Read my post above misty to see why accidents will not increase, thats a simplistic assumption which works on the basis of higher the speed limit = more people die, when stats disprove that notion.

Also its not 'encouraging' speeding, people already exceed 70 anyway. So long as the tolerances for exceeding it are stricter than now to deter people doing 100 odd it should be fine. Its just law recognising reality.

Also nobody is saying you have to drive at 80. Its 70 now and you've just said you drive at 65, so why would a rise to 80 suddenly force you to do 75? It wont 'burn a hole in peoples pocket' as they're not forcing you to go faster and use more fuel. My car is more economical at 80 than it is at pedestrian in town speeds of 10-15 i know that much but all cars have what i call 'peak efficiency' speed. Yours may well be 60-65 but nobodies forcing you to go any faster.

This is a rare glimpse at the Conservative's old fashioned sensible view of believing people have a brain and can make their own choices and are not just mindless drones driven by a constant barrage of laws.

Do we have any numbers on how many of those 6% of deaths which occured on the motorway involved a HGV? The only major issue i can see here is in speed difference, as only cars and motorcycles would be permitted to do 80 (and car derived vans i think, my highway code is a little fuzzy now if anybody wants to correct me) you could have 56mph traffic on the left and 80mph traffic on the right which obviously occurs now anyway so 'whats the problem?' i hear you ask, again we harp back to what will the tolerance be for exceeding it.

Not that you can get up to 90 particularly often anyway.

The Guardian have now altered their page from this afternoon which stated the limit would be introduced tomorrow into a story about the consultation process but this bit caught my eye

Hammond said: "Britain's roads should be the arteries of a healthy economy and cars are a vital lifeline for many." he blamed Labour's "shortsighted and misguided war on the motorist" for penalising drivers.

"This government has already scrapped the M4 bus lane, cut central government funding for money-making speed cameras and announced new measures to crack down on boy racers and reckless drivers while standing up for the decent majority," he said.

And

Greenpeace's senior transport campaigner Emma Gibson said: "The

I think we can cut that one off there. You can probably fill in 90% of it yourselves.

:)

There was a bit earlier along the lines of 'Hammond is looking to show his parties main activists that he is on the side of the motorist after successive Governments sought to discourage driving' or something like that which the Guardian has now cut.

I dont think this rise to 80mph will make any practical difference to anything, and Hammond needs to acknowledge councils and police forces are finding ways to keep speed camera's on but just to hear someone in Government, a minister, actually acknowledging that its really ok to drive is like music after the likes of Prescott.

Edited by jamie745 on 29/09/2011 at 22:08

ERm,

From my recent de-restricted Autobann experience.

Very very few cars driving at more than 130/140kmh, I was surprised at myself in that I found that I "went with the flow" sitting at about 130kmh, it was a far more relaxed experience than attempting to "push on" at 150kmh plus.

Just leave it as it is. Most cops are not interested unles someone is doing at least 80-85 plus. Cars are better than 20 years ago but driver reactions are no better.

The Conservatives published a paper on raising the limit to 80 before the 2005 General Election so its been banded about the party for a while, its not suddenly been thought of. Whats notable is the EU are trying to harmonise traffic law in their bid to halve casualties by 2020 but compared to alot of European nations, in general our laws are less restrictive and we beat our target of a 40% drop in casualties by 2010 which the Government laid down in 1999. Notably despite fast rising traffic levels which were not anticipated.

Of course the economy argument is flawed and 20mph limits are similar to the pedestrian limits in some European countries which incidentally also have a worse road safety record than we do, Holland for starters. We've managed to break records on road safety in a positive way without the vast majority of measures Europe has, so to force their methods onto us when we've already seen they dont work would be a very bad idea.

We already have a higher drink drive limit than most of Europe and indeed the world. As for eye tests, whats notable is in Europe the numberplate eyesight test is around 18 metres, here its 20.5 and theres been rumblings on lowering it to 'be in line with Europe.' Motorway speed limit is really the only thing we're stricter on than the Europeans but our enforcement isnt as strict as theirs so it goes both ways and our road safety record is still much better than theirs.

We often bleat about what we dont like here but we are alot more free with our motoring than alot of Europe. Barring fuel prices, current insurance issues and a low motorway speed limit we're pretty free on what we can do and drive here. Its not that bad really.

Expect tighter enforcement

Nail, hit, head. That concerns me. If they put it up to 80 but with very low tolerance level of exceeding it and police it with average camera's we'll have people going faster but staring at their dashboard. Lane discipline and general driving observation then decreases with the higher level of enforcement, the one thing that nutcase behind 'shared spaces' actually agrees with me on. Well he's dead now but you get the point.

On the whole, my conclusion is, just leave it alone. Its fine as it is. Its the Bus Lanes and 20mph limits in urban areas is what need scrapping.

I'd rather see slower speeds and better flow, lane discipline and sensible following distances than a higher limit with dangerous bunching and all the other nonsense which goes on. If a jam happens, the faster people are going the sooner they'll reach the jam and the sooner it spreads so in those instances it wouldnt help ease congestion or journey times at all.

The consultation will probably come down to 'it'll use more fuel' 'it'll cause more accidents' and police saying 'we've got better things to do' and they'll probably do nothing. If a scaremongering 'fuel crisis' hits they'll be discussing lowering it never mind anything else.

I dont know why were harping on about increasing the speed limit,no one does 70mph now so what difference 80 going to make apart from it being legal,no change otherwise!

But isn't that just like saying, everyone breaks every law these days so what's the point in having any?

Just as a "blanket" 70 mph limit is wrong, a blanket 80 mph one would also be wrong. What is sorely needed is intelligent traffic management and variable speed limits; on my recent trips to Britain I have seen no evidence of this whatsoever. I refer to the increasing or decreasing of speed limits according to traffic flow, time of day, weather conditions etc (motorway speeds instantly drop during rain in France); switching traffic lights on busy urban stretches to flashing amber at night time (Italy, Spain,...) ; converting bus lanes into normal lanes for all traffic outside periods of heavy bus usage (e.g. 6am!) - in Barcelona they manage this with flashing yellow cats' eyes on the lane markings. Similarly, parking restrictions, yes even double yellows, could be "lifted" at certain times by intelligent use of LED panels, stating e.g. "free parking NOW till 8am".

As *most* intelligent drivers will agree that speed which is INAPPROPRIATE FOR CONDITIONS is dangerous (and high speed per se is not), we must accept that conditions change, and therefore technology could and SHOULD be used to adapt to these conditions, rather than blindly going for a "one size fits" all approach, be it speed limits, parking restrictions or whatever.