Discussion in 'Serious' started by Xye, 29 Sep 2011.
Frankly I think even 80 is low. 100mph is about the mark I would say it should be raised to.
Ooh, thread resurrection, and I see someone replied to me
That more or less supports my point. Rather than refer to any absolute speed as worrying etc. you say you dislike speeders because they are speeders, regardless of the speedlimit i.e. whatever speed you are told is safe by the government is acceptable to you. So if the government did decide to increase the limit to 80mph and told you it was a safe limit, you'd be happy for anyone to drive at 80mph, but while the limit is 70mph anyone who drives at 80mph is dangerous?
If they make cars more capable of high speed, and maybe changed the driving test to cover high speed driving and made it more thorough, it would be fine.
It's the slow drivers which cause the accidents, not the fast ones. When you're cruising down the motorway, and some incompetent tool is dawdling around at 50mph. On a stretch of high speed round, thats dangerous.
Minimum speed of 70, maximum of 150. That would just work.
What world do you live in? Slow drivers DO contribute to accidents, I agree. However, I'd rather there were more drivers doing 50 than there are that come onto a motorway from the slip road to outside lane doing 80 or 90..!! They swerve straight out, believing they can drive fast, without thinking of those that are unsure and brake hard, causing tailbacks and accidents. A minimum speed is a stupid idea, and not enforceable. And 150? I'm guessing that was tongue in cheek, as no serious driver would want that. 17 yrs old, just passed their test and allowed to do that speed? Yeah, right..
Cars have been capable of high speed for a long time. You're from Ashford so I'll give you a fairly local example. I remember doing Maidstone to Dover in 30 minutes, before that section of the M20 existed. Admittedly this was around 6am but it was in a bog-standard 4-door VW, nothing special at all, we just had a ferry to catch and someone had over-estimated the amount of time we had available.
Damn, that trip really sticks in my mind. It's a good job I was a passenger - I wouldn't have the balls to do it myself, but still...
Anyway, it's not high speed that the issue here, it's stopping distances. Thinking distances haven't changed but tyre sizes and treads have changed, plus with the introduction of ABS, it's possible to stop in much shorter distances than the Highway Code teaches.
The Germans have it right. If I had a car which could go fast, I want to be able to use it. How many 17 year olds do you know driving around in cars capable of 150? Just because the maximum is there doesn't mean you have to use it. Drive how you feel comfortable and necessary.
If you want more drivers doing 50 then for the love of god I hope you're not the Minister of Transport.
Have you ever driven a car at 150mph?
Pretty Close.... (~100 mph on a dirt oval so I'd say it's a bit worse than 150 on asphalt)
It was a great bit of fun too! (It was in a race car on a closed track so don't worry)
The main problem I have with speed limits is it generally doesn't reflect what the road conditions are.
Our driving programs should teach people how to read the road conditions and understand what speeds are appropriate, not just teach people how to follow signs. Otherwise you get people driving the speed limit in all conditions with no understanding of why they shouldn't be driving that speed. Thus ending up in a 20 car pileup when a few snowflakes hit the ground.
Either that or accept that people are generally stupid and have variable speed limits set by people on the ground with requisite enforcement methods.
On the continent (in France at least) they sometimes have two speed limits: one for dry conditions and a lower one for when it's raining. I know that there's always going to some abiguity about how wet it needs to be for the lower limit to apply, but it might make people think more about their speed relative to the conditions.
There sort of is a minimum speed limit on motorways... There is case law that exists that states that a vehicle unnecessarily travelling under 50mph on a motoray can impede the flow of traffic and therefore be considered as 'inconsiderate driving'. However if stopped, you can easilly get around being done for it.
150mph is far too much. You'd have to spend a grand on tyres that are safe enough to routinely travel at that speed, let alone the fuel costs. People won't travel that fast as they want to conserve fuel, so allowing people to travel between 50mph and 150mph on the same stretch of road is dangerous. UK motorways would have to be completely redesigned to allow such a speed limit, something which isn't going to happen in the current crysis.
Yea 160mph going to heathrow airport one night more a case of aiming it than steering lol, Regularly used to do 140mph up and down the M4 though.
I still dont think the speed limit should be more than what it is already though.
I have done 150 mph+ once. I didn't realise I was going that fast until i looked at the speedo and then radar detector to confirm. When I looked back through the windscreen and saw how far I had traveled in that half a second I very quickly realised I was driving beyond my capabilities and slowed down. I doubt anyone who has driven at that speed would seriously consider it safe for public roads.
I very much doubt anyone who says 150mph is a safe speed have driven at that speed on a public road with any traffic on. An empty motorway isn't a fair comparison to normal motorway traffic. Those speeds are simply unsafe on UK Roads.
People simply do not pay enough attention to other cars on the roads. I've seen many people pull out in front of police cars with full sirens & blue lights (braking from 140 to 60/70mph is not something for the faint-hearted!), if that were a normal driver at the wheel it would have ended in a fatality.
UK Motorists generally ignore road conditions and weather and will insist on doing the max speed limit even when the road conditions are far from optimal.
To safely drive at those speeds you need to be highly trained (and driving a vehicle that is in top condition with suitable brakes and tyres). The reaction times at high speed are very small be be able to stop safely.
I for one would not trust the majority of road users at high speeds, yes there are going to be some that would take road and traffic conditions into mind when doing high speed, but the standard of the vast majority of drivers are not up to that standard and would cause serious injury and/or death to theselves or other motorists.
Speed limits need to be better enforced, and more suitable to the road conditions.
I don't agree that 150mph is a a sensible speed, but likewise 70mph is also the MAXIMIUM permissible speed.
Better to move the speed limit on MOTORWAYS and DUAL CARRIAGEWAYS where you have the ability to overtake, up to something more appropriate as a MAX LIMIT, something like 100.
I also believe that there should be more MARKED police cars on the roads rather than speed cameras. Speed cameras, apart from being the scourge of mankind, cannot catch drunk or dangerous drivers, nor can they move cars over to the left on motorways to free up lanes 2 and 3 (and 4 etc on some of the roads).
If they did these two things together then I believe that we could move along a lot quicker.... and safer.
I voted for. I live near the M1 in Beds (J13). There is not much oppotunity to do 80 mph safely here, with the volume of traffic. Also it's been 50 mph max between here and the M25 for years with the widening works between J6 and J10 and now J10 to J13. People should drive to suit the conditions, and not hog the overtaking lanes when they're not overtaking!
I've twice been caught speeding (in the space of 15 minutes - doh!) on the North part of M6 and south part of M74. Here the traffic is light, and on my fateful day in dry clear conditions 80 mph was certainly safe. However, it was a fair cop. the law's the law!
I very much disagree with increasing the speed limit on dual carriageways, as these types of roads have adjoining roads without slip-roads and often have pedestrian crossings. Pulling onto a road, often with limitedly visibility down the oncoming carriageway, with the possibility of traffic coming up to you at 100mph would be a death sentence.
Motorways are designed for cars to be able to join and leave (with safe controlled acceleration/deceleration) on slip-roads, contain no slow moving vehicles (eg heavy plant machinery and agricultural vehicles) without an organised escort, and have no pedestrian access.
It would have to be a blanket increase as having differing limits on the same type of road would lead to uncertainty as to which limit the road was without repeater signs (the cost of putting such signs in which would be massive)
I'm sure everyone would like safety cameras replaced with more marked patrols, would you be willing to pay more tax to have them? The government thinks otherwise and has cut the police forces funding.
The only people who complain about speed cameras are the people who routinely break the speed limit. I don't like it when speeding motorists slam on their brakes when passing a fixed position cameras and then continue to break the law when they are out of its range. If they stuck to the speed limits there would be no problem with the cameras.
I would prefer more un-marked police patrols, as a law abiding motorist I've got nothing to worry about, but the speeding motorists would be more likely to be caught and as such would make the roads safer for the rest of us.
I don't recall saying everyone should drive at 150... I said there should be a MAXIMUM of 150. A figure high enough to not affect many motorists with normal cars, but equally a figure to satisfy speed freaks in their Ferrari's. Everyone wins, and the UK is instantly a better place
That's tricky, if someone over-estimates (which some of us invariably do) and in those cases, that could endanger many many lives. That's the problem with speed limits in my eyes. While going very fast is nice and fun, the problem arises when there's a large disparity between the cars, and if there is human error within the factor, accidents may increase. Well fatal accidents anyways.
I'm not saying that having a low speed limit is an end all cure (as is having a high one) but unless we can build roads just for the speed demons or find a way to fairly regulate it without putting slower drivers at risk. Speed limits themselves won't mean much.
There is no reason that some people should be legally allowed to drive at high speed on a public road just because they have a car that is capable of doing it.
Super cars are not designed to be driven over uneven surfaces at high speeds, they are stable at high speeds on smooth grippy surfaces. British roads are not the best maintained roads in the world and very often have large difference in surface type are not designed to be safe at high speeds. Hitting a pot-hole at anywhere near 150mph is going to throw the car into the next lane or the central reservation.
An accident that closes a motorway or major trunk road causes massive disruption to countless people's lives costs money to be cleaned up both by emercency services and the highways agencies. Not to mention the cost to businesses and the economic damage caused to the country by closing a major part of its infrastructure. It would soon end up costing more money than the government would make from the extra fuel people would be using going at higher speeds.
If you've bought a car that can drive that can do those speeds you should be driving it somewhere that is designed for that type of speed. Like a well maintained racing circuit with crash barriers and no other cars coming in the opposite direction.
Separate names with a comma.