85 is my target speed, if the traffic is clear and the weather is good. I'm not proud, but I'm honest. Occasionally I've seen three figures, but not for long periods.
I always keep my distance and nothing slows me down like someone tailgating me. I also stick to reduced speed limits for roadworks and the like.
|
The general speed of traffic on the m'ways seems to be increasing where volume permits. Vans and small lorries travel at 70-80 and you need to do 85+ to overtake them and maintain a bit of space around you own vehicle.
I try to keep to a steady 70 if I can for comfort and economy reasons. At 70 I can get 50+ mpg but at 80-85 it drops to about 45 mpg. Anyway, shaving a few miutes off (say) a 200 mile trip seems pointless unless you're desperate.
I do have the odd spell at 80+ to relieve the monotony!
Pat
|
|
|
|
Whatever the pace happens to be at the time. Sometimes 70, sometimes 80. If I find I am constantly passing cars then I am going faster than the pace and back off a bit. A mass of cars all doing 80 is much safer than one or two in the group going 10-15 under or over the rest.
|
|
|
when conditions permit, traffic is light and weather is good, 70 - 90 is good
when traffic is heavy, or weather is bad or other conditions are bad, then there is no benefit in trying to go faster than the car in front of you, and the best thing to do is slow down and give yourself some space
I have to grow old - but I don't have to grow up
|
|
|
|
80 mph - I'd go faster but smoking and using a mobile phone while steering with my knees make the car difficult to handle!
(Only kidding - except for the speed - usually 80mph - less if weatther is poor)
I was once undertaken by a car in the middle lane driven by someone driving while reading a book - and it wasn't even a map...!
|
|
If you were undertaken, surely you should have been in one of the inner lanes? ;-)
|
|
|
|
Depends how much of a hurry I'm in and the prevailing traffic conditions. If it's nice and quiet and I'm in no rush then I might only do about 65 to save a bit of petrol. Usually I'll aim towards 70-75, very rarely get up beyond 80 and even then usually not for too long. I also seem to be one of the few people that slow down for roadworks etc - not always to the limit as you feel a bit daft doing 50 when everyone else is doing 70+.
As others have commented, the time savings involved in going much faster are small on most journeys.
|
|
All depends what car i am driving, the conditions, and the road.
|
|
I try to keep to under an indicated 85mph (78 by GPS)
|
Errr.....70 of course...
Why do you ask Ossifer?
I must be due another 10 minute spell parked on the hard shoulder, a relaxing chat with an officer in the back of his car, enjoying his sense of humour and attempts at sarcasm and perhaps the chance to watch my driving skills on video any day now...
Quite a way off my high score at present...only 3 atm! (touches wood).
My next car will have cruise control so I can enjoy the roadworks etc.
|
|
|
|
Normal conditions 85, really quiet and good conditions 85-90.
Much slower if it's wet, crowded or visibility is poor.
|
|
|
|
In good conditions between 75-80 mph , but they are now using Scamera vans on bridges over safe streches to raise revenue so I'm wondering whether to slow down and risk being hit from behind because I'm not travelling at the average traffic speed.
|
|
|
Honestly....well it really depends on weather, time of day and volume traffic etc.
Just as an example though, I drove from Inverness to Watford (560 miles) last Sunday. Started in the very early hours and got home in time for a late lunch, weather sunny, dry and very very hot!!
M74 - very, very quiet, 90mph+
M6 - again fairly quiet but lots of Police, 80mph on CC most of the way*.
M1 - average, 60-70mph
*At road works, I normally set the CC to the indicated limit and set back and accept it.
According to the trip computer the average speed was 68mph for the whole journey but that includes a 100 mile stretch of the A9, so the motorway average would probably be 70-75mph.
....and just in case your wondering.... '95 Omega 3.0 Elite saloon, with 4 up and luggage, aircon on ALL the time, trip computer says 32.1 mpg for whole journey, my "brim-to-brim" calculations make it 30.2mpg - not bad ehh?
Chad.
|
|
I used to drive at 80-85 whenever I went back to see my folks in Wales (2 hours from Portsmouth, and quarter of a tank - god I love diesels), but seeing as they are now putting SPECS all the way from Reading to Bridgend on the M4, I may well be sticking to 70. :(
|
|
|
|
70 most of the time. Occasionally up to 75 - 80 in short burst to get past traffic and settle back down to 70.
On M25 usually 60 in the inside lane, much easier than fighting the other traffic. Lane 1 is so empty.
I always obey the limits in roadworks, but i don't go the single lane that they provide and stick to the limit - that would be selfish.
|
As most say, depends on conditions, but on a free flowing motorway in good conditions, bout an indicated 85.
Car seems very happy at this speed (2,200rpm @ 85) is quiet and stable, and fuel consumption does not take a dive.
Given that speedo could be a bit fast, and the tickets start at 79mph I figure I would be unlucky to get nicked at that speed, and have on occasions cruised past marked police cars at that speed (giving the guys a glance so they know I have seen them)
|
|
My average speed on the motorways has increased since I changed my car for one without cruise control. The natural tendency is to keep up with the speed of the traffic around you, which is usually going at about 80-85mph. With cruise, I could set it to say 75, and there would be no "speed creep". The other bonus is that I would not have to keep checking my speedo (and taking my eyes off the road to do so)to make sure that my speed hadn't crept up. Since changing, I have found myself pushing 100 a couple of times without meaning to. I do miss the cruise...
|
joe, might i ask what car you drive? in most cars us ordinary folk drive you can "feel" the difference between 70 and 100 miles an hour, even i could feel it when i was driving my friends SAAB 900 turbo (97). You dont really need to look at your speedo so realise how fast you are going on a motorway. So unless you drive a 500bhp V8 monster, i can't see how, without meaning to, you passed the watershed and went over 100. care to shed some light?
PS. i am not a cop!
|
Good question!
I suppose speed is a matter of perception. On my previous car (an elderly Galant) you would be in no doubt that you were doing 100. Windnoise, vibration, steering wheel shake etc. I now have a Seat toledo GT. Not much I know, but it is basically a Golf GTI. The most impressive thing about it is its stability at speed. Apart from the trees rushing by, and the speedo of course, there is no other feedback to tell me that I am doing a ton.
The most dangerous situations seem to be when overtaking traffic that is doing say 80 mph, then being tailgated and having to decide whether to either brake and slot into the middle lane, or speed up to get past the next car... sometimes speed can increase a little each time until, whoops, you are going much faster than you intended.
It may be just me, but it seems that each car I have had has a speed at which it "wants" to go on the motorway. My Primera "wants" to go at 75mph, so no problem. The Seat seems to "want" to go at 90, and if I let my attention wander a bit, I will soon be doing 90mph as if by default. My Galant also seemed to "want" to go at 90, and that was why the cruise was so useful.
I cannot imagine being able to drive say an M3 on a motorway. That would need such rigid self discipline. If I let the right foot relax for a second, I would be away...
I do not have the natural ability to drive at 30, 60, or 70 without looking at the speedo every few seconds to check.
Does anyone else have similar experiences with cruise?
|
|
|
|
"(giving the guys a glance so they know I have seen them)"
RF,
I hope they don't think you're taking the pee!
Stu.
|
"What speed do you drive on the motorway?"
Typically 70-80 mph.
Stu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty much around the 70 mark most of the time. If it's very busy I might drop down to 65 and just sit in the inside lane.
However....10 years ago when I had a lovely K reg MR2 T-bar mkII I used to be never out of lane 3, speedo just a notch under the 100 mark and that 2-litre engine screaming away just behind my head.
Regular checks of the hard shoulder, bridges and rear-view mirror were required to watch out for any suspicious looking Senators or Volvo 740s. Speed cameras hadn't made it onto motorways yet and the 'contest' between plod and us speed fiends was much more sporting than is the case today.
[sigh] Happy days.
CF
ps that car was a beauty - grossly underated in my view - it was just fast enough to be fun and with the best seats, cockpit and driving position I've ever had.
|
|
Since I got my Saab, I set the cruise on 70 and relax, no more jumping on the brakes when I see the Jam Sandwich.
|
|
Excellent - so the rest of us can enjoy doing 63mph behind you then?? Hmm!
|
|
When im in work driving my coach at Shearings Holidays , i drive at 65mph as the coach is governed to thatmax speed , when im in the car usually 80-85mph , depending on road and weather conditions .
|
Sorry if i am behind the times but could somebody tell me what SPECS is please .
|
|
|
|
When I am driving myself I do tend to follow the pace of those around me and that does seem to vary between 70 and 85 on most occasions. However, due to the nature of my work I do occasionally have a police driver who, despite the fact that my journeys are rarely urgent and never an emergency, seems to drive everywhere on a motorway at between 80 and 95! This is always in my own car ( a perfectly ordinary Volvo V70) which has no markings on it to suggest it might be driven by a policeman but we have never been stopped. The driver is of course well trained and always safe but I must say I am surprised we have never been pulled over. I am sure I would be if it was just me. I can see the headlines now "Judge caught speeding....."!
|
SPECS is the new speed-averaging camera system. Basic principle: two fixed, remote-linked infra-red cameras, a mile apart. First camera reads your reg when you go past. A mile later, the second one reads your plate, calculates how long you took to travel the distance. If the average speed is too fast - three points for you, naughty man. The cameras are infrared so they work in the dark and all weather conditions, and they are fully automated so they can link to the DVLA and despatch an NIP without human intervention.
Oh, and it also works against those cars with funny fonts or muddy plates; if it can't read the plate, it simply flags it up to a human user to read.
Doh.
|
Thanks for prompt reply Vaughan .
Thought i was safe doing 110 on way to work at 4.30 this morning , didnt realise the cheeky little chaps had such high tech mobile equipment . Better watch my speed in future.
|
|
Why oh why can't people do 70 or less? Some have said here that it is less stressful and more economical? Why try to do 110? What is the point?
|
Why oh why can't people do 70 or less?
As long as car manufacturers keep building cars that are capable of 0-60mph in x seconds, and have tops speeds in excess of 100mph, some people will try and prove that the car will match the manufacturers data. I must admit I am one of these people at times. There's nothing like accelerating like a bat out of hell, or doing speeds in excess of 100mph to give an adrenalin rush - however I don't do it on heavily populated roads, nor in built up areas. When driving on the motorway, I generally keep with the flow of traffic. If cars in the middle or outer lane are moving along at 80-90mph, then so will I. However, if it's late at night, or in the early hours of the morning, and I'm virtually the only one on the road, I confess that I do put my foot down and take the speedo up into treble figures. IMHO, if there is no one else around, then I see no harm in it. You may think I'm reckless, but as I mentioned earlier, I don't do it when there is a risk of crashing into others, nor when there's a chance of putting other people's lives at risk.
|
Personally I find that driving at a speed I am not comfortable with, and which is below the flow of traffic, more stressful, more tiring and more distracting. That doesn't mean I want to blast past everybody but I definitely feel more comfortable if the majority of my time is in lanes two and three.
Not sure about driving for the adrenaline rush though Dave. Maybe it's a Vectra thing :-)
|
Normally about 80 and 88.
Why do I speed? Firstly it's not because of adrenaline rushes, motorway driving is far from exciting, it's simply that it's so dull. I choose to drive faster because I get off the motorway quicker, and when travelling slowly I switch off, the faster I go the more observant I become.
Yes it may cost more money in fuel, but if it takes an extra 1/2 hour, I may want to stop and that might cost me £5 for a cuppa and a sandwich.
Kev
|
|
About 80 and I am overtaken a LOT
|
Has anyone noticed something on the M23 southbound. Only on the first lane has it been resurfaced. And it is very smooth like A roads in France. Then if you overtake, you get the gravel again. So, perhaps this is a new strategy my the council to make people drive more slowly as they reap the rewards of a smooth road which means a quieter cabin and less of a headache from road noise. Doubt it though, too intelligent. It is probably because the lorries have eroded it so badly.
Anyway, can anyone tell me if a smoother road surface increases fuel economy or not. Also, by using the in car fan, does this use more fuel than opening a window. I suppose it may affect something along the lines doesn?t it?
Northern kev talks about the adrenaline rush about driving fast. I agree, but the same effect occurs if you drive on the m/way for a couple of hours at 60mph and then increase to 70mph. That gives me an adrenaline rush in busier conditions and means you can never get a ticket (which costs more than the time you save anyway -3 points)
|
I've been thinking for some time that it would be more than sensible to have three grades of surface on motorways:
* Left-hand lane super smooth and silent.
* Middle lane(s) normal subdued rumble.
* Right-hand lane rough and noisy.
Perhaps that would encourage the lane discipline that we badly need. If it ain't barmy -- and I'm sure I'll be told if it is -- I might even write to my MP about it.
Also in response to Gregory P, there's no doubt that opening windows causes serious drag and therefore increases fuel consumption. On a recent journey (M25, M4, M40) I was staggered at the number of people driving at 70+ with windows open and arms hanging out. It was hot, I know, but these were not old cars and most of them must have had air conditioning. Is this all part of a new habit of people who won't use A/C because they think it guzzles fuel, just like the fools in the old days who used to drive around in the dark on sidelights to avoid draining their batteries?
|
That would work, but why should I be penalised for my [excellent] lane disapline because some trophy hasn't any?
I can't help but think the MLOs would be oblivious to the changes in road quality as they may never use the first lane anyway.
A far more sensible idea is to have, shock, Police people in cars patrolling and stopping tailgaiters and MLOC members.
This thread ties in the the 'me first' thread, people drive to advantage themself first and s** everyone else. I try v hard to help other motorists, if someone faster than me shoots up behind me, I try to move over [if safe], if everyone could do this and similar, motoring would be far pleasenter.
Kev
|
Sorry to rain on the parade but IMO there is no safe time or place to be doing 100mph plus or anything like it on public roads.
So you're pretending to be Michael Schumaker doing 100 on a empty motorway. You have a blow out, you lose control and your car disintegrates around you. Bits and pieces are thrown everywhere and the road is covered with oil/diesel/brake fluid whatever. The next guy along the way happens to hit some of your 'wreckage' and he too crashes and is killed. More liekly perhaps, a tailback forms and, as ususal, a series of serious accidents even fatalities then result, all stemming from your self-delusion that it's safe to do these things. Well, sorry to be blunt but that's all your fault. Yes, all down to you. Nobody else to blame just someone who wanted to get home a bit earlier or fancied an adrenalin rush at public expense!
If you want to act like a racing driver then please do it under properly controlled circumstances on a private track.
If you can't/won't do that then please don't have the nerve to condemn anyone else's antics 'cos they're only doing what you choose to do - ignoring the risks and consequences of their own actions!
|
I wouldn't fancy a high speed blowout at 100mph. Nor would I fancy one at 70mph. If I let my driving be governed by the fear of a high speed blowout, I would never go above 30mph.
I would be interested to see some accident statistics for those stretches of the German Autobahns where there is no speed limit. Do they have more accidents, and are the accidents more serious?
Driving at 100mph on an empty motorway in the dead of night must be safer than driving at 70mph on a crowded M25.
|
As you said - YOUR opinion.
The same thing can happen at 50,60 or 70 but then that wouldnt be an argument because thats legal and so IT must be ok. But 100. ooh thats wrong. However if he said he did 100 in germany on an unrestricted autobahn you wouldnt even raise a concern. Its because its illegal in this country and therefore MUST be unsafe. Sorry but the legal limits dont always reflect the time or conditions.
Also due to the design integrity of modern cars there isnt much of an adrenaline rush or feeling of being Mr Schumacher when doing 100mph. Its simply a speed at which some cars are comfortable.
You could have a blow out at 25 mph from the broken glass you find on most high streets and have a blow out, cross on to the pavement and kill people.
See its easy to come up with a scenario where the worst could happen....
Sorry that this went off the thread subject, but i didnt turn it into an anti speeding rant, but i'm fed up with badly argued, idealogical arguements that simply arent reflective of modern cars.
|
On a sim ilar vein, I assume volvoman therefore considers that doing 60 on a single track National Speed Limit country lane is fine then?
It must be by his logic...60 is the speed limit, so it must be safe.
|
I've been lucky enough to never experience a blowout at any speed but would imagine that you wouldn't have to be doing anything approaching 100mph for it cause very serious consequenses. Would a blowout be "safer" at 70mph than at 80mph?? IMO in the case of blowouts, the speed limit is irrelevant.
If a blowout occurs when doing 100mph on a deserted M'way, the "worst case" would be that you kill yourself/passengers. The car would disintegrate and you may damage some M'way hardware - armco etc. At least you wouldn't have any cars around you and the car/s behind you would be several seconds if not minutes behind and therefore have sufficient time to react to the incident.
If a blowout occurs on say, the M25 when all the cars are tightly packed and all doing the same relative speed, again lets say 60mph, I think the "worst case" would probably be far more severe.
I suppose the safe option would be to not exceed a speed where a blowout can't be safely controlled - but what is that speed??
In anycase, if we all took the "safest" option we would probably never leave our sitting rooms.....
Chad.
|
|
|
|
Between 100 and 140mph daily, depending on traffic, visibility and weather conditions. But not in the UK, I live in Germany and half of my 30 mile daily commute is along an unrestricted m-way.
Still got to be careful. Regular 100mph-plus means diligent tyre pressure checks, and it takes a while to gain the necessary experience.
On a speed-limited m-way, drivers think nothing of slipping out in front of someone who is gaining, in case they get boxed in and - gasp - need to ease off the gas for a nanosecond. Why do many UK drivers seem to think that braking = admitting inferiority to another motorist?
On a derestricted autobahn, it's an offence to impede the progress of a faster-moving vehicle, so even if you're doing 140mph and someone's closing in (which happens, believe me) then it's time to slow down and wait for them to pass, instead of blithely moving out.
German police use cameras on derestricted m-ways, targeting tailgaters. Tailgating is closer than "1/2 speedo" in metres - so if you're doing 160kmh (100mph) you should be leaving an 80 metre gap. Not always easy, often impossible, but this isn't a defence if you're nabbed by a revenue-generating camera.
Before leaving the UK in 1998, regularly did an indicated 100mph on the M6 between B'ham and Warrington (except for the twisty bit in Stoke), and regularly did so in a convoy of 100-plus other cars all doing the same. I understand things have changed since then, and for the worse.
|
Look I don't know what's so difficult to understand in what I wrote. Yes you can have a blow out at 30 and kills someone we all know that don't we. And I didn't say that accidents only happen at 100 plus did I. The fact that in Germany XYZ happens doesn't matter a jot here does it. I wasn't commenting on German drivers on German roads or even English drivers on German roads! We're talking about here aren't we and whilst nobody is gonna thank you for having a blown out at 70 and killing someone they're not gonna be able to blame you for breaking the as well are they !! They're not gonna suffer EVEN more because their brother/sister/child/parent was killed because YOU chose to speed! Red herrings about why don't we all drive at 20 then or why don't we all stay in then are total garbage. If YOU decide it's safe to break the law and YOU then have an accident whatever its cause YOU are culpable! YOU are the one who will have to tell the parents/family of the victims how it was so important for YOU to drive at 30mph over the limit that the lives of others didn't matter. YOU didn't think it was going to happen but it did. YOU are sorry but you can't turn the clock back. If YOU have an ounce of humanity YOU will never do it again but that won't bring back the dead. Deaths happen for all sorts of reasons but I don't want to be responsible for adding to the pain and suffering through MY choices and I wonder seriously about the mentality of those who feel so important that they consider the rules shouldn't or don't apply to them. So next time you decide to do 100 or whatrever perhaps you won't mind if I decide to break a different law which I don't happen to agree with but which happens to affect YOUR life forever by taking away a loved one of yours! Get real people - if you want to speed and risk your own life so be it but DON'T do it on public roads and thereby put others at risk. God forbid it ever happens to any of us but put yourself in the position of a parent who gets the knowck at the door and is told their child has just been killed by a speeder who wanted an adrenaline rush and thought it was ok to break the law. What would you do and think ? Come on be honest. You'd feel a whole lot different from the way you do right now about speeding eh !! No cheap silly comments about Germany and how silly the law is for you 'cos your life has just imploded and all youre left thinking is why did that man kill my child ??
Think on speeders and don't try to argue that breaking the law is acceptable unless you're gonna give me the same right to break laws you happen to agree with. Be safe, be considerate and careful - life's too short and too precious to waste for a pathetic thrill.
|
Volvoman - Reading your post, everything you said applies to any breaking of the law as regards driving as well. Drinking, reckless driving, without care and attention etc...
I may not always agree with everything you say as regards speeding but here you are spot on.
|
Hands up people whom have never parked slightly on a pavement?
Go on, or infact within 10metres of a junction?
If you can honestly say you have done neither of them, or broken any rule even today, then well done and you may tell me off for driving faster than you.
I accept I drive at 80 rather than 70 most of the time, and I fully accept my responsablity for doing that.
There are far more dangerous people around than me, such as the people who pull out infront of me, but that must be safe so long as they're doing NSL?
Speed is only a magnifying factor in accidents, stupidity and lack of observation kills people.
Kev
|
stupidity and lack of observation kills people - Totally agreed Northern.
I have to say that because breaking a law thats limits were set for cars 30 years ago and trying to dress it up as immoral is just ridiculous.
Accidents due to careless driving and not driving within the conditions such as doing 70mph in dense fog is terrible and i would totally agree with V.Man in that respect. However a blanket arguement that doing 100mpg regardless is dangerous is just unargueable.
If someone has a blow out at 60mph on a motorway and kills someone because they have defective tyres on an unmaintained car is terrible. An old person losing control on a high st and kills 7 people (as happened in New Milton in the late 80's) is indefensible. Someone drink driving who kills should be treated as a murderer. Its all about reckless and careless driving, the conditions or your vehicle.
I understand totally your points V.Man. Thats why i strongly disagree with them because you;ve thought up an imaginary scenario that is an easy to comprehend as potentially dangerous, but i'll be honest when i say i cant remember the last time i heard about someone doing 100 on a motorway and killing another person. I can remember stories about people dying due to drink driving. or doing 50mph outside of a school and hitting a child. or an old person losing control of their car. Or someone tailgating and going up the back of someone. or someone reversing over someone in Tescos carpark. All due to reckless driving.
Speed is an assumed reason for death by driving whereas it tends to be due to reckless driving.
|
The point that Volvoman is trying to make, which a number of people have completely missed, is "Take time to consider possible effects of your actions, and ask yourself whether or not it's worth it".
Is it really safe to shoot down a motorway at 100mph? Think.
Is it really safe to shoot down a motorway at 100mph then hit an obsticle in the road? Think.
Is it really safe to shoot down a motorway at 100mph then swerve to miss some plonker who moves into your lane without warning? Think.
Is it really safe to shoot down a motorway at 100mph, swerve to miss some plonker who moves into your lane without warning, then wipe out that other driver and his family that you did not see on the other side? Is that fair, is that what you're condoning? Think.
If anything speed limits probably need to be reduced in this country. There are a lot of demands on the average driver, they have increased over time, and I don't think we have evolved sufficiently to keep pace. The only thing we can do perhaps is stop quicker, if your car is fitted with ABS.
H
|
Sooner or later this thread was bound to turn in to a debate about speeding and safety.
--
Note: {P} - indicates that I am advertising that my profile can be viewed.
|
|
|
>>The only thing we can do perhaps is stop quicker, if your car is fitted with ABS.
Hugo...not really, we can stop about the same and as we hit the obstacle reflect that the whole point of ABS was to steer....and why didn't we then?
V,
You and DD having seperate rooms on the 7th ?
:-)
M.M
|
|
|
|
Sorry but IMO speeding is just another form of reckless driving and my commenting on IT because IT was the subject of this thread does NOT mean that I think tailgating, parking on the brow of a hill on a blind bend, pulling out without indicating, drunk driving or any other similar behaviour is less dangerous or less reckless or less likely to kill!
Are we really gonna have to have a debate on every form of reckless driving each time the subject of speeding comes up or is this just a diversion created by the speeders to take the heat off them and the fact that:
Speeding is reckless
Speeding is dangerous
Speeding does kill and worst of all,
Speeding is entirely unnecessary.
So come on all you safe speeders, you're clearly man enough to speed so are you man enough to go on the record and state here for all the BackRoom to witness that if you're involved in a fatal accident and you were speeding at the time you're gonna front up to the family concerned and take what's coming ?
You're responsible for your speeding but are you gonna accept that responsibility and what comes with it if the worst happens ??
Somehow I think not. Somehow I think at that point a whole lot of sickening and pathetic excuses are going to be trotted out in order to save your licence, your job and the welfare of your family. But what about the welfare of the person you killed and their family ? What about them ? Are you going to face them like a man or scurry away feeling lucky that you got away with it ?
God I hope none of you is ever in that situation and if just one of you stops, thinks for a minute and slows down as a result of my contribution here, it will have been worth it.
My last comment here - take it or leave it.
|
Speeding is reckless Speeding is dangerous
In you opinion V-man, if speeds above 70mph are considered to be reckless and dangerous, why is there a debate by the government to increase the NSL on motorways to 80mph? A lot of people already drive at 80mph now anyway, so if the limit *is* increased, all that will happen is people will then drive at 90mph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry V-Man, I can't agree with everything you've said. Some of it, yes, but not all of it.
I don't consider that I am putting anyone in danger but myself if I choose to drive at 100mph+ on a deserted Motorway at 2am in the morning. If I crash, then the only thing I will hit is roadside furniture, such as a lamppost, or arncho barrier. I'm not claiming to be an excellent driver, but hopefully as the road is deserted I can take evasive action if neccessary and have all three lanes to play with.
On populated motorways I quite happily *cruise* at 80 to 85 mph in mainly the middle/fast lanes, but if lane one is empty I will drop back into it and not hog the middle lane like other people seem to do. What really gets my goat is travelling along at over 70mph and having to manouvere from lane one right across into lane three just to overtake a middle lane hogger doing 60 mph, then move right back across into lane one again. Ok, I could just undertake the snail in lane two, but I do not consider that a safe move.
What I consider a danger on motorways are motorists who try and enforce the 70mph limit by using their cars as a mobile road block and impede people who want to travel at 80mph. There is nothing more infuriating than someone pulling across into the lane you already occupy and driving at a slower pace than yourself. They haven't pulled out to overtake anything, they just seem to take great pleasure in slowing people down. As I have just said - a very dangerous practice. I do hope you are not one of these people V-Man, and choose to enforce the 70mph limit in words only and not as some vigilante policeman.
My view is let people travel at the speed they want to. Some people feel more comfortable at 60, some at 80mph. Personally I am the latter. I find my concentration level is much higher and I am more alert of my surroundings when I am making progress instead of being stuck behind some Miss Marple who is crawling along.
There are already enough police and cameras out there who enforce the speeding laws without Joe public also jumping on the bandwagon.
One thing I detest is being told how I should or shouldn't drive, particularly by anyone other than a copper.
Rant over.
|
In Volvoman's thread "putting things in to perspective"
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=15...3
I said" .. The dificult thing is persuading the doubters, miscreants, egotists, and superior-beings to change their behaviour. As with most messages on safety, it is usually a case of preaching to the converted. You can tell smokers, drunks, speeders, druggies, or anyone else whose actions are likely to endanger lives that what they are doing is wrong and offer help to change their behaviour. However, only a small minority will pay heed. The rest will think they are immune from the effects or that they have some superior ability or physique that allows them to carry on as before. ..." >>>
I like being proved right.
--
Note: {P} - indicates that I am advertising that my profile can be viewed.
|
|
|
Life would be boring if we all agreed all the time but unlike some here DD I don't get involved with stupid antics and I've said it many, many times.
If someone tailgates me I let 'em go. If someone cuts me up I let 'em go. If someone wants to drive like a maniac I let 'em go. I don't hog the middle lane - lane 1 is nearly always easier and emptier. Reason ? Idiots like that aren't worth risking my life or the lives of my family for. I've got a wife and family to support. People I treasure. People who need me and hopefully love me. I've already lost one wife, why would I want to put all that at risk for a thrill that I could get safely elsewhere ? Why would I put all that at risk to get to a meeting 5 minutes earlier ?
On Monday when my boy was slowly suffocating in the ambulance on the way to A&E and I was trying to get there ASAP I could have speeded couldn't I ? I could even have justified it and many would have sympathised but did I speed and risk more lives ?? NO !
My intention is not to get personal here or even nasty. I just want to make people wake up to what's at stake when they speed and if anyone wants to extend the debate to other forms of dangerous behaviour I'll be happy to contribute.
Finally, and on the subject of lawbreaking, what a nice place this would be if we all decided to choose which laws we abide by.
Now I promise that really is my last comment here.
|
I think the point's already been made somewhere, but there isn't something magical about 70 mph, other than it's the national limit. So what defines speeding, in terms of danger rather than legality, exactly? Surely not simply going faster than an arbitrary figure?
Slightly unrelated, I was watching one of those Cops programmes last night. Two separate drug busts (well OK, small amounts, but nonetheless the lads were carrying Class C? drugs) and in each they were let off with a caution. Speed cameras aren;t so forgiving.
|
It's sort of the reverse of drinking. You magically become able to hold your drink when you turn 18. But at what point on that day? 12am, 12pm, the exact second you were born?
Here's one for you, if I'm doing 70 on a motorway [safe speed], an obsticle appears on the motorway, but I'm too self righteous and too busy commenting on everyone's 'bad/fast' to see the obsticle, so I hit it, scattering my car across all three lanes. Now surely that shouldn't happened because I was doing the 'safe' speed.
I drive faster on a motorway because I drive at a speed in which I feel I can stops or avoid most things in my path, this is also why I slow down on a NSL backlane near blind corners which 'should' be taken at 60.
70 is a fast speed, 70 will cause a lot of damage, I'd rather pay attention to the road and decide a sensible speed than stick to 70 and relax [remove] brain for a few hours.
Oh and if speed is so dangerous, just why is flying safer than by car, and infact catching a train is safer than a car, yet both of these go at faster speeds? Hmm, could it be the greater skill of the pilot/driver? Hmm...
Kev. [Probs my last post for a bit as well, as I go away on holiday tomorrow]
|
I don't care any more. I now have a truck and it won't do much more than 70 with the wind behind it because it has the aerodynamics of a large two story wooden bus-stop in an arobretum. But I don't care because I can put the Cruise on at 69.99 m.p.h. and provided I dance around at the sight of every speed-limited un-needed chicane or bank-holiday contraflow, they can't have my money. Or my licence. Then our betters in GOvernement can take their GATSO, their laser,their SPECS, and anything else which emits light, sound or X-Rays, and insert it in some unlit part of their anatomy.
I wish somebody would put speed cameras on the road outside my house where meat heads of all descriptions think its cool to drive at 40+ in a 30 limit. I would like to resurrect the death penalty for people who think its OK to endanger the life of pedestrians, especially children, because they lack a brain or any kind of imagination. This kind of speeding is stupif and wanton.
I recommend not speeding on 60 m.p.h. roads as they are lethal enough without adding to the cocktail.
On the other hand, on a clar, wide and open road on a clear day, go for it. But don't ride my tail - I'll get out of your way anyway if you have a nanosecond of patience. Don't overtake me on the left and try and squeeze in or i'll lie about my age, become a police office and bust your ass. Don't drive at all nursing a mobile, and if you must use a mobile in the car even when stationery, don't eat at the same time I don't need to see the contents of your mouth.
I will be cruise control man 30,40, 50, 60 ,70....
|
|
|
few hours.Oh and if speed is so dangerous, just why is flying safer than by car, and infact catching a train is safer than a car, yet both of these go at faster speeds? Hmm, could it be the greater skill of the pilot/driver? Hmm...
Is this man serious?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
