spikeyhead, you should take your holidays in Germany!
>provided that the limits at quiet times were upped to 100+mph.
There is simply no way that is going to happen in UK (although I completely share your dream).
One of the issues with very high speed motorways is noise pollution. One thing I have noticed on the autobahns is that there are more and more Lärmschutz (noise abatement) restrictions between 10pm and 6am which unfortunately coincide with the quietest times traffic-wise. Speed is limited to between 100kph and 130kph depending on proximity to dwellings.
Edited by Billy Whizz on 16/04/2008 at 22:40
|
So here's a thought, say they decided to remove the speed limit altogether, what speed would you go to on a motorway?
Obviously traffic would dictate it but if you were faced with an empty motorway with no limit in good conditions would you put the foot down or would you stick to a certain limit?
I have done over the ton on motorways but when I reach my destination I always think that if I had a blow out then much less chance of surving it at 100 than 70! I also notice a huge difference in fuel economy, as much as 10mpg between 70 and 80.
I reckon once the novelty of no limit died down, then I would probably still do a max of 80!
|
From one point of view most ignore it and most would ignore a higher limit so why change.
Another point of view - if this was open to public debate who would the politicians listen to - those who want to reduce accident severity, carbon emissions, ban large engines etc so it would come DOWN and not go up. - Best not to open the debate then - leave as is.
Surprised how few were doing more than 70 on the M6/M74 this morning.
|
Surprised how few were doing more than 70 on the M6/M74 this morning.>>
Was this because the road was crowded or because they were saving fuel. I can't be the only one that's noticed that the price of petrol has gone up.
|
|
|
|
Obviously traffic would dictate it but if you were faced with an empty motorway with no limit in good conditions would you put the foot down or would you stick to a certain limit?
If visibility were ok, then I've already done 165 on the autobahn in a GT3, having newish tyres, Porsche approved helps the confidence, as does having a car that's still 26mph away from its top speed.
|
having a car that's still 26mph away from its top speed.
Tsk. Mimser.
(He muttered jealously)
Edited by Lud on 17/04/2008 at 23:32
|
Most of Britain's congestion problems (on roads and elsewhere) are caused by the fact that the population is so high. Perhaps we should try and restrict the growth of the population before the whole country becomes totally gridlocked.
|
|
China tried that and look where it got them.
|
China tried that and look where it got them.
I'm not au fait with China. Where has it got them?
|
Tried to be clever and post something in Chinese - unfortunately the webside translated this as:
" 中国 "
Talk about lost in translation .........
Edited by Round The Bend on 18/04/2008 at 12:52
|
population is so high
and cars are very much affordable [in spite of stealth taxes]!
Population alone has nothing to do with congestion. For example, India has very few cars compared to its population yet there are severe traffic congestions.
More cars + less roads = Congestion
|
This is being discussed in MoneySavingExpert forum also
forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=865...3
|
Where has it got them?
Into a demographic time bomb. Not enough kids to look after parents when old and work thus destroying the traditional family support network so more intervention from the state required, an aging workforce, and a generation of spoilt lads (mainly).
How would you promote this population control ?
|
basically this thread is ANY excuse to let little old me go faster than 70 in my car.
OK most folk do 80 now, raise limit to 80 & same people will then do 90
yes cars are safer but same Mk1 humans use them
They are fooling no one
on green issues alone the limit should stay at 70
unless you didnt notice oil is running out which is going to be very interesting how will people explain in 400 years time how the human race discovered oil and used incredible amounts of it up till it was all gone in about 190 years ?
|
|
|
Most of Britain's congestion problems (on roads and elsewhere) are caused by the fact that the population is so high.
Actually not true - the probelms are that the GNP per head is so high. That is why third world countries with huge populations only have localised traffic problems.
GNP per head produced the same gradient line as car ownership per head and the largest of both when I last saw the graph was the USA with 6 cars per 10 people (and that includes those too old and too young to drive so effectively more than one per driver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
go ahead spikeyhead
do it and hopefully youll get a custodial term
|
>do it and hopefully youll get a custodial term
Eh, what are you on about oldlag?
|
He knows what he's talking about BW.
Just wants the chance to meet spikeyhead perhaps?
:o}
Edited by Lud on 22/04/2008 at 15:09
|
Lots of people would like to be allowed to do 80 mph legally on motorways. The problem is that if the limit was raised, all those who already do 80 will be doing 90 instead and those who still want to keep to 70 will become victims of road rage.
If M25 style variable limits are rolled out across the motorway network, which is probably a long way off, I think it would be viable for the controllers to be allowed to set the limit at 80 mph when there's little traffic and good weather conditions.
However, on environmental grounds, I don't think limits should be raised - as mentioned above, oil is going to become scarce and so we need to eke out what we can.
Edited by Sofa Spud on 22/04/2008 at 21:36
|
|
I've just watched 'Traffic Cops' on BBC1, which intrigued me because the Yorkshire force have got a Suzuki Hayabusa for traffic duty. Later in the programme, they clocked a lad in a VW Lupo, doing 125! I think I would have tried the 'it doesn't go that fast' defence...
|
|
|
.......... those who still want to keep to 70 will become victims of road rage.
Why? At the moment not everyone keeps up to 70 on motorways but they don't generally suffer harassment ~ unless they're in the outside lane, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
go ahead spikeyhead do it and hopefully youll get a custodial term
It's not illegal on the autobahns.
I'm kind of gobsmacked that there someone on a motoring enthusiasts website wants me jailed for doing something legal.
And please don't tell me that "speed kills." Don't tell me to "think of the children." Don't witter on about green issues, its all an excuse to tax us more and make people wioth too much time on their hands and with too few brain cells to think its all a good idea and we really must bow to the greater knowledge of our thieving political masters..
This post was bought to you by someone with a completely clean license that's never had any points on it despite having driven about 25k miles PA since passing my test 25 years ago.
|
There's certainly no point in discussing global warming or oil reserves in the same thread as speed limts.
Ooops, I just did.
It's a lowest common denominator-type of issue. A 30 mph limit would save lives, but at what "cost"?
They could limit the number of vehicles allowed in the UK, so you'd have to bid to get one, with 1m new vehicle bids allowed p.a.
There are in fact more green fields than we think, as you can see on google earth but maps show roads as being about 15 miles wide on some scales, so people think the country is covered in them.
|
And please don't tell me that "speed kills." Don't tell me to "think of the children."
Try telling that to the people attending around 3400 funerals in the UK this year as a result of one of their loved ones being killed as a result of moving vehicles.
|
3400 funerals
How many were caused by vehicle moving over 70 mph on motorway?
|
|
|
I'll give you a clue. I stated in my first post that I wanted variable limits across the whole motorway network with this coupled with the maximum limits raising. The one time that I've driven over 160mph I'd got three miles of straight motorway in front of me with no other cars in front of it. I was back down to a sensible speed by the time I'd reached the curve at the end of the straight. The only person I'm putting at any risk driving like that is me and the risk with £1000 of recent tyres on a car that's capable of much much more really is minimal. Far far less than cross plys on a moggie minor at 70mph.
If we let drivers think for themselves then there's a chance that they'll start assessing risk and driving well, rather than blindly listening to the mantra "speed kills." It doesn't, its an abject noun and abject nouns don't kill. Crap driving and other road use kills. If we concentrated on that and improving road engineering then we'd be in with a chance of reducing the number of people killed on our roads. Since we in this country became reliant on speed cameras for our road policing then road deaths haven't really shifted. Until then they'd been steadily falling.
|
If we let drivers think for themselves then there's a chance that they'll start assessing risk and driving well rather than blindly listening to the mantra "speed kills." It doesn't its an abject noun and abject nouns don't kill. Crap driving and other road use
It doesn't work like that though. Traffic laws have to account for the lowest common denominator. Just because you might be a skilled, attentive driver in a well maintained car doesn't mean that 90% of other people are. How would you then go about setting speed limits based on the capability of an individual and their vehicle?
Speed limits are set to allow most people to drive to an acceptable safety margin.
Speed kills might be a simplistic statement but it's undoubtedly true. The faster you go the less time you have to assess, plan and act - and you also reduce the time that other traffic you're interacting with has to assess, plan and act. Reduce the amount of time people have to complete a cycle of that process and the number of mistakes will increase. Some of those mistakes will result in accidents. A speed limit of zero plainly won't work so they're set based on a moderately skilled driver's ability to operate a standard vehicle safely on specific road types.
If speed limits were too low in the UK then we'd see differences around the world, but that's not the case. In urban areas 30MPH/50KPH or lower is the norm. Outside of rural areas it tends to be around 60MPH/100KPH. Motorways vary a little, largely down to different traffic densities and designs of road (distance between junctions, corners, frequency of tolls etc..) Only Germany has a system with no limits and that exists on only a proportion of the motorways. It still exists only because of political sensitivity in Germany to changing it - it will change eventually.
|
"Speed limits are set to allow most people to drive to an acceptable safety margin"
Except that the 70-limit in the UK was introduced as a (temporary!) fuel economy measure.
A Canadian study found that "that the incidence of crashes depends more on variations in speed between vehicles than on absolute speed, and that the likelihood of a crash happening is significantly higher if vehicles are traveling at speeds slower or faster than the mean speed of traffic".
Sounds plausible to me...
|
the 70-limit in the UK was introduced as a (temporary!) fuel economy measure.
No it wasn't, it was introduced because of a lot of crashes.
A Canadian study found that "that the incidence of crashes depends more on variations in speed between vehicles than on absolute speed, and that the likelihood of a crash happening is significantly higher if vehicles are traveling at speeds slower or faster than the mean speed of traffic".
Quite.
|
"No it wasn't, it was introduced because of a lot of crashes"
You're right FT - sorry. It came in in 1965, before the oil crisis. It was meant to be temporary, though...
BTW '70 limit uk' in Google has this thread on the first page!
|
|
snipquoteIt doesn't work like that though. Traffic laws have to account for the lowest common denominator.
But they don't have to be policed and enforced in a way that encourages the lowest common denominator to think that blindly listening to the mantra instead of thinking for themselves is acceptable or safe. Are you really suggesting that the lowest common denominator is something that should just be accepted at whatever level it happens to fall to? I don't see any reason to throw in the towel like that on driving standards.
I don't like to see hot hatches racing around my village at 50mph. When it happens (not particularly often), it's quite alarming. What is equally alarming, and much more prevalent, is cars travelling at a steady 30mph along the entire road, with drivers apparently not adapting (in terms of speed, road position, etc.) in any way to the continuously changing set of hazards around them.
Granted, if I (as a pedestrian) am hit by one of the 30mph, "I'm safe because I'm not exceeding the speed limit" bowling balls I am much more likely to survive than if the boy racer hits me. But simply slowing all the cars down sufficiently that driving into pedestrians becomes OK as it doesn't usually kill them is, in my opinion, a criminally irresponsible policy, and a dereliction of duty on the part of those responsible for road safety.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 25/04/2008 at 19:31
|
|
|
|
|
From DtF stats: "Fatality rates for car occupants more than halved between 1980 and 1993 from 6.2 deaths per billion passenger kilometres in 1980 to 3.0 in 1993. Fatality rates since then have continued to decline, but at a slower rate, to 2.6 in 2005. If you note the change of "slope" in the rate of decline, this occurred before speed cameras were introduced on any scale. As for "let drivers think for themselves then there's a chance that they'll start assessing risk and driving well" - we've been there before, they didn't. The French imposed stricter speed controls: they have reduced KSI rates significantly. However, they are not trapped in the Gatso cul de sac we've entered. Personally, I think they are of limited use, and are subverted by detectors. More covert cameras, more police or civilians to release police from the office/canteen, and drivers would not be so complacent.
Edited by nortones2 on 25/04/2008 at 11:19
|
"Fatality rates since then have continued to decline"
Rates are not the same as totals. Fewer deaths/1000 is still more overall when there are more motorists...
(And the corollary is that rates go down if the sample goes up)
Edited by J Bonington Jagworth on 25/04/2008 at 13:43
|
|
Agreed, but the total is also going down!
|
"the total is also going down"
I think that depends who you talk to, and you can't expect the camera partnerships to publish figures that would remove their source of income...
|
|
National Statistics, Transport Trends 2007, page 90. There are no other authoritative statistics, SFAIK. Nothing to do with camera partnerships.
|
|
The biggest decline in death rates took place during the 'oil crisis' in 1973/74. You will of course recall that speed limits on non-motorways dropped to 60 on dual carriageways and 50 on other roads.
Death rates dropped like a stone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" This post was bought to you by someone with a completely clean license that's never had any points on it despite having driven about 25k miles PA since passing my test 25 years ago. "
You've just been lucky Spikeyhead, not to have been caught. And your luck will run out eventually with that attitude.
Edited by scribe on 25/04/2008 at 10:19
|
its 70mph for lib dem voters.
get with the times hippie - green is the new red!
|
|
|
I suspect that there's been an element of luck involved but I'm also a very firm believer in making your own luck.
Its a bit like golf, which is a game of luck and the more I practice the luckier I get.
I know I'm tempting fate but how can someone not see an 18" square bright yellow box when they're driving? To be honest, its rare I feel any sympathy for someone done for speeding past one. If you can't see that what other hazards have you missed?
|
The 70mph limit is there because a significant number of 'drivers' are too stupid to be allowed to drive above that speed.
I live not too far away from the 'Haughley bends' on the A14. Too many inadequate drivers were not capable of reading the conditions and were taking the bends too fast - and killing themselves. So, a 50mph limit was put in place. This was not good enough - they still were killing themselves (let Darwin's Law reign, I say). Anyway, the road is now being straightened at an estimated cost (to us sensible folks) of £32M. So, presumably the 70mph limit will be restored but, please, that's enough for these loons.
|
I was reading a road test of a new Aston Martin and the road tester talked of cruising at 120 mph. on a trip up to Huddersfield. It was a DB4 and the year 1961. Most cars struggled to get to 70 mph then. Folk then would not believe that in 40 years beyond 70 mph would be illegal , that 35 would get you a ticket in a 30 zone and smoking inside would be a crime!
Progress eh ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
