1. Wanting to keep the licence clean.
2. Wanting to burn less fuel.
If it cost the same to do 70 and 100 on the motorway, would I do 100? I tried it once, and it felt pretty scary, so I don't fancy it again. Motorways at 70 are so much more restful, quiet and unstressed than at 80. Why bother - unless travelling more than about 250 miles at which point doing 80 rather than 65 (indicated 70) gives a material time saving.
Out on the truly open road (where do you manage that?) I suppose I tend to stray above the 60 toward 70 or 75 where it seems sensible. It's sufficiently fun for reasons 1 and 2 above to be outweighed.
In towns, so at 20, 30 or 40, then respect for the law combined with (1) above applies.
|
It would be interesting to know what size of car and how powerful , all you law abiding citizens drive.The answers given would maybe suggest that most of you do not need a car as big as you have and actually a nice efficient diesel or a small car would suit your driving styles.
It would not have to handle very well either as you all stick to the speed limit and therefore have no need.
|
>>as you all stick to the speed limit and therefore have no need.
Yeah right,we can all say that untill we get behind the wheel
|
|
|
|
I always try to stick within 5mph of the limit around town (a indicated 35 in my car only brings up 32 on those warning signs), but NSL roads are different. If it's a road I'm familiar with, and it's 100% clear, I'll go up to indicated 80 on single-carriageways, and 90 on duals/motorways. If Plod's lurking with his radar, then I go back to the 5mph rule, but here in County Durham, speeding tickets are usually only issued when you're caught in the act by a real police officer as they don't have any yellow money-boxes here.
|
|
|
how long before someone gives that lame excuse of being able to "accelerate out of trouble".....
As for the OPs original question, the only time I stick to the limits is when there is a camera, specs or police car around. Other than that I use the speed limits as a guide. E.g. on a clear dry day on the motorway with light traffic I might drive at 80-90mph. In heavy rain on a motorway I might only drive at 50mph. Going past a school in 30 limit at around 3:30pm with parked cars at the side of the road and kids everywhere - 20mph.
For the majority of the time it works out that I drive within the posted limits, for many of the reasons already mentioned - safer, less stress, fuel saving etc.
In summary the only thing that will make me 100% stick to the limits at all times is the presence of a camera or police. Without that presence I am liable to break the law. This may be the answer that the OP is looking for as validates the argument for having speed cameras on every piece of road.
And course lets not forget that while I do enjoy driving fast at times, I don't want to die early or take someones life. That surely is the ultimate reason for limits.
|
A driving examiner sitting beside me. A marked police car sitting on my tail. Traffic going at the speed limit that is too dense to allow judicious overtaking.
Otherwise I know what the limit is and try to stay at or above it.
|
there's a fair bit of economy with the whole picture here isn't there....... working on the presumption that this is a motoring site, with knowledgeable people who enjoy or have a good working knowledge of cars... i'd hazard a guess that a fair few of you are good or above average drivers
put into the equation it's the Daily Telegraph motoring website and a fair few will be able to afford good cars etc.
i'd presume that a reasonable chunk of you travel at exactly the same speed that i do on a motorway.....as the outside line is often a long line of people doing the same speed... and it's not 70!
|
i'd presume that a reasonable chunk of you travel at exactly the same speed that i do on a motorway.....as the outside line is often a long line of people doing the same speed... and it's not 70!
I cannot see anything wrong with doing the best part of a ton on the motorway, and to be honest on the rare occasions that I am in a hurry, or travel long distance, I will push the car. Some people will say "Start the journey earlier" but on a long journey, I prefer to spend less time on the road. The little Ford Ka does get a bit noisy but it is very stable.
The main deterrent is that a car following me might be an unmarked police car, so if I am followed, I tend to slow, and watch what they do. I like to think the police would ignore me unless I was driving poorly, but I might be wrong.
If someone can argue convincingly that doing a ton when driving sensibly is dangerous, I'll stop doing it.
|
|
|
|
Surely anyone would rather be driven over the limit by someone who understands cars and driving than waddle around in a car driven by some numpty who thinks it's intrinsically dangerous to exceed the limit? I certainly would.
|
There is an old argument here about a particular speed limit, i.e 70mph on the motorway.Now don't forget that this was brought in as an emergency initiative during the old fuel crisis and at that time the standard of engineering on most cars was rubbish compared to todays standards
Even the Jaguar E Type was not exactly a good handling car and its brakes and tyres were poor by modern standards.
To do 100 mph in a modern car is a non event, and if you feel unsafe doing it, do it for a couple of hours and 70 feels nothing,you adapt quickly.
Of course whatever speed limit is in force, a good driver will modulate his speed to suit traffic density , weather and road conditions.
The French recognise this with their dual speed limits on motorways depending on the weather.
Whats wrong with doing 100 mph at night on an empty motorway in good conditions.I have many times and find that my concentration levels are far higher than doing 70 on auto pilot not remembering the last 10 miles or so because my mind was thinking about something else through boredom.
|
"than waddle around in a car driven by some numpty who thinks it's intrinsically dangerous to exceed the limit"
Personally I would not describe driving at up to 70mph as "wadling around". I choose to try to drive within the law so I guess I'm numpty by your definition although I don't think its necessarily intrinsically dangerous to exceed the speed limit - its just against the law and I try to keep within the law within all areas of my life.
What I don't understand is why speed is so important to some people. To me it often seems to betray a character of impatience and selfishness. As has been pointd out already exceeding the speed limit for short periods has vey little effect on journey times and its virtually impossible to sustain a speed that is going to materially effect a journey time my more than a few minutes.
Why does "someone who undertstands car and driving" judge driving standards simply by the speed at which a driver travels. There is a lot more to driving than belting down the road with your right foot to the floor.
|
I'd be willing to bet that most of those who boast about how competent they are at driving at 100 or over on the motorways are the ones who sit two foot from your bumper giving you the finger if you don't move out of the way in a nanosecond and then swerve in front of you as they pass to "Teach you a lesson".
We all toe it from time to time, it is human nature but habitual breaking of the limit by large amounts is the hallmark of the dangerous.
--
|
|
And I bet you the type of person who thinks, well I am travelling at the legal limit so why should I move over. let them wait !
|
Personally I would not describe driving at up to 70mph as "wadling around". I choose to try to drive within the law so
OK CGN, sorry. But are you one of these people who drive at 65 because your speedometer says 70?
There's no need to get snotty about 'observing the law'. Exceeding the speed limit isn't a crime, it's a minor civil offence.
And to those who ask why there seems to be this unaccountable interest in speed, I would observe that it is integral with the unaccountable interest some (but alas not all) of us have in the automobile.
Speed is one of the thing's most captivating accomplishments, capisce?
I fear not.
|
Thread tidied up to remove the stupid argument that broke out. Take it down the pub guys if you want to start a slanging match.
DD.
|
What makes you stick to the speedlimit?
Easy - I've seen the results of carnage caused by inappropriate excessive speeds. (i.e. damaged cars, a man whose head was severed by the impact, a child who looked more like a bright red sponge.....)
I'm not against speeding - but it has to be safely. 20mph in a school zone when 5 - 10 year olds are about is reasonable. Doing 30mph in the zone when the kids are not about is reasonable. Doing 60mph is not. Doing 90mph on a relatively quiet motorway is fine - but 90mph on a busy motorway (M6 between B'Ham & Stoke?) is just plain stupid. Even worse are the guys (and gals) who insist on barging their way through by intimidation (i.e. sitting on my rear bumper at 80mph flashing their lights, when it's so obvious that my car is unable to play leap-frog)
|
I obey all speed limits that are sensibly set.
Sadly, few of them are!
--
I read often, only post occasionally
|
Exceeding the speed limit isn't a crime, it's a minor civil offence.
Well no it isn't a civil offense. Speeding is against the criminal law and is therefore a crime albeit at the lesser end of the scale.
The point I was trying to make is that to a great many speed seems to be what driving is all about. However it is perfectly possible to enjoy driving without speeding, at least it is for me although you would clearly disagree with that statement. There is howevers no real practical justiification for deliberately speeding on todays crowded roads other than that you like doing it
|
All right CGN, a misdemeanour under the criminal code or something. Sorry, but I can't see exceeding speed limits as a 'crime'.
Why do you think I wouldn't agree with the statement that you can enjoy driving without speeding? Of course you can. But as you rightly point out, people go rapidly because they like it. And as I pointed out, speed is one of the automobile's most captivating accomplishments, and always was.
I am always quite pleased when I am overtaken by a properly-driven car that is going more quickly than I am. Would that more people took the same view, instead of this repressive tut-tutting that goes on all the time.
It is always a pleasure to be on a bit of road where everyone is going briskly and well. Alas, the numpty-count is usually too high for these good moments. But they happen sometimes.
|
"Sorry, but I can't see exceeding speed limits as a 'crime'. "
Well you might not but the magistrate certainly will.
I don't go in for repressive tut tutting and don't mind in the least being overtaken and I guess I probably get overtaken more often than you. Would certainly not obstruct anyone's progress if I can legally avoid it and of course I sometimes stray a few mph over the limit Can't say however that I'm impressed or admire drivers who flagrantly flout the law as equally I'm not impressed by any other law breaker
Checked out my speedo on the way home tonight -speedo 70 mph SATNAV 68.70 MPH
Since I do usuallydrive by my speedo apologies to any one I have inadvertently slowed down by 1.3 mph
|
That makes you sound all right CGN. Go on, be a sport and drive at an indicated 75 a bit more deliberately.
No one'll nickya, honest!
|
There is howevers no real practical justiification for deliberately speeding on todays crowded roads other than that you like doing it
Well in a literal sense that is true, barring emergencies. But local councils are continually lowering existing speed limits, and 20mph limits are now commonplace, and 40mph limits now exist where it was once 60mph. I sometimes find myself getting very frustrated when on a clear road with no hazards, doing 40mph when I know it is safe to do much more.
And there is a practical reason to go at high speed on a clear motorway when the journey is 100+ miles.
My take on this is that they should not impose a reduced limit unless they can demonstrate a clear reduction in KSI figures and sadly the tendency is to fiddle and lie. Otherwise the limits lose their credibility which surely makes it harder to enforce them. We have an issue where local roads are 20 mph (too low IMO), some people crawl along at 15mph, and others (a large number) hurtle along at 40mph (far too high IMO). The limit irritates the 'honest' and is not enforced so the loonies still cause accidents.
|
|
No point in argueing about it but if you need convincing you wont stop youre not the type but you may stop others -by killing them not yourself as it always is
That was a pretty stupid answer.
|
>>That was a pretty stupid answer No more stupid than doing a ton on the motorway...
Another stupid and almost content free post. Why don't you instead say something informative such as an explanation of why you hold the views that you do, instead of making assumptions bordering on the offensive. Or I suppose you could carry on making content free statements, and I could carry one saying how stupid they are. It passes the time I suppose.
|
|
|
|
In summary the only thing that will make me 100% stick to the limits at all times is the presence of a camera or police. Without that presence I am liable to break the law. This may be the answer that the OP is looking for as validates the argument for having speed cameras on every piece of road.
No, there's no hidden agenda here, I'm not looking for an excuse to ask for speed cameras everywhere. I'm just after the thoughts that people have to help them stick to the speed limit, or very close to it as it's something a friend of mine struggles with.
I'm not really interested in the "that's the limit, that's what I stick to" people, more the ones who want to go faster but don't, and how they manage to do this. Let's be fair, most cars will crack 120mph but there aren't many who do more than 90 on the motorway.
|
>most cars will crack 120mph
But how safely. How many cars have tyres that are rated for that speed? Many people claim to run their cars with over-rated tyres on grounds of 'safety' - I never go more than 100, so I run 120 tyres. So, when doing 120, on that (paranoid?) basis tyres should be rated at 140 at least.
How many braking systems are really set up for regular use at those sorts of speeds?
And as for petrol consumption - there is a speed beyond which the frequency with which you have to refuel negates all advantages of going more quickly.
|
"How many cars have tyres that are rated for that speed? "
I suspect you'll find that most do. It's pretty rare to find a tyre place that will fit an under-rated tyre for a car, as that opens up a whole can of liability worms. And the rating is based upon the car's maximum speed, not the speed you plan to drive it. Thus, I suspect that most cars are using suitable tyres.
V
|
|
|
How many cars have tyres that are rated for that speed?
I thought all tyres sold have to suit the performance of the car? Tyre places won't sell you a 100mph rated tyre if your car can do 120mph, surely? This always used to be the case.
How many braking systems are really set up for regular use at those sorts of speeds?
Errr, all of them? Brake fade never happens on a motorway unless you're in a fully loaded Mini Clubman estate doing 80mph with drum brakes. I'm not saying a Fiesta will stop as quick from 120mph as a Porsche, but it'll work as well as intended.
And as for petrol consumption - there is a speed beyond which the frequency with which you have to refuel negates all advantages of going more quickly.
Don't buy this either, say you fill up every 4 days, it's just the difference between having 3 gallons left in the tank and 4 gallons (or 4cc if you are my wife......)
|
Isn't it true that most tyres are now rated H or higher?
H rating is good till 130 mph.
|
Isn't it true that most tyres are now rated H or higher? H rating is good till 130 mph.
T-rated tyres are good for 118, but annoyingly my car (with official top-speed of 107) needs H-rated tyres according to Nissan. I have every confidence that it'd be fine with the lesser-rated, cheaper tyres, but it would invalidate the insurance. To be honest, any driving on British roads over 100mph is unnecessary and illegal, so I have no idea why so many manufacturers specify H-rated tyres over T-rated. As for V & W rated tyres, who wants to do 149/168mph on the road?!
|
I have no idea why so many manufacturers specify H-rated tyres over T-rated. As for V & W rated tyres who wants to do 149/168mph on the road?!
The ratings aren't only for speed. Other factors, such as the weight of the car, loading of the side walls when cornering, etc also apply when a recommended rating is specified by a car manufacturer.
|
My Passat estate might only manage 110mph but is does have V rated tyres. Probably for the reasons DD states.
On the bike- limits- what are they?
In car , old age, fear of losing licence, pedestrians , BMWs up my boot.
|
On the bike- limits- what are they?
:-) There are one or two very quiet (in terms of traffic) and sparsely-populated stretches on my commute, on which a derestriction sign might be interpreted as saying "Motorcyclists - minimum engine speed 8,000 rpm, next 7 miles" or something like that. Not always, but sometimes.
In the car, reasons for law-abiding behaviour are as follows (no particular order):
1) Perverse desire to get as high a number as possible on the little digital display under the rev counter that says MPG
2) Cost of diesel and consequent desirability of getting >500 miles between fills at £53 a time
3) Don't want to have to keep looking out for police cars (marked or otherwise), cameras, mobile traps, whatever
4) Cruise control
5) Cost of tyres at north of a hundred quid a corner (and mine is only the 16" rim, too), of which the rate of wear is directly proportional to the weight of the right foot
6) Mrs B.
A fairly compelling selection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
