What should the motorway speed limit be?

[pembrokestephen]

Hazards appear pretty quickly at speed. No-one is saying "if you stick to the speed limit you will be safe".

The corollary of the safety camera partnerships' message, which is almost invariably TOTALLY focused on speed is exactly what you quote, though. It's stupid that people think like that, but then it's even more stupid for organisations whose staff are professionals, paid to do something about road safety to make statements which they know are going to be so easily misinterpreted.

The big problem, in my view, is that we have handed over enforcement of just one part of the road safety equation to separate organisations, which means that their sole interest is to catch people speeding. They don't care about dangerous driving, hesitancy, aggression or faulty vehicles - those things don't pull in the £60 fixed penalties. And, as more and more resources are diverted away from proper policing of the roads to these groups, so the balance is shifted further and further away from a holistic approach to road safety towards one where speed is disproportionately prosecuted.

The message that sends is simple: you won't get nicked if you don't break the limit. All the other parts of the road safety message are lost, and given the way most people perceive risk, that means they're not thinking about all the other ways they can die on the roads all the time they're just peering into the middle distance to see if they can see a camera or a van, and slamming on the anchors when they do. And mateyboy who's driving up their backside as they do it (no cameras to detect that offence) slams into them, hallelujah, the accident statistics just went up a bit more.

It's ridiculous.

 

[magneze]

That the road "safety" industry fails to promote safe driving?

Are you on the right thread?

 

[pembrokestephen]

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.).

Definitely. I wonder what difference to road safety (and traffic flow) could be achieved if the driving-too-close thing were enforced. Seems to me that that could be very reasonably done with video evidence and speed camera technology (and a reasonable amount of discretion in the prosecution - no point nicking someone for driving-too-close just because some numpty pulled into the gap he was leaving and he hasn't had time to drop back yet)...

I also think that a brave government might consider a 10-year plan to substantially tighten up the driving test, and enforce it retrospectively by making it a requirement that any motorist convicted of an offence of $foo severity be made to resit their test, so that we end up with a) less vehicles on the road, and b) much better drivers. Things like the hazard perception test and written theory are a start, but they don't go nearly far enough, in my view.

*sits here looking cocky, because I started training for the IAM test, and wasn't doing too badly, thanks all the same *

 

[Pingu]

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.).

i agree with the above.

there is some very bad driving on mways atm.

was comming up M5 yesterday and the number of people who zoomed across 2 lanes when the lane they were in slowed down a bit was amazing.

 

[ICB]

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.

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.

Yep you couldn't monitor them all but more patrols and some monitoring rather than a blanket approach would be a good start.

I'm not so sure lots of people would drive faster I just think there'd be less dangerous last moment braking when encountering an unfamiliar speed camera. Cameras and tickets haven't slowed me down, age and experience have.

I don't look forward to that day at all (or univeral GPS which may not be far off) and would rather just set to automatic and put my feet up if it came to that sort of thing. It might be acceptable if the same conditions as above were applied, ie. some judgement rather than a blanket approach, but that's not going to happen.

I think it's an outrage that people are routinely fined for very low risk speeding in our area and yet the council won't change the limit through our sleepy village packed with young kids from 60 to 30, or better yet 20.

 

[EastEnder]

Yep you couldn't monitor them all but more patrols and some monitoring rather than a blanket approach would be a good start.

I'm not so sure lots of people would drive faster I just think there'd be less dangerous last moment braking when encountering an unfamiliar speed camera. Cameras and tickets haven't slowed me down, age and experience have.

I don't look forward to that day at all (or univeral GPS which may not be far off) and would rather just set to automatic and put my feet up if it came to that sort of thing. It might be acceptable if the same conditions as above were applied, ie. some judgement rather than a blanket approach, but that's not going to happen.

I think it's an outrage that people are routinely fined for very low risk speeding in our area and yet the council won't change the limit through our sleepy village packed with young kids from 60 to 30, or better yet 20.

Unfortunately, some people will always drive like inconsiderate cretins. There is no catch all approach that will stop them. Which is exactly why I would very much like to see as much in-car monitoring of driving as possible.

Many people will see this as a terrible infringement of their civil liberties, but quite frankly I couldn't care less. For every driver who is safe & considerate, there's loads who aren't. If the good ones have to suffer due to the actions of the bad ones, so be it. It would make the roads safer for everyone.

And if the ultimate end result, decades down the line, is that driving becomes so draconian that people lose all enthusiasm and start buying cars that drive themselves - is that such a bad thing? Whether an individual is a good driver or not, the one inescapable fact is that the biggest danger of driving is the person behind the wheel. Cars do not crash themselves. If we can make planes that are so clever they can land themselves, hopefully the day will come when we can make cars that will safely drive themselves.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Unfortunately, some people will always drive like inconsiderate cretins. There is no catch all approach that will stop them. Which is exactly why I would very much like to see as much in-car monitoring of driving as possible.

Many people will see this as a terrible infringement of their civil liberties, but quite frankly I couldn't care less. For every driver who is safe & considerate, there's loads who aren't. If the good ones have to suffer due to the actions of the bad ones, so be it. It would make the roads safer for everyone.

Provided that in-car monitoring were used for sensible purposes (like after-the-fact analysis of accidents, in insurance claims, etc), I can't see any problem with it. But with the level of faith I hold in our government, I couldn't possibly trust that they wouldn't use the ability to gather data on people's movements, even after the fact, for all kinds of other purposes, I think I'd fight tooth and nail to stop something like that being put in my car, even if - in principle - I think it would be a very good idea from a road safety point of view. Especially if it came with a little dashboard lamp that flashed occasionally to remind the driver that his every move was being recorded

And if the ultimate end result, decades down the line, is that driving becomes so draconian that people lose all enthusiasm and start buying cars that drive themselves - is that such a bad thing? Whether an individual is a good driver or not, the one inescapable fact is that the biggest danger of driving is the person behind the wheel. Cars do not crash themselves. If we can make planes that are so clever they can land themselves, hopefully the day will come when we can make cars that will safely drive themselves.

If that was all that happened, that'd be great. But, as with the "black box" idea, I would be hesitant about allowing the powers that be to have total recall of my movements.

 

[Cobbles]

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.

So who's going to pay for all this gee-whizzery?

Older cars with less robust electrical systems won't be able to support a load of extra tat.

Are you planning that all vehicles entering the country should be temporarily fitted with this invasion of privacy enhancing stuff?

Let's operate on the planet reality.....

 

[Cobbles]

Unfortunately, some people will always drive like inconsiderate cretins. There is no catch all approach that will stop them. Which is exactly why I would very much like to see as much in-car monitoring of driving as possible.

Alternatively, get the Police out of their revenue administration centres and back onto the roads to enforce the Law.

 

[ICB]

It's the issue pembsteve raises that most concerns me, about this and about ID cards, etc. The more I work with the police and politicians the less confidence I have in them being competent or doing the right thing.

 

[EastEnder]

So who's going to pay for all this gee-whizzery?

Older cars with less robust electrical systems won't be able to support a load of extra tat.

Are you planning that all vehicles entering the country should be temporarily fitted with this invasion of privacy enhancing stuff?

Let's operate on the planet reality.....

Down on planet reality.......

It would hardly happen overnight, it would take many years. Obviously the only viable way would be legislation forcing car manufacturers to factory fit the equipment.

And don't be so naive - it will happen. Probably not for a long time, but it's inevitable. If you buy a modern car, it already has a lot of monitoring electronics built into it. More and more top end luxury cars are being sold with inbuilt cameras, radars, etc. It's inexorable.

20 or 30 years from now, most of the cars on the road will have the kind of sensors and monitoring systems only found in aeroplanes today.

 

[EastEnder]

Alternatively, get the Police out of their revenue administration centres and back onto the roads to enforce the Law.

Absolutely. I'd much rather see the limited police resources deployed to deal with bad drivers than frittered away catching rapists or tackling terrorism......

 

[Pingu]

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...

84...

apparantly...

 

[pembrokestephen]

84...

apparantly...

Ah.

It has occurred to me more than once that a handful of caltrops thrown from the window of a passing (but not speeding) car whenever one of these vans is spotted would be a satisfying gesture...

Other talivan-bashing fantasies I have enjoyed have been:-

• Sneaking up to one and shovelling sugar into the fuel tank;
• Banging a spud over the exhaust pipe;
• Passing one at a "good" speed and having my passenger deploy a brick out of the window at a suitable point;
• Doing same with something incendiary or explosive;
• Mounting big fuck-off laser in front grille and giving them a few hundred watts of it;
• Caltrops;
• Owning a very hefty vehicle with extra I-girders welded on as bumpers, and "accidentally" clipping some of the more egregiously parked ones.
• Meeting a "Speed Reduction Officer" (no, really, that's what they're called!) at a party/event and arranging for him/her/it to be pointedly ostracised by everyone else there.

Naturally, these are merely fantasies, and I'd never dream of actually inflicting this sort of criminal damage on these vehicles, or on the bottom-feeding lowlifes who inhabit them, even though I have been sorely tempted.

I am going to start pulling over and photographing some of the more stupidly parked ones. Amusing as it might be, though, I suspect that they'd probably end up bleating about "harassment", and calling the police, who would, I have no doubt, be far more interested in me than (say) the talivan stuck on a corner obscuring the view around it.

 

[Cobbles]

And don't be so naive - it will happen. Probably not for a long time, but it's inevitable. If you buy a modern car, it already has a lot of monitoring electronics built into it. More and more top end luxury cars are being sold with inbuilt cameras, radars, etc. It's inexorable.

Mhhhhm - where's the sensor pack on the new Daihatsu Sirion?

Garbage like a full sensor pack will only exist is it's economical for manufacturers to fit globally - e.g. the same Legislation forcing them to do so across all their markets.

They'd just pull out of a teensy weeny market like the UK if they had to fit a load of garbage for it alone!

 

[Major Tom]

Absolutely. I'd much rather see the limited police resources deployed to deal with bad drivers than frittered away catching rapists or tackling terrorism......

I've always thought a useful exercise might be to use the exisiting motorway cameras to identify the middle lane hoggers and then to communicate to these people in some way - pull them over and warn them or send them an official letter of warning.

Maybe persistent offenders should be ordered to take advanced driving lessons?

 

[dessiato]

A good while back I was on a stretch of motorway that was empty, dry, and well lit in the early hours of the morning, I managed to hit 120mph, given that the only vehicle that I saw that night was me, apart from the fact that it is illegal, was it so very wrong in such conditions? I feel that it wasn't, had it been busier or the conditions were not good I would have driven much more slowly. Honest gov!

 

[Cobbles]

Absolutely. I'd much rather see the limited police resources deployed to deal with bad drivers than frittered away catching rapists or tackling terrorism......

At least the average traffic division used to be capable of bringing the odd offender to book - detection rates for everything apart from speeding are utterly laughable and the police are hardly the appropriate force to tackle terrorism - just suspend Habeas Corpus and give MI6 and the SAS a free rein.

 

[EastEnder]

Mhhhhm - where's the sensor pack on the new Daihatsu Sirion?

Garbage like a full sensor pack will only exist is it's economical for manufacturers to fit globally - e.g. the same Legislation forcing them to do so across all their markets.

They'd just pull out of a teensy weeny market like the UK if they had to fit a load of garbage for it alone!

Most of the "garbage" will already be there. I defy you to go into any mainstream car showroom and find a new car that doesn't have an engine management computer. At one time they'd only have been found in top of the range cars, these days they're ubiquitous - not because of the manufacturers generosity, but because it would be more expensive to produce lots of different engine types. It's cheaper to standardise and put the same kit in every car.

The march of technology is unstoppable. In 20 years time, a brand new, bottom of the range car will have the kind of technology only dreamt of in a top of the range Merc available today. An ever growing part of the technology in cars is concerned with sensing & monitoring. Eventually, it will be a trivial step to link in the already present technology into the infrastructure required to closely monitor all drivers behaviour.

Yes, it's very much big brother. Yes, it will help stop bad drivers from killing innocent people. Yes, it will raise the spectre of inappropriate use of the recorded data.

If you want to avoid that future, either stop driving a car or keep the one you've got and never risk buying a new one.

 

[pembrokestephen]

A good while back I was on a stretch of motorway that was empty, dry, and well lit in the early hours of the morning, I managed to hit 120mph, given that the only vehicle that I saw that night was me, apart from the fact that it is illegal, was it so very wrong in such conditions? I feel that it wasn't, had it been busier or the conditions were not good I would have driven much more slowly. Honest gov!

Well, depends on your definition of "wrong". Arguably, your car could have suffered a minor mechanical failure that, at 120, would have been catastrophic, your tyres might not be rated for those speeds (surprisingly many aren't), or you might have hit a badger on the road.

On the other hand, I've done exactly the same thing, so I'm not really in a position to get all pious at you about it. Like you, it was on an empty motorway, all the conditions were good, etc. It was fun - and shortened my overall 250 mile journey by a remarkable half an hour. It also put a big hole in my fuel consumption

 

[Cobbles]

Most of the "garbage" will already be there. I defy you to go into any mainstream car showroom and find a new car that doesn't have an engine management computer.......

Yes, it's very much big brother. Yes, it will help stop bad drivers from killing innocent people. Yes, it will raise the spectre of inappropriate use of the recorded data.

If you want to avoid that future, either stop driving a car or keep the one you've got and never risk buying a new one.

Clearly arrant nonsense - golly gosh your car was running at 4,000 RPM according to the ECU - what does that prove? And that's all that such a system will do, provide evidence after the event - it will do exactly nothing towards "preventing bad drivers from killing innocent people" - unless you advocate some form of insanity such as automated engine cut outs!

I'll hang on to my car thanks.

 

[EastEnder]

Clearly arrant nonsense - golly gosh your car was running at 4,000 RPM according to the ECU - what does that prove? And that's all that such a system will do, provide evidence after the event - it will do exactly nothing towards "preventing bad drivers from killing innocent people" - unless you advocate some form of insanity such as automated engine cut outs!

The example of the ECU was an analogy to help with your struggle to accept the notion of ever increasing technology in all cars....

Eventually - that means in the future, not now, not today - the technology to determine the cause of an accident will be present in all cars. I don't know whether it'll be in 10 years time, 20, 30, whatever. It will happen.

And no, it will not stop bad drivers from killing innocent people. But it will help prove that it was their fault. And if all drivers finally realise that they can't avoid being held accountable for their actions, then maybe, just maybe, a few of those bad drivers will moderate their driving, and less innocent people will be killed.

 

[Cobbles]

And no, it will not stop bad drivers from killing innocent people. But it will help prove that it was their fault. And if all drivers finally realise that they can't avoid being held accountable for their actions, then maybe, just maybe, a few of those bad drivers will moderate their driving, and less innocent people will be killed.

But all this happens now (forensic crash examination has been well developed for ages) - it's clear that a car on its roof in the middle of a field wasn't doing 30 MPH when it went out of control without having recourse to an aircraft quality black box.......

The spectre of being held accountable after the event isn't a deterrent and will never put off a joy rider - arguably the class of driver responsible for most serious accidents.

 

[Loki]

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.

er, the study was by Prof Steve Stradling of the Transport Research Institute, Edinburgh who apparantly "is one of the UK's foremost experts in driver behaviour and psychology."

 

[EastEnder]

But all this happens now (forensic crash examination has been well developed for ages) - it's clear that a car on its roof in the middle of a field wasn't doing 30 MPH when it went out of control without having recourse to an aircraft quality black box.......

I would concede that, but I would also argue that some, possibly even most, drivers would think twice about injudicious driving if they knew their actions were being constantly monitored.

The spectre of being held accountable after the event isn't a deterrent and will never put off a joy rider - arguably the class of driver responsible for most serious accidents.

I would argue that it is a deterrent for many drivers - mainly the responsible ones who only occasionally transgress. In the case of joy riders, you're absolutely right. They wouldn't give a flying fuck who or what was recording their driving antics. On that point, only changes to the law will make any difference. It never fails to amaze me when watching those "police, camera, action" type programs, how some 18 year old can risk countless lives driving like a manic through busy town centres in a stolen car, finally get caught (after endangering the copper's lives too), and then get a suspended sentence or a sodding "supervision order". I'm not advocating heavy sentences just for nicking a car, but if they risk killing lots of people by doing 90 through a town centre, they should be locked up, not given a slap on the wrist.....

 

[Iam]

I don't see what raising it will achieve.

People want to do 140, they'll do 140. In the case of the dickless wonder in the Porsche Boxster (BEL 20 - I can only assume they couldn't fit the "END" in) on the M4 yesterday, that includes undertaking, weaving in and out of traffic and nipping into the hard shoulder when people wouldn't move aside for him. Cunt

The main problem I have with raising the limit is that people are rarely taught to drive at that speed and most have enough issues controlling a vehicle at relatively low speeds (That's not to suggest that I'm in any way a great - or even good - driver or anything). I just can't see the point of encouraging them to go more quickly...

If you want to do 100 on the motorway, it's not that hard. Don't come running to me when you lose your license, though, because I won't have any sympathy. And you'll have to slow down to 40 for traffic or roadworks every 10 minutes on the M4 anyway...

[/miserable twat]

 

[EastEnder]

The main problem I have with raising the limit is that people are rarely taught to drive at that speed and most have enough issues controlling a vehicle at relatively low speeds (That's not to suggest that I'm in any way a great - or even good - driver or anything). I just can't see the point of encouraging them to go more quickly...

I don't know what the test is like these days, but when I did mine I found it most amusing that they were utterly obsessed with 3 point turns & parallel parking. Let's not worry about the fact that the learner has never done anything more than the occasional sprint down a dual carriage way at 60. If you can do a 3 point turn and parallel park without touching the curb, you're obviously safe enough to be unleashed onto a 3 lane motorway where you'll be harassed to fuck if you don't do 90 like everyone else.....

 

[pembrokestephen]

But all this happens now (forensic crash examination has been well developed for ages) - it's clear that a car on its roof in the middle of a field wasn't doing 30 MPH when it went out of control without having recourse to an aircraft quality black box.......

The spectre of being held accountable after the event isn't a deterrent and will never put off a joy rider - arguably the class of driver responsible for most serious accidents.

Care to substantiate that claim with some figures?

Because I am extremely doubtful that joyriders are "responsible for most serious accidents".

 

[pembrokestephen]

er, the study was by Prof Steve Stradling of the Transport Research Institute, Edinburgh who apparantly "is one of the UK's foremost experts in driver behaviour and psychology."

I saw that. But I'd want to see the original study, not some agenda-driven single-issue organisation's (quite possibly) selective take on it.

A study is one thing: the conclusions drawn from it quite another.

And, just to throw in a simple example of how studies don't always mean what they're claimed to mean: what if the reason that drivers with more points are more dangerous is because they have more points? When you're drinking in the last chance saloon with 9 points on your licence (which is quite easy to achieve without necessarily driving like a complete nutcase), the temptation to spend more time than is wise staring at your speedo rather than the oncoming hazards in the knowledge that a brief excursion over the limit is going to be enough to cost you your licence is probably quite overwhelming at times - another example of the stupidity of single-issue road safety enforcement.

 

[Zaskar]

Call me a spoil sport but I think the limit should be left at 70, higher speed means much higher petrol consumption and carbon emission, and furthermore all vehicles should be governed to a max of 70.

Isnt it completely mad to say it is illegal to go over, say, 70 and then sell cars and bikes that do 150 ? ? ?