One option would be to dig up all the high-maintenance railway lines and turn them into truck and coach only roads. Then keep trucks and coaches off motorways. This would rid us immediately of the cause of most of the speed differential that causes so many problems on motorways. Trucks and coaches would be able to get to the middle of cities without any jams - so better for them.
One effect of this would be to stop us having to subsidise rail to the stupid extent we currently do (by govt guarantees for Network Rail).
The other effect would be to make our current, unchanged motorway network safer, faster and less crowded, so 100mph limits might well make sense.
V.
|
|
|
In the spirit of the thread, possibly a 100mph road could work if...
1. There were no junctions along the 100mph stretch, reducing the need to change lanes, and taking away the risk of people joining from sliproads.
2. Definitely an advanced permit required to drive on it, to a standard greater than even that held by the best police drivers. Also an experience restriction on gaining this permit... experience not age as a 27 year old who's been driving 10 years would probably be a better driver than a 27 year old who has just passed their test.
3. A minimum speed limit, again reducing the amount of lane changing. (At 100mph you don't have time to quickly pull back in again when something appears in your blind spot.)
4. A restriction on the age/engine size/general quality of cars allowed to drive on it.
5. A dedicated security force, to promote safe/sensible driving, and deal with those aggressive/competitive drivers who make it an unpleasant experience.
The whole idea just makes me feel a bit sick really.
Edited by PoloGirl on 24/02/2009 at 23:40
|
The main problem is driver education.
High speed driving would then have to be part of the current testing system.
There's still too much traffic on the roads to allow this safely.
Also check your fuel economy 'pushing on' vs steady 75mph-80mph.
This would necessitate an extra fuel stop - and the advantage is then lost. Ok if you have a diesel that does 100mph quietly...
Bad idea - at present.
Germany has many more fatal high speed collisions than the UK (IIRC).
|
www.dma.org/~ganotedp/autobahn.htm
As the UK has the safest roads in the world then everywhere as a higher death rate than us :-) But the autobahns are still germany's safest roads as our motorways are. There are also many countries with lower speed limits on motorways and higher death rates so I don't think the variation can be entirely attibutable to the prevalent speed limit.
teabelly
|
|
How many deaths/100 million driving miles are there on German Autobahns - compared to driving on UK Motorways. The data in the link doesn't include this (but neither does my assertion :-)
|
|
The Germans, of course, also have motorway driving as part of the driving test.
|
|
|
|
I started driving before the 70mph national speed limit came into force and had a car capable of 100mph.
On the motorways and decent dual carriageways I used to drive at or close to 100mph when circumstances permitted and can't think of a single incidence of panic induced by travelling at that speed.
Why is it that nowdays any mention of exceeding 70mph produces apoplexy in a percentage of the population? Is it that we've been brainwashed ito believing that 70mph is the equivalent of the sound barrier and that anyone that exceeds it is in mortal danger of killing themself and anyone in the vicinity?
If a driver has never exceeded 30mph in good conditions then they will be less than competent at that speed when conditions are less than perfect or an emergency arises. Substitute any other figure for 30 and then ask yourself why driving standards are deteriorating.
|
|
|
|
|
1)
The speed differential between lanes isn't so dangerous when people leave good gaps between themselves and the car in front. It is not dangerous to pull into a faster moving stream of traffic if you have the space to accelerate to the same speed within the gap you have available or to switch to another lane when you have the space to reduce speed naturally or brake gently to the right speed. Having cars with better acceleration would make it easier to do this.
2)
Having a minimum limit is a good idea but I would say 80 would be better so you would have a spread rather than a constant bunch which I think might be more dangerous as you need to drive with gaps either side of you for maximum safety.
3) I am not sure strict enforcement would be necessary as it could be a carrot and stick, behave and you keep the faster roads. Misbehave and the road is reduced to standard speed (and we'll say who's fault it was so you can go around his house to have words ;-) )
5)
Restricted access is good, but most 2 litre cars are easily capable of 100 mph. As someone with an old but perfectly capable sports car I don't want to be excluded on age grounds :-) But excluding most drivers under 30 might be a good idea!
6) Definitely more training required. Anyone with fault accidents in the previous couple of years might need to be the ones excluded particularly if it is a lane changing or running up the back of someone type which would prove particularly dangerous. Tailgating would also need stamping on so the throughput of the road would be reduced as people learned to leave proper gaps.
Bearing in mind the design speed of motorways are in the region of 120 mph and this was considered ok for a 1960s car I think todays motorways (congestion excluded) would be ok for 100mph as they are but with just the driver training or limited times of day.
teabelly
|
To me it seems that the one most important thing would be gapping. The speed is only dangerous if there's something to hit, so somehow it would have to be ensured that there was a large gap between all vehicles using the road.
A rigidly enforced 5+ second rule perhaps? More than that ideally.
|
|
Don't forget that sustained very high speeds mean more mechanical failures even for well maintained cars as engines have to do a lot more work to overcome wind resistance. Plus when a failure happens it is much more difficult to control. I reckon the number of people capable of sustained high-speed driving,and of recovering safely when something goes wrong, is much smaller than the number of people who think they are capable. Personally I'd stay well clear and let Darwinism take its course.
|
|
|
|
3) I am not sure strict enforcement would be necessary as it could be a carrot and stick, behave and you keep the faster roads. Misbehave and the road is reduced to standard speed (and we'll say who's fault it was so you can go around his house to have words ;-) )
how about misbehave and you get an immediate ban from these 100mph roads (length of ban depending on degree of idiocy), but remain free to use the slower roads. You could also be creative with the penalty system. If you've lots of points-free miles on the fastroads, the ban may be quite short; but serial offenders would find the penalties rapidly increasing.
The technology is probably already good enough to allow reliable deployment of a warning system which could tell the driver immediately when an infringement was committed: "oi, you! off at the next exit, but you can come back in an hour" ... or "right, that's it, you're banned from here for a year"
Of course, penalties would rise much more steeply for BMW drivers or for anyone from Cornwall ...
... but a similar system ofg escalating prizes would be available for good drivers. The warning system would say: "You have now driven 500 miles without being naughty! Collect a free lollipop at the service station", whereas after being good for 100 miles it would say "thanks for being nice today"
|
I like the lollipop idea! Positive reinforcement is an effective way of changing behaviour and I think it could be useful to employ it more generally. Like a smiley with someone's numberplate with 'thankyou for driving safely'. Perhaps we ought to steal the idea from 'little angels' and have naughty corners where bad drivers are stuck in a room and ignored for some misdemeanours ;-)
teabelly
|
Be careful teabelly, or the mods will pick up on your idea and create a "naughty corner" for the backroom ;-)
Which reminds me:
Mark, I wanna lollipop! I wannit now!
Not fair, she got one, I didn't. Waaaaahaaaahh!
Hmmm. This lollipop idea could bring a few tangles ...
|
|
|
|
|
Been on the M40 recently, NoWheels?
I'd go for the use of an advanced license obtainable only after certain levels of experience AND age - say 25+5 years experience - and after passing a test on a "normal" motorway. The aim would be to pass drivers who can show the restraint to maintain a proper distance and observation.
Then only allow approved cars - keep 1970s Minis and new Smarts off, as you say.
And enforcement ... firm, but with an emphasis on driving style. So a loss of the advanced license for anyone caught tailgating, points for anyone above 100.
It could work. Apart from the enforcement, it sounds a lot like the M40...
|
|
|
There are some in existance.
I regularly use one - the A7 east coast motorway in Spain.
OOps - sorry. It's only the Germans who think that.
Seriously, though, Spain and France have one speed limit rule we could copy tomorrow:-
130kph or 110kph if it's raining.
|
ONW - you beat me to it. I had just come back to say that the other requirement was permanent good weather over the road!
Rain/hail/fog/snow/ice no no no no .....
|
|
I'd rather have a safe 180mph railway...
|
So would I, if it went between my home and my office.
Mind you, it's about as likely!
|
|
On second thoughts, a safe railway at any speed would be quite nice.
|
On second thoughts, a safe railway at any speed would be quite nice.
Eh???? Ok I don't have the figures to hand; but I'm pretty sure that travel by rail is the safest form of surface travel by a long, long way. Of course nothing is 100% safe; but I feel the UK rail network is about as close as it is possible to get; without spending lots & lots & lots of money.:-/
|
|
Just being TIC re recent paranoia..
|
No junctions at all. Just single lanes (obviously multiple parallel ones are possible) going from A to B (between conurbations or between other motorways).
Single lane to prevent lane swapping (which should be pointless anyway if everyone is running at 100 mph).
Gantries to show the average speed in each lane over the entire length, so you choose a lane at the start of your journey and stay in it until the end.
Minimum speed limit must apply. Special licenses, and only certain vehicles. Stiff fines and removal of licence for people who contravene rules, or run out of petrol!
Hard shoulder wider in case of breakdowns - possibly separated from main flow by barriers (I can't quite work this one out, but you know what I mean - would need gaps so that people could use them!).
Camera technology to ensure everyone keeps a very large distance between them (not need to tailgate if there is no prospect of the driver in front moving over).
A means of quickly switching the flow to the hard shoulder in the event of an accident (unlikely with proper distances being kept).
The more I write, the better this is sounding.
|
It would, of course, have to be a toll road.
Has anyone been on the midland expressway?
|
I can't tell how many of these posts are genuinely TIC, but we have got a stream of largely unworkable ideas, as a little further thought will make clear. Allow this, enforce that, ban those .. We already know the proportion of drivers that choose to ignore impositions on their right to drive how they want. I'd rather they did it somewhere nearer 70 than 100.
And single lanes doing 100? What happens after a mechanical failure, never mind a collision? Total blockage?
|
>>Single lane to prevent lane swapping (which should be pointless anyway if everyone is running at 100 mph).
Gantries to show the average speed in each lane over the entire length, so you choose a lane at the start of your journey and stay in it until the end.>>
Either you have one lane or more - you can't have both.
In any case a single lane would be pointless and would certainly lead to accidents.
If you did have a problem, such as a burst tyre for instance, where would be the means to safely bring your vehicle to a half?
It might surprise you to know that one traffic cop I know told me that he was taught to normally remain in the middle lane of a motorway purely because of the safety aspect in such situations.
At the time I was telling him, jokingly, about the RAC's then description of middle lane drivers - CLODS - which represents Central Lane Owner Drivers' Society.
|
I really didn't think it through fully - but I had i mind parallel single lanes.
It would work rather like a multi line railway, actually!
|
|
Just being TIC re recent paranoia..
Yeah, but the point is that people get paranoid about rail safety as it's so unusual for anything to go wrong. On the roads meanwhile they scrape up the bodies on a daily basis without a word being said. Even on the motorway, the casualties and serious delays are worse than on the rail network - maybe we should be looking at ways to get these down as that would do a darned sight more to improve journey times.
The other thing to consider of course if just how much time you save. Even over 100 miles you save less than 30 minutes going up from 70 to 100 *average* - and don't forget that the pottering around at the beginning and end messes up any average speed figures.
For my money, I'd prefer to have a Shuttle-type system running around the UK where I can drive on to a train for the longer trips, be ferried to a terminal near my destination in almost perfect safety at 125mph+ and sit and relax while it's happening. Why only consider enabling the car to go faster - why not also look at ways to get the car to where you want to be quicker?
|
|
|
|
|
And with your reference to the M40, you beat me to it, Patently.
100 mph is one thing maybe, but how about 90?
Q. "How could we create roads which safely permitted speeds well in excess of the current limits? (say 100 mph)"
A. On many existing motorways, change the limit to 90. Everyone's doing that speed already.
|
|
The Tories, if they get elected, have already announced that they'll increase the motorway limit to 80MPH, and then rigorously enforce it. Not only will general speeds be increased, that BMW driver who hurtled past doing 95 will get nabbed. Makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
A. On many existing motorways, change the limit to 90. Everyone's doing that speed already.
Surely you mean that a minority are already doing it: trucks certainly aren't physically capable of doing it, thanks to the limiters, and I've yet to see a motorway with a majority of vehicles exceeding 85 (though I accept that I may have missed what's happening in some places)
If it becomes more widespread, the speed differentials with trucks start to become very dangerous, especially with the level sof congestion on so many roads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This debate is about whether we drive according to arbitrary rules, or driving conditions.
I have heard of a case, let us say, where a quite ancient motorist - I forget his particulars, of course - recently managed 147 mph in perfect safety.
On one hand, according to the anti-motoring brigade he should of course be banged up for longer than he may have to live, for enjoying motoring.
On the other hand, it may be held to demonstrate that to be required to creep about at 70 mph in many modern - or even many good older - cars is just complete nonsense except to egalitarians.
|
I have heard of a case, let us say, where a quite ancient motorist - I forget his particulars, of course - recently managed 147 mph in perfect safety.
I think you mean "without being involved in an accident", which is not at all the same thing as "in perfect safety".
At 147mph, his own safety would be in great danger, to the extent that it would be almost impossible to survive any crash.
For someone else on a motorway, even at the 70mph limit, the safety of sort of speed differential is far from perfect, to put it mildly.
On one hand, according to the anti-motoring brigade he should of course be banged up for longer than he may have to live, for enjoying motoring.
If he wanted to enjoy that sort of speed on a private road or on a racetrack, that's his business (although racetracks impose their own strict rules). On a public road, the rules are different, but some rules are still necessary to allow safe shared use of a limited resource. The question is which rules, and where the boundaries are drawn.
|
You hit something solid at 70 and you're dead anyway. The body can only withstand a certain amount of impact, I think it is around 60 something miles an hour or 11g decelleration. It's a matter of whether the person at 147mph had sufficient enough road space to allow for time to deal with a hazard. But saying that formula one and touring car people driving into the scenery at pretty high speeds and they're not all killed instantly so it does suggest that higher speeds accidents should be easily survivable with the right vehicle and right restraint system.
If you happen to be a dozy devil then you can be more dangerous at a legal 70 than an alert person at 147. I personally wouldn't want to travel that quickly as I know my limits. 85/90 or so is about as fast as I would ever want to go.
You bring up a good point about racetracks. The people (professionals and experienced track drivers) using them are driving at quite high speeds and seem to be able to deal with the unexpected eg wheels flying off. They do have run offs and things but a lot of them seem to be able to control a car in adverse circumstances at high speed which suggests that it is possible to deal with the unexpected even at these much higher speeds.
teabelly
|
Teabelly, it does indeed seem to be possible to survive some very high speed crashes, at least in some circumstances.
However, there are a lot of factors in racecars which can never be applied to the roads:
Most racetracks have run-off areas, whereas there isn't any realistic possibility of those being widely available on UK roads. (I know that doesn't always apply to rallying)
Racetracks have much much lower traffic densities than a motorway. Spin out of control on a racetrack, and there may be 20 or even fifty cars appearing on site in the next few minutes, but on a motorway it will often be thousands, which is why mway crashes often cause pile-ups.
Racecar drivers aren't just in specially-prepared vehicles, they also wear special protective clothing and headgear. Road car drivers and passengers don't.
Racing drivers who crash usually have emergency crew on the scene almost immediately, which is crucial to survivability. That's not possible on public roads.
Your point about the dozy devil at 70 probably has a lot of truth in it, but doesn't really help us much on public roads, because we don't and can't have anything remotely resembling the same sort of selection procedures as racetracks use. So any policy for roads needs to start from the knowledge that the dopy drivers are part of the mix ... and that a lot of other drivers way overstimate their abilities.
|
|
|
>>You hit something solid at 70 and you're dead anyway>>
You are not necessarily dead if you hit something at 70mph - it's not to be recommended, of course, but it isn't a definitive rule and depends on many possible scenarios.
The reason drivers on racetracks can cope with the unexpected is simple - the more they are involved in such situations, especially when driving fast, the quicker the reactions and the appropriate action to take in the circumstances.
It's those who don't have the means to practice such driving skills i.e. the vast majority of drivers on the road, who find unexpected problems difficult to handle even at lower speeds.
|
Good point, Stuart.
Pilots have to undergo simulator rides. They hate them - they know that EVERYTHING is going to go wrong. Every switch they press may or may not function as advertised. Birds will appear from nowhere. Engines will fail unexpectedly. And so on.
It might be interesting to try this out with drivers. Oh, your brakes seem to have failed. And you've got a puncture. And he seems to be pulling out on you. Shame that 4x4 is tailgating you at the same time.
An in-car cam would make great tv. Beat big brother any day.
|
Simulator course would be a very good idea, but the main problems would be those of cost and, with millions of drivers on our roads, giving every one a chance to go on a simulator.
Perhaps an alternative would be to give interested drivers the opportunity to go on one of the Saga giant screen driving simulators - they are hugely effective, very realistic and several screens can be set up so that each "driver" can observe on-screen what the others are doing.
I've been on such a setup (four screens) and it's immensely satisfying and remarkably lifelike, although it doesn't absolutely compensate for being at the wheel of a real car.
|
|
|
|
|
To assess the safety of 147mph we would need to know a lot more about the road, the conditions, and the driver's ability. Only the driver concerned knew that. It may have been safe, we cannot know.
I have also been told by an M3 driver that he tested his car on "his favourite bit of road" and found that the limiter that is meant to keep him below 155 did not appear to work. Similar comments apply.
Having said that, I am very (very) sceptical that either was objectively safe. I have been on a track at 145 and, frankly, all that I could do was hold the car in a straight line until it was time to brake. Bends? No chance.
That track had been checked thoroughly and we had been using it all afternoon. We knew there were no potholes, nails, wet patches, etc etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
