Motorway Speed Limits - Out of date yet?

[MikeMcc]

Sorry but all this 10% + whatever formula stuff is bollocks. You can and will be done for doing 35mph in a 30mph zone.

And quite rightly, 30mph zones exist for good reason. From what I understand the consideration on stopping, in terms of safety is the skidding distances rather than the stopping distance (which is quite arbitrary given the variations in car design, road surface and conditions).

That said, I do speed on motorways and open roads, as does the majority of other road users. I think that most motorways can easily be used at 80 to 85 mph, provided all drivers act in an otherwise reasonable manner. Unfortunately there are a hell of a lot of idiots out there who tail gate, pull across with no warning or don't take note of the driving conditions.

 

[Phototropic]

Sorry but all this 10% + whatever formula stuff is bollocks. You can and will be done for doing 35mph in a 30mph zone.

We are tlaking motorways though surely where it is far more acceptable to go above the speed limit. I don't think anyone is advocating driving like a nutter through residental areas.

 

[kained&able]

we all are, we drive and are evil and hit pedetrains on purpose


dave

 

[KeyboardJockey]

New cars don't have to be sold with ABS. I'm not even sure that you have to have air bags, although I may be wrong.

Some people who have older cars have them as enthusiasts, do limited miles and look after them better than the person who buys a Ford Fiesta and does nothing to it for the three-year MOT-free period apart from topping the petrol up. Seen brake pads perish and sills rust through quicker than that.
.

Thats a very good point I spend at least 24 hours per month maintaining Trundle and I know almost every squeek and rattle etc. There are lot of new car drivers who trust the technology far too much and have lost connection with their vehicle and most of them cannot even find the dipstick.

 

[friedaweed]

we all are, we drive and are evil and hit pedetrains on purpose


dave

Aye it's getting in the way of a car that kills not speed

runs to the hills

I don't like driving anymore too many knobs.

 

[Jangla]

Yup totally agree but that figure came from a police driving instructor when i did my advanced driving for the fire brigade way back when. His point being how likely you were to be pulled by traffic if you were just over the limit on the motorway.
I'm pretty sure the limit is exactly what it says it is for most cossers

Exactly - "way back when" is before automated cameras with fixed points and fines for all offenses.

 

[friedaweed]

Exactly - "way back when" is before automated cameras with fixed points and fines for all offenses.

Well not that way back when but I agree high tech is more prevalent now. I'm thinking of about 10 years ago. I've still heard that phase 10%+2 being used and if he weren’t on duty I’d ask the little bro if they still mention it in blues and twos and advanced training.

That was my point though really it’s a phrase that came directly from the police training establishments not one, which originated from the general population.
In reality its all tosh as you say as nowadays its a crafty little very accurate gadget that nabs you in most cases but not all.
As pointed out above on motorways, nailing you for going over by a manned vehicle does seem to be down to the discretion of the copper behind the wheel which is why I still wonder if they use this to ensure their 'discretion' is reasonably consistent. If you get what I mean.

I'd never advocate sticking to that formula but point being that that was a formula that originated with the people doing the nailing not those wishing to bend the limit.

 

[Griff]

I used to be in favour of higher speed limits on motorways, but to be honest I avoid M roads like the plague these days as it's not the speed but the idiotic use of lanes that really annoys me. People who constantly sit in the middle or outer lanes.

Coming back from Harrogate the other week on the clear A1, the lane discipline was great, didn't see any tailgating the roads weren't a dull procession of cars, the scenery was nicer and the average speed of most cars seemed between 85-90 mph.

Why can't people drive like that on motorways, just why does an M road make them drive like pricks?

Driving on unrestricted parts of the German Autobahn is the best though, it's safe, you need your wits about you, the lane discipline is superb and it's fast.

More concern should be about people doing 30mph around schools, where funnily enough you don't get speed cameras.

Sorry if this a bit of a 'bump', went home early and missed this one.

 

[T & P]

I also like the way the would-be speeders think it's safe for them to go at whatever speed they recommend for themselves. Now, if I was to pick somebody who was best placed to advise on what was safe, would I go for the opinion of one of this lot? Would you? Would anybody but themselves?

Actually you might find that most people don't speed beyond the point they seem safe. And you might find that most of them are judging it right.

Driving at 85, even 90 miles per hour in the right conditions on a motorway is safe. There is no question about it.

Sometimes however driving even at 70 can be unsafe (say on a wet & windy day while going through a bend) and the very same people who would otherwise drive at 85 mph will happily drive at 65 or less.

So yes, most drivers are actually better judges of what constitute a safe speed than the authorities. Speed limits are a political issue and the existing limits do not reflect the optimum and safest speed required. Or don't you find it an amazing coincidence that the limits, the speeds beyond which driving becomes unsafe, are all nice round numbers? 70, 60, 50, 40, 30? Really? Why not 76, 58, 42, 27?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Actually you might find that most people don't speed beyond the point they seem safe. And you might find that most of them are judging it right.

Driving at 85, even 90 miles per hour in the right conditions on a motorway is safe. There is no question about it.

Sometimes however driving even at 70 can be unsafe (say on a wet & windy day while going through a bend) and the very same people who would otherwise drive at 85 mph will happily drive at 65 or less.

So yes, most drivers are actually better judges of what constitute a safe speed than the authorities. Speed limits are a political issue and the existing limits do not reflect the optimum and safest speed required. Or don't you find it an amazing coincidence that the limits, the speeds beyond which driving becomes unsafe, are all nice round numbers? 70, 60, 50, 40, 30? Really? Why not 76, 58, 42, 27?

Because, very obviously, they're easier to remember. Is that the standard of your argument?

Who should I believe about the dangers of speeding? Road safety organisations, or selfish would-be speeders?

 

[the B]

I'd still go with having everyone driving modded F1 cars - safe in speeds of collison at 200mph, brakes so good you'll drive at over 100mph and slow down faster and in shorter distance than a road car from 30 odd mph... and of course, aerodynamic effects preventing the car behind from getting too close anyway!

 

[kained&able]

just not much clearence getting over spped bumps and humped bridges!


dave

 

[Jangla]

And quite rightly, 30mph zones exist for good reason. From what I understand the consideration on stopping, in terms of safety is the skidding distances rather than the stopping distance (which is quite arbitrary given the variations in car design, road surface and conditions).

Nope - skidding distances vary with car type, weight, tyre type, tyre wear, road conditions, number of occupants, etc etc etc.

An emergency stop is not one where you slam on the anchors and leave half your tyres on the road surface - it should be a rapid, controlled stop with minimal skidding.

 

[Jangla]

I'd still go with having everyone driving modded F1 cars - safe in speeds of collison at 200mph, brakes so good you'll drive at over 100mph and slow down faster and in shorter distance than a road car from 30 odd mph... and of course, aerodynamic effects preventing the car behind from getting too close anyway!

Only trouble is there aren't enough corners on our roads to keep the brakes at operating temperature

 

[T & P]

Because, very obviously, they're easier to remember. Is that the standard of your argument?

So if they have been rounded up so they're easier to remember, they cannot possibly be the optimum limit can they? Either they've been rounded down, and therefore those who speed a few miles over that limit are right to do so, or they've been rounded up and we're all risking our lives driving at unsafe speeds.

Who should I believe about the dangers of speeding? Road safety organisations, or selfish would-be speeders?

Are you suggesting road safety organisations are completely impartial in their recommendations and don't have an axe to grind?

 

[Poi E]

Something that does make me nervous is all the people around London with very obvious under-inflated tyres on their vehicles. They are a menace to other road users for that fact alone, regardless of how new and shiney their cars are and how fast they drive.

 

[the B]

just not much clearence getting over spped bumps and humped bridges!


dave

I did say modded

 

[Donna Ferentes]

So if they have been rounded up so they're easier to remember, they cannot possibly be the optimum limit can they? Either they've been rounded down, and therefore those who speed a few miles over that limit are right to do so, or they've been rounded up and we're all risking our lives driving at unsafe speeds

This is a fatuous point. You cannot absolutely judge the optimum so the law does so in a simple and straightforward manner, providing an easy-to-remember limit. The alternative is for people to be allowed to make up their own minds or for the limit to alter by the weather conditions, which would be wholly impractical.

You know very well that it's not the case that (say) 62 is "safe" but 65 is "unsafe". 65 is less safe than 62 which is less safe than 59. Speed limits are compromises between the needs of the public for safety and the convenience of travellers in getting from A to B. Of which, two obvious points: first, the the former is by far the more important of the two, second, the latter is about the god of society as a whole and not about the desire of people to go faster because they like it.

Are you suggesting road safety organisations are completely impartial in their recommendations and don't have an axe to grind?

A great deal more impartial than selfish would-be speeders, and a great deal more socially responsible.

 

[the B]

Only trouble is there aren't enough corners on our roads to keep the brakes at operating temperature

The brakes are still good even at lowish temperatures. Besides, you can compensate by forcing them all onto nice soft compound tyres.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

The brakes are still good even at lowish temperatures. Besides, you can compensate by forcing them all onto nice soft compound tyres.

Off topic I've just changed over from Crossplys to Radials and I'm amazed at the improvment in the ride quality- you'd hardly know that I was on leaf springs.

 

[T & P]

A great deal more impartial than selfish would-be speeders, and a great deal more socially responsible.

I have to say I beg to differ. If they were impartial they would admit that doing 80 mph on a motorway if acceptably safe.

Of course there is always going to be an element of risk in driving. And of course there has to be a compromise between safety and convenience/reason. What I (and most drivers) would argue is that the 70mph limit on the motorways is simply too low and outdated. I have no problem with other limits, such as 30 mph on built up areas, and in fact would support lowering it to 20 in some.

If we were to reduce the national speed limit to, say, 45 mph there would still be accidents. Some of them would still be down to speed. And you can bet your bottom dollar some safety campaigners would still claim that speeding kills and that therefore the speed limit should be lowered further. I fear that most safety campaigners who object to raising the speed limits on the motorway are simply doing so out of principle and profound dislike for cars, not because they genuinely believe legally raising the limit to 80 mph (which I assure you a majority of drivers already drive at in perfect safety) is going to produce an avalanche of accidents.

Given that the 70mph limit was based on the performance and safety of cars which were infinitely worse than what can be found on the roads today, to suggest that nothing has changed and that driving faster than 70mph is still dangerous comes across as totally absurd.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Given that the 70mph limit was based on the performance and safety of cars which were infinitely worse than what can be found on the roads today, to suggest that nothing has changed and that driving faster than 70mph is still dangerous comes across as totally absurd.

Well, it doesn't of course. What mostly comes across is that people who want to go fast in their cars think their desire to do so is more important than the safety of other people.

It's also absurd to say that the setting of a 70 mph speed limit is to do with the performance of a car (funny how would-be speeders think "performance" is the main thing). It's to do with the speed at which extremely large and lethal objects travel and the difficulties other people will have in getting out of the way if something goes wrong at that velocity. If you lose control of your vehicle - which in itself is more likely to happen at higher speed limits - then the "performance" of the car is barely an issue anyway. Do you thik most accidents happen when people are in control of their vehicles?

I should also point out that the number of cars on the road is far higher than it was when the speed limit was introduced and therefore the potential for accidents far greater. If anything this is an argument for reducing speed limits rather than icnreasing them.

What comes over, again and again, is the selfishness of people who want to drive faster. They really think they're being picked on by an anti-car lobby because they don't get to do what they want and they're quite prepared to use the most specious arguments in support of their case. Well, let them stamp their little feet all they want, provided they don't stamp them on the accelerator.

 

[MikeMcc]

Nope - skidding distances vary with car type, weight, tyre type, tyre wear, road conditions, number of occupants, etc etc etc.

An emergency stop is not one where you slam on the anchors and leave half your tyres on the road surface - it should be a rapid, controlled stop with minimal skidding.

I agree about what you say wrt the emergency stop, though I think that most people will panic and skid when presented with a real emergency, rather than the ideal situations experienced on a driving test. After all, you're more likely to have a problem on a bend with no warning, rather than a straight with a few seconds of warning.

If you give me a few days, I can get some figures on skid distances from my old man (he's an ex-Met traffic cop, who's done a shed load of accident investigations). Apparently, given the same vehicle and conditions, the skid distance increases dramatically with speed.

 

[Clearspring]

Motorway speed limits don't apply for me as my top speed on the motorway is 45mph. I never ever going to the middle or the fast lane.

45? Are you a large vehicle?

 

[Griff]

It's also absurd to say that the setting of a 70 mph speed limit is to do with the performance of a car (funny how would-be speeders think "performance" is the main thing)

I'd say in this context 'performance' means more than just speed: braking, handling, etc.

The stopping distances of modern cars are far better than say a MkI Cortina from 1964 when the speed was set.

 

[the B]

Off topic I've just changed over from Crossplys to Radials and I'm amazed at the improvment in the ride quality- you'd hardly know that I was on leaf springs.

On a lot of cars, tyres are actually as or far more important than any other component...

 

[MikeMcc]

One of the things I find most irritiating is that the vast income from road usage isn't plowed back into adequate maintenance. There are many roads where it is foolish to travel at the posted speed limit because of subsidence, pot-holes, poor cambers or inadequate drainage. I read of one council (my apologies, I can't remember where) that was doing so deliberately so that it would limit vehicle speeds. Frankly I would have thought that this would leave them open to corporate manslaughter charges (as in those brought against the Railtrack bosses - what happened to that case in the end?). Not to mention the risks to patients carried in ambulances (one of the arguements against speed bumps) or to those with injuries being transported in cars. This was the case with my wife a few months ago, she hated going to the Chiropractors, not because of the treatment, but because of the journey to and from it!

 

[the B]

I'd say in this context 'performance' means more than just speed: braking, handling, etc.

The stopping distances of modern cars are far better than say a MkI Cortina from 1964 when the speed was set.

Exactly why everyone should be sat in modded F1 cars The tyres, brakes and aero of the things would make it very different!

 

[laptop]

To see the speed limit as solely being about stopping distance illustrates a serious problem with road safety - drivers seeing things only from their own point of view. It's also about how hard other vehicles hit you - let's assume for the sake of getting the point across that it's always the other driver's fault, and accept there are nutters out there. How hard they hit you rises as the square of the closing speed (twice as hard at 100 as at 70).

As a thought experiment, I'll support no speed limit at night if drivers accept my tradeoff.

It's this: you agree to be woken by the traffic police at random hours of the night - on a lottery basis - and taken off to scoop up some boy racer and his passengers and the people he's killed in other cars. With a teaspoon.

 

[T & P]

Well, it doesn't of course. What mostly comes across is that people who want to go fast in their cars think their desire to do so is more important than the safety of other people.

It's also absurd to say that the setting of a 70 mph speed limit is to do with the performance of a car (funny how would-be speeders think "performance" is the main thing). It's to do with the speed at which extremely large and lethal objects travel and the difficulties other people will have in getting out of the way if something goes wrong at that velocity. If you lose control of your vehicle - which in itself is more likely to happen at higher speed limits - then the "performance" of the car is barely an issue anyway. Do you thik most accidents happen when people are in control of their vehicles?

I should also point out that the number of cars on the road is far higher than it was when the speed limit was introduced and therefore the potential for accidents far greater. If anything this is an argument for reducing speed limits rather than icnreasing them.

What comes over, again and again, is the selfishness of people who want to drive faster. They really think they're being picked on by an anti-car lobby because they don't get to do what they want and they're quite prepared to use the most specious arguments in support of their case. Well, let them stamp their little feet all they want, provided they don't stamp them on the accelerator.

re the performance bit I was actually referring to braking and safety features- which I hope you'll agree have improved immensely over the last 4 decades.

Fair point about more cars in the road today than before. So why not have variable speed limits to reflect this? The M25 already does this by the means of electronic signs. So as well as reducing the speed to 60mph or less when traffic is heavier there is an argument for increasing it to 80 mph when the road is clear and the conditions are right.

And believe it or not, I (and I suspect many more) believe the limit should be raised to 80 mph because it's the right thing, not because I want to do as I wish. If I did, I would break the speed limit anywhere, any time, ignore signs, etc- which I don't. Fair is fair and it should cut both ways. It is possible that drivers might want the limit on motorways increased to 80mph because it is reasonable and safe, instead of because they're selfish spoilt brats. Just as it is possible that safety campaigners are being objective and simply have the wellbeing of all of us in mind, instead of being bitter individuals who can't drive and hate cars and drivers with a passion