum into a cesspool of shite. As for the thread, I'm with the speed limit being raised to 80mph. Although that'll need to be enforced so people don't do 90mph and think, "Oh, it's only 10mph more, what harm can it do?". A few more speed cameras, such as the ones that take your average speed over a set distance, so as not to get people stamping on the breaks when they see one.
That is a very clever insult, I feel hurt! On topic, most people drive at 80mph on the motorway, if you raise the legal limit to 80 then it would have to be heavily policed to stop people driving at 90+ regularly.
But for every speed limit there needs to be a 10% (and a bit) leeway. Therefore making it effectively legal to drive at 90mph.
You would still get pulled by the police for doing 90 constant, if people accelerate up from 80 to 90 to pass and then drop back down then you wont. Alot of times the speed limit on the motorway will be broken but thats beacuse there is not enough police and cameras to enforce, most drivers will drive to the speed limit.
Average speed camera are becoming the norm on alot of A class roads . The opportunity to speed is lessening . Alot of valid points have been covered. The crux is driving at speed for long periods is difficult , and anticipating the action of others is paramount . The faster you go the less time you have to react Being a class1 driver & seeing the after effects of fatals... Makes me drive conservatively .
Being pulled and being convicted are totally different. Besides, not many coppers I know will pull for maintaining 10% above the limit, what's the point in pulling them if you can't prosecute?
Do us all a favour and leave then. For some of us still like and enjoy it here. Sent from my HTC HD2 using Tapatalk
Also reported. I'm for an increase, but driving at 80mph is not efficient. Wind resistance is an exponential increase in force so the faster you go, no matter how constantly you maintain the speed, the more fuel you'll burn. Try driving at 60mph for a while and you'll see what I mean, huge fuel savings at the expense of time. But I tend to drive at around 75mph anyway so an 80mph limit'd be nice!
