What should the motorway speed limit be?
- Thread starter dirtysanta
- Start date
EastEnder
Brixton Barnacle
People are fucking morons - whatever the limit is, plenty of people will stick another 20mph on top. Because they're such fantastic drivers, only wusses stick to the limit, etc, etc, blah, blah....
If they increased the limit then I'd like to see them dramatically increase the penalties for exceeding it. Fuck fines & points, if you're caught doing 110, you go straight to jail, do not pass Go. I don't give a flying monkey's tit how good a driver you naively believe yourself to be, accidents at such speeds kill lots of innocent people.
If they increased the limit then I'd like to see them dramatically increase the penalties for exceeding it. Fuck fines & points, if you're caught doing 110, you go straight to jail, do not pass Go. I don't give a flying monkey's tit how good a driver you naively believe yourself to be, accidents at such speeds kill lots of innocent people.
trashpony
Hag
Magneze said:You say you feel comfortable at high speeds - and many, many people do. However, often that's because they've not been a serious situation where they've had to react to a high speed incident. Sadly for many people their first experience is their last ...
I'm not really sure how enforceable it would be to enable anyone who had taken the ADT to be allowed to go faster. It would, however, actually make more sense than a blanket raising of the limit.
I have actually. But I leave a fucking huge gap between me and the car in front - enough room for a couple of petrol tankers. Still doesn't stop wankers filling in the spaces though.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Cars are weird. They are seriously fucking dangerous things. Look at all the training you have to go through to get a pilot's license, 100s of hours in the air, rigorous checklists, meticulous maintenance. Granted, an air accident is much more likely to be fatal, but the attitude of so many drivers in comparison apalls me. The way society treats cars is way out of kilter with their actual danger.
Imagine you're in control of a tonne of metal moving at 90mph. That's 1000kg, 40m/s. The Kinetic Energy of such a thing is 800,000 joules (KE = 0.5 x m x v^2). Or around 1kg of TNT. You wouldn't handle 1kg of TNT without some serious training and zealous caution now would you?
Imagine you're in control of a tonne of metal moving at 90mph. That's 1000kg, 40m/s. The Kinetic Energy of such a thing is 800,000 joules (KE = 0.5 x m x v^2). Or around 1kg of TNT. You wouldn't handle 1kg of TNT without some serious training and zealous caution now would you?
dirtysanta
Original Casual
But driving very fast is great fun.
EastEnder
Brixton Barnacle
Doesn't work very well in Ireland....trashpony said:
It is more involved over there, the end result is simply that loads more people drive around without a licence.
The problem is that driving is regarded as a god given right, with the test, licence, etc, seen as merely minor impediments to be overcome as quickly as possible or just plain ignored.
And when an unqualified/inexperienced/inattentive/etc driver kills a pedestrian, it's never their fault, it was just an accident, they didn't mean to kill anyone.....
So the only vehicles using a motorway are cars ?
Try using the M1 - north of the M6. The topography is such that laden articulated lorries are slowed to 40 mph on a number of sections whilst unladen ones are capable of greater speeds and will therefore overtake.
Your so-called three lanes is converted to one.
If you think an APPROACH speed differential of 50-60 mph is safe I think you need retraining.
I shall have to choose your option for anti car anti speed cunt, then.
ETA 43% for 100mph and above ? Let me know when you are on the road so I can stay at home to avoid the accidents.......
Try using the M1 - north of the M6. The topography is such that laden articulated lorries are slowed to 40 mph on a number of sections whilst unladen ones are capable of greater speeds and will therefore overtake.
Your so-called three lanes is converted to one.
If you think an APPROACH speed differential of 50-60 mph is safe I think you need retraining.
I shall have to choose your option for anti car anti speed cunt, then.
ETA 43% for 100mph and above ? Let me know when you are on the road so I can stay at home to avoid the accidents.......
The current speed limit is 70 MPH. You lot all admit to driving at 90 -100 MPH. If the limit was raised to 100 MPH, would you all be driving at 120+MPH?
Think I would.
I was driving a hire car here (in Spain) a few months ago. A small Dihatsu or, something. Keeping up with all the other cars felt a bit hairy at times. I looked to see how fast I was going - 140 KMH. And, cars were still zooming past me.
I'd like to see a variable speed limit. However, as much as I'd like to think we're all responsible enough to adjust out speed according to conditions and car capabillity, I'll be the first to admit I sometimes take chances.
If a multidrop delivery driver knows they will get home earlier if they're doing 120+ MPH then they'll drive at that speed regardless. (Some of them).
I only looked in here to talk about Top Trumps. Can you still get the packs featuring ordinary cars against super cars? Like when an Allegro could beat a Ferrari on MPG.
Think I would.
I was driving a hire car here (in Spain) a few months ago. A small Dihatsu or, something. Keeping up with all the other cars felt a bit hairy at times. I looked to see how fast I was going - 140 KMH. And, cars were still zooming past me.
I'd like to see a variable speed limit. However, as much as I'd like to think we're all responsible enough to adjust out speed according to conditions and car capabillity, I'll be the first to admit I sometimes take chances.
If a multidrop delivery driver knows they will get home earlier if they're doing 120+ MPH then they'll drive at that speed regardless. (Some of them).
I only looked in here to talk about Top Trumps. Can you still get the packs featuring ordinary cars against super cars? Like when an Allegro could beat a Ferrari on MPG.
lots more training
anyone who thinks they're a good driver needs to come and take the ambulance driving course (or the police or fire one I guess). Pass or fail, you'll have a much better idea of hazards out there. Then come and have a close look at what happens when someone gets it wrong. Then see if you still want to share the road with all the incompetent, inattentive people on it.
anyone who thinks they're a good driver needs to come and take the ambulance driving course (or the police or fire one I guess). Pass or fail, you'll have a much better idea of hazards out there. Then come and have a close look at what happens when someone gets it wrong. Then see if you still want to share the road with all the incompetent, inattentive people on it.
Magneze said:
Its safe to "speed" when there are no hazards about..... The thought that people are promoting the message "if you stick to the speed limit you will be safe" makes my blood run cold. However, it will soon congeal as it runs through the radiator grill of the fool who listened to them....
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
And how do you know there are no hazards about? Limits are set for a reason. Sometimes it's safer to go under them (eg, only do 15 or less on narrow residential streets) - but there is no logic in existence that says it's safer to go over them.
What exactly is it that's so earth-shatteringly important that you must get there 5 minutes early at the expense of your own (and other's) safety? This irks me with cycling as well.
What exactly is it that's so earth-shatteringly important that you must get there 5 minutes early at the expense of your own (and other's) safety? This irks me with cycling as well.
Magneze said:Hazards appear pretty quickly at speed. No-one is saying "if you stick to the speed limit you will be safe".
If you're going so fast that the hazards appear to quick for you to re-act to their presence then you are _still_ going too fast.
Your speed is limited not only by what you can see, but also what you can't, what you have been notified about, and what unknowns may potentially appear. All of which vary according to the road, what bit of the road is on, what time of the day, the weather, what vehicle you are using, and what other road users are around or may be expected to be around. Or
"Speed kills"
I think I prefer the first one. At least it requires some kind of awareness of other road users.
Andy
I voted variable.
The few accidents I've been involved in have been caused by someone doing something stupid, fortunately at low speeds, although I've come close at high speeds when someone has changed lane without checking their mirrors, etc.
The few tickets I've had have been for doing C.85mph in completely safe conditions (dry, low traffic levels, good car with good tyres, etc.) which achieves nothing other than revenue and in no way led to me moderating my dirving (other than in areas where I now know camera vans hang around).
Simplistic responses to complex issues suit simple people.
The few accidents I've been involved in have been caused by someone doing something stupid, fortunately at low speeds, although I've come close at high speeds when someone has changed lane without checking their mirrors, etc.
The few tickets I've had have been for doing C.85mph in completely safe conditions (dry, low traffic levels, good car with good tyres, etc.) which achieves nothing other than revenue and in no way led to me moderating my dirving (other than in areas where I now know camera vans hang around).
Simplistic responses to complex issues suit simple people.
magneze
🎧
Yes. So, what's your point?axomoxia said:If you're going so fast that the hazards appear to quick for you to re-act to their presence then you are _still_ going too fast.
I don't think anyone is arguing against what you've said there.Variable speed limit sounds attractive ... but would be impossible if based on subjective things like visibility and whether it's raining or not. Could only work with signage and that would be massively expensive in installation and running accurately.
Would have voted for a straight 100mph if it were there, but it wasn't, so went for 90mph.
Should be accompanied by a requirement for motorway training for all drivers (even current licence holders) before being able to use the motorways. And more enforcement of safe driving (lane discipline, lane changing technique, leaving distance between vehicles, etc.).
Would have voted for a straight 100mph if it were there, but it wasn't, so went for 90mph.
Should be accompanied by a requirement for motorway training for all drivers (even current licence holders) before being able to use the motorways. And more enforcement of safe driving (lane discipline, lane changing technique, leaving distance between vehicles, etc.).
detective-boy said:
I know what you're saying but there's already the system that's used when there's fog, lane restriction or an accident up ahead which could be enforced more stringently and controlled from the main hubs. Camera coverage is pretty ubiquitous now as well.
I think one of the key issues is that police patrols (that I see so rarely now but were everywhere in the 80s), and humans looking at cameras, can make well-evaluated decisions whereas speed traps are a blunt edged instrument.
dirtysanta
Original Casual
detective-boy said:
nail. head.
Thats the problem. No lane discipline. Got to germany, on the otherhand, the lane discipline is very good.
pembrokestephen
New Member
I'm not all that sure that over 100mph, even accounting for the state of modern cars, is safe.
The one thing that hasn't really changed at all in road safety is, to coin a cheesy phrase, the nut behind the wheel: for all that braking distances and crash resistance have improved hugely, human reaction times won't have, nor will the all-too-human tendencies to drive too closely to the car in front, drive at inappropriate speeds for the circumstances, or our generally very poor perception of risk (either overestimating or underestimating risk). So I'd expect to see 100mph running being restricted to only the most ideal roads, under the most ideal conditions, only for modern cars in an ideal state of repair, and driven by drivers who are at peak capability, by virtue of skill, experience, training, and not having been up too late the night before/be remonstrating with a back seat full of kids/trying to find out which junction to take to get onto the M42. By my rough calculations, that probably leaves about 3 cars in the UK
If a variable speed limit system were to work, it'd have to be very closely tied to local weather and traffic conditions, in order that we didn't end up with a situation where an inappropriately high speed limit then led to accidents - people will always tend to see limits as "the speed I can drive at", rather than "the maximum possible speed it could be safe to drive at under ideal circumstances".
I think we're already running up against this issue with the current regime - speed limit signs seem to be proliferating everywhere, with drivers' speeds being micromanaged in 10mph increments (see my post elsewhere), and enforced without any discretion or tolerance. It's asking too much of any motorist to expect them to be doing the complex task of navigating a vehicle through traffic, figuring out routes, etc., and having to slavishly maintain their speed to some kind of +/- 5mph target.
The one thing that hasn't really changed at all in road safety is, to coin a cheesy phrase, the nut behind the wheel: for all that braking distances and crash resistance have improved hugely, human reaction times won't have, nor will the all-too-human tendencies to drive too closely to the car in front, drive at inappropriate speeds for the circumstances, or our generally very poor perception of risk (either overestimating or underestimating risk). So I'd expect to see 100mph running being restricted to only the most ideal roads, under the most ideal conditions, only for modern cars in an ideal state of repair, and driven by drivers who are at peak capability, by virtue of skill, experience, training, and not having been up too late the night before/be remonstrating with a back seat full of kids/trying to find out which junction to take to get onto the M42. By my rough calculations, that probably leaves about 3 cars in the UK
If a variable speed limit system were to work, it'd have to be very closely tied to local weather and traffic conditions, in order that we didn't end up with a situation where an inappropriately high speed limit then led to accidents - people will always tend to see limits as "the speed I can drive at", rather than "the maximum possible speed it could be safe to drive at under ideal circumstances".
I think we're already running up against this issue with the current regime - speed limit signs seem to be proliferating everywhere, with drivers' speeds being micromanaged in 10mph increments (see my post elsewhere), and enforced without any discretion or tolerance. It's asking too much of any motorist to expect them to be doing the complex task of navigating a vehicle through traffic, figuring out routes, etc., and having to slavishly maintain their speed to some kind of +/- 5mph target.
pembrokestephen
New Member
AFAIK, Germany's busily introducing speed restrictions onto most of its Autobahnen.beesonthewhatnow said:
pembrokestephen
New Member
It is. It's driving without due care and attention.trashpony said:I agree with Santa, Major Tom and Crispy. I'd also like to see variable speed limits in operation according to weather conditions like in France - the number of accidents I've seen because people haven't adjusted their speed in rain/poor visibility is ridiculous.
Oh and while we're at it, can we make it an offence to sit in the middle lane when there's fuck all in the slow lane? Thanks awfully
However, what I suspect you're asking for is something different: you want the offence to actually be prosecuted. I think you're absolutely right, except that with the steady replacement of traffic police with Highways Agency bods and speed cameras, the only thing that is ever likely to get prosecuted on a motorway now is speeding (oh, and the retrospective stuff they do now after a particularly nasty accident, by which time it's a bit late
).pembrokestephen
New Member
Given the tendency of safety camera partnerships to play fast and loose with statistics, I'd take the claims of that organisation with a fairly large pinch of salt. I don't doubt that speed is a factor in some accidents, but I take great issue with the almost total focus solely on speed in the road safety debate.Loki said:
pembrokestephen
New Member
Except in Wales. Here, they routinely prosecute at <90mph. I haven't found out exactly how far below 90, and I don't intend to, because my licence won't stand it...Roadkill said:
EastEnder
Brixton Barnacle
True, but equally there are far, far too many cars on the road to have them all appropriately monitored by police cars or people looking at surveillance footage.ICB said:
Without the fear of being zapped by speed cameras, lots of people would drive faster. Obviously all urbanites are driving virtuosos who have no need of nannying by such means, but there are countless really bad drivers out there who'd never slow down, no matter how dangerous the road, without the threat of being snapped.
I look forward to the day when all cars have black boxes & video cameras, where every action is recorded along with environmental conditions, surrounding traffic, etc. I wonder how many of the "good" drivers who had accidents would find the evidence didn't quite support their assertions of competency.
Similar threads
