Drive this road about three or four times a year.
Yep its faster than most motorways I have driven on in the UK, mainly due to lighter traffic and superb design with no sharp bends and a good surface. However, not really seen crazy speeding - up to about 90pmh yes, don't think i've ever seen anything faster.
And before you all say it - yes I know 90mph is breaking the law, but in terms of safety, this has to be the safest road in the UK, and certainly 90pmh on this road is safer that 70mph on the M1 near Luton or M6 near Birmingham.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
However, not really seen crazy speeding - up to about 90pmh yes, don't think i've ever seen anything faster.
Yikes E, I certainly have - some people really do fly up there, past me at 80 like I'm standing still, at least 110 on some occasions.
Mobile cameras now operate from some of the bridges, so things should calm down as word gets around.
Funny how you don't see many wagons on there though, they seem to stick to the old road - or do they just use other [free] rat runs north of Brum?
|
|
Surely the owner of a driveway who permits a member of the public to use it can specify any speed limit he likes? I often drive untaxed uninsured cars on my drive - is that illegal? So if I happened to own a motorway toll road and gave permission to selected members of the public to use it, what would be the difference?
|
|
|
|
Drove the length of this road each way every day for 6 weeks summer last year.
As Espada says it is superb engineering and design, very condusive for fast safe driving. (an absence of lorries)
At 85 mph I was overtaking nothing and always being overtaken.
On the times when my speed crept up to an indicated 100MPH I was overtaking quite a bit but still being overtaken regularly.
I would say the average on that road at that time was over 90mph. It was no problem tho as the differential speeds between cars was very low. (did I mention no lorries?)
|
This looks like it is one of the few roads where you will be able to average over 70 for any reasonable distance. How long before they install the cameras that calculate average speed (SPECS?) and make the road into a real money spinner?
Keep upright
|
Yup.
Photo the cars when they enter the Motorway, Nab them by time at the Toll booth.
"That will be £3 toll and £60 fixed penalty please sir".
|
If the government want to encourage road users to accept the idea of toll roads then why not offer the incentive of raising or even removing the speed limit on these new roads.
As has been stated above the new road is better engineered than older motorway sections and the comprative lack of traffic should mean that road safety won't be unduly compromised.
I would imagine that an analysis of the actual speeds traveled at on this road would reveal that most traffic is doing around 80mph. Put this against any accident statistics and compare to other the average speed/accident rate for other motorway sections.
|
I use the M6 Toll regularly when I travel between Cheshire and London. What a breath of fresh air it was last week, particularly having been stuck in yet another jam between Newton le Willows and Stafford for over 1 hour.
I totally agree with you that this is how motorway driving should be - M1, circa 1970.
Absolute speed limits are only truly necessary in a built up area where there are pedestrians to consider. If a child is far less likely to survive at 40 than 30 or even 20, that is a good enough reason to reduce speed limits around schools.
However, on the motorway, what really counts is the size of your safety cell (bring back Paul Ripley). 69 mph 6 foot behind the car in front does not make for safe driving. 85 mph in a modern car with good tyres, all round disc brakes and a nice big safety cell of 2 to 4 seconds (250 to 500 feet) should be as safe as houses and significantly reduce journey times.
You would need to produce a clear legal definition of tailgating but IMHO a tailgating detection camera would be far more beneficial in road safety terms than something that generates fines for those travelling above 71 mph.
|
|
my only objection on toll roads is the excise duty thing i actually take my tax disc off the window on any toll road,i know it makes no real difference it's just me and it makes me feel better...cheers...keo
|
The stopping distance of a modern car is comparable to that of 20 years ago. The brakes may be easier to use, but that doesn't make them more effective.
ABS increases stopping distances. Bigger tyres make no difference because pressure = force / area, and outweighs the increased rubber in contact with the road.
I was astonished at the brakes in the new Megane, until I looked on the internet and found the stopping distance for my 1998 Xsara was actually shorter, albiet under heavier pedal pressure.
I think that a major cause of accidents is people relying on electronic braking aids to get them out of trouble. Yes, ABS will help you maintain control under heavy braking, but this and other aids such as EBD will not stop you any faster than before.
|
Got to disagree with you there - respectfully of course. ;-)
I have absolutely no statistical evidence whatsoever to back up my following post but I like a challenge.
Firstly, I wouldn't want to put the brakes out of a 20 year old car in mine now whether they're comparable or not. You say they're easier to use but no more effective. I'd disagree with that. To the average Joe who doesn't understand the finer points of cadence braking etc...(and I include myself in that), EDB, ABS, ABC etc... would surely help you to brake more effectively if, in panic, you stamped on the anchors - which let's face it, a lot of people would do.
The problem is, and I'm steering away as much as possible from turning this into a speeding thread but the limits were set a long time ago. I wouldn't want to take an old Anglia or whatever past 70 - not least due to the tyres but 70,80 90 etc... all feel the same in big cars now and the only other indication is the speedo in the car.
I wouldn't say a major cause of accidents is due to these devices. I'm not going to see a kid run out but leave off the brakes for a bit longer thinking to myself "Oh it's ok. The ABS will take care of that". I do agree with you though that people perhaps *think* these will get them out of trouble.
Finally, I haven't been on the M6 toll. Given what everyone has said, I'm sure it's a very nice road indeed but I am perhaps unqualified to comment on it. People also say in this thread that they are overtaken at 90. I use the M58 pretty much everyday and I can tell you, that is the quietest road I have ever been on - made redundant by the East Lancs Road. My point is, I wouldn't want to hit someone at 70 and I'm sure if someone hit me, I'd be dead. Stats aside, what more difference would 90 make - especially on one of the newest roads in the country. Surely any accident on there would not be speed related.
I await to be shot down in a ball of flames....
--
Adam
|
My point about the M58 was meant to link in with the quite motorway theory and so being able to go quicke......ah forget it.
--
Adam
|
>Firstly, I wouldn't want to put the brakes out of a 20 year old car in mine now whether they're comparable or not. You say they're easier to use but no more effective. I'd disagree with that.
For one thing, cars are much heavier now than they were twenty years ago. You need better brakes to be able to stop in the same distance.
>Surely any accident on there would not be speed related.
Lose a tyre at 70 and keep control (just). Lose it at 110 and go over the central barrier. Speed related accident?
|
Ok. Fair point. But a blowout *could* force you into another car at 50mph. Doesn't mean we should enforce that.
Yes though....ok speed related accident :-)
--
Adam
|
"The stopping distance of a modern car is comparable to that of 20 years ago"
Don't know for certain, but all I can say is that when Top Gear ran 20 y.o. racing cars against today's road cars, the road cars caught up in EVERY corner because they have far better brakes than even racing cars had 20 years ago.
V
|
Stomp very hard on the brakes of your average 20 year old car at 100 mph and you will stop quite quickly. Usually by spinning into the central crash barrier.
Stomp very hard on the brakes of a modern car at 100 mph and you will stop, no barrier.
|
Comparing wife's Mk4 golf & son's 17 year old golf (OK not 20 but near enough) there is no comparison in brakes. The modern ones will stop better every time. As for the ones in the Commer (30 years old) just dont compare with modern Transit I drove recently.
The old chestnut of whether ABS helps you to stop quicker is an interesting one. When I did a work sponsored defensive driving course a few years back, the instructor demonstrated the difference on a GSi Vectra in stopping with ABS and with ABS disconnected. On the dry concrete airfield we were using the stopping distance was quite a bit longer with the ABS disconnected.
|
|
Life is a constant balancing act between the risk of bad things happening (risk) and the degree of badness (peril). Some people are happy to accept (for whatever reason; stupidity is one, superior skill is another) great peril at slightly higher risk, while others prefer lower peril and lower risk. The balancing act is always there though.
|
The only time ABS has operated for myself('in anger') has been at slow speeds on slippery roads - never at high speed.
I am pretty certain that it has saved me from a couple of minor shunts. Although it may not have been minor for the biker who dropped his bike in front of me(on some oil) on Sloane Square.
|
Commerdriver's comments about disconnecting ABS are interesting. Until know we had no proof that ABS stopped a car faster. However, for everyone else, it makes sense that in the real world and ABS car will stop faster than a non ABS car simply because of the way people drive. A purely scientific review may indicate the opposite, but the average person simply stamps on the brakes and hopes for the best - that is why ABS works so well.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
Currently sorting an ABS problem out on my Escort when one side ABS works and the other locks up. Definately better on the ABS side as I found out on the M42 when everyone had reduced to 50mph and I hadn't noticed :-$.
When I did a skid-pan course the difference was incredible. Turn ABS off and lock brakes and car would go in a straight line and not stop very quickly. ABS on, the car was steerable round obsticles and stopping distance was reduced considerably.
|
I think it must be beyond doubt that in everyday motoring an ABS car will stop in a shorter distance than non-ABS cars - and with the added advantage of manoeuvrability under braking.
Mercedes were the first major manufacturer to fit ABS. They originally fitted it to a batch of 450SEL(6.9) models for evaluation purposes. An ADAC article said that several of the cars sustained rear end damage as they stopped from very high speed on the autobahn and simply out-braked the car behind. For that reason Mercedes were concerned that in the early days ABS might cause more accidents.
|
I can certainly vouch for the safety of ABS.
Some years ago I was driving my almost new Calibra along the Rainford By-pass, which is a dual carriageway, at about 70mph. Some distance ahead was a heavy wagon on the inside lane, and I pulled out to overtake. The wagon then turned across the road -without signalling - to enter an opening in the carriageway. I braked and pulled in to the nearside lane but the wagon stopped, blocking the whole carriageway. Braking hard, I was rapidly approaching the wagon so I pulled onto the verge - fortunately there was a cycle track - and I had to swerve to avoid a road sign. I stopped about ten yards or so past the wagon.
The whole incident frightened the life out of me, and but for the superb ABS I may not have lived to tell the tale.
|
The stopping distance of a modern car is comparable to that of 20 years ago. The brakes may be easier to use, but that doesn't make them more effective. ABS increases stopping distances. Bigger tyres make no difference because pressure = force / area, and outweighs the increased rubber in contact with the road. I was astonished at the brakes in the new Megane, until I looked on the internet and found the stopping distance for my 1998 Xsara was actually shorter, albiet under heavier pedal pressure. I think that a major cause of accidents is people relying on electronic braking aids to get them out of trouble. Yes, ABS will help you maintain control under heavy braking, but this and other aids such as EBD will not stop you any faster than before.
Bigger brakes do most definately make a difference. Bigger tyres with larger contact area = greater friction = shorter stopping distance. Basic physics Jesse.
--
\"Nothing less than 8 cylinders will do\"
|
|
|
|
Of course you may be driving a nice safe car but everyone else won't necessarily be will they. Saw an interesting piece on one of the motoring programmes about the difference in crash protection between the old and new versions of a leading French MPV. The the latter and its occupants fared much better and IIRC the driver of the older car would've been killed. In an ideal world of course there'd be no need for speed limits on motorways but we don't live in one and just because a car is very safe for its occupants doesn't mean that poses no risk to other road users either due to driver negligence, mechanical failure or whatever. That risk is in large part proportional to its speed. As for stopping distances, again not all cars are the same and motoring law must take account of that when determining speed limits. Effectively allowing drivers to decide what speed is safe for them and their vehicles just wouldn't work.
|
"Effectively allowing drivers to decide what speed is safe for them and their vehicles just wouldn't work."
About half of my journey to/from work is on NSL single carriageway roads, therefore 60mph limit.
Most of the time traffic is travelling accoording to prevailing conditions, usually around 50-55, not the legal maximum. So self-regulation does work provided the limit is realistic.
|
|
I am pretty sure any plans to raise the motorway speed limit would be quickly shot down by the enviromental lobbyists on the grounds of increased fuel consumption.
|
|
It's not just the environmentalists but the politics. I'd give it a week before the Mail etc had front page photos of grieving mothers/wives and orphaned children all blamed on the raised limit.
|
Brian - Well why is it then that so many people get done for speeding - not only are they not regulating themselves to what's sensible in the conditions, they're breaking the law. Also, why is then that whenever we have a bit of fog, ice, rain or snow so many people continue to drive far too fast and so many accidents ensue? Not just too fast for the prevailing conditions but often above the speed limit.
Sure, if your point is that the majority of drivers aren't total maniacs I'd certainly agree but sadly there are enough of them around to require the sort of policing we have and, dare I say it, a hell of a lot more traffic police too. Just because someone feels safe doing 95 in their car on a certain stretch of road doesn't mean they are safe, no matter what the road layout is. Other road users and their range of attitides, abilities and deficiencies ensure that.
|
>>Brian - Well why is it then that so many people get done for speeding - not only are they not regulating themselves to what's sensible in the conditions, they're breaking the law.
1) people are lunatics
2) people are idiots
3) people are careless
4) speed limit is unrealistically and unneccessarily low
5) speed limit was set by someone who had no idea of what the appropriate speed limit should be
6) all of the above
|
I know what you mean Brian; but if you increased the speed limits to 200mph you would have 100% compliance with the principles of self-regulation. That doesn't neccessarily mean that its safer though.
Depending, of course, on how one judges the success of self-regulation; Whether that would be number of mph under the speed limit, actual mph, number of incidents, traffic throughput, etc. etc. is where, I suspect, that the argument would lie.
|
It would be interesting to see the accidents/vehicle movements on this road after a full year of opening given that its acknowledged to have one of the fastest average speeds in the country.
|
I'm not sure we'd be able to deduce anything much from the figures though RF, as it's so atypical when compared to normal roads, both in terms of traffic volume [v light] and junction use [virtually none - everybody's doing the full length]
|
|
Good Point CF, we tend to build our Motorways with two many junctions. What would the M25 have been like with only major junctions. By which I mean junctions only at M1, A1, M11, A12, A127, A2, M2, M27, A3, M3, Heathrow, M4, M40. Thats 13 vs the 30 odd it actually has.
|
Now that's an interesting question.
One side of the argument would suggest that it would put extra cars on the other roads, which might well be true.
But there would be a number of other points....
If you could only get onto the M25 from the M4 at a motorwary interchange rather than cutting across through Windsor/Staines, it might be that traffic on those local roads which actually decrease.
If it made the local roads more difficult, would people not see living a long way from work/child's schools as quite so viable, therefore live/work/school closer and therefore the traffic on those local roads might actually decrease.
With less junctions one assume that the M25 would then flow better. Presuming that to be true, one then might think that more people would be tempted to a Motorway route because of the time differential that traffic on those local roads might actually decrease.
|
With less junctions one assume that the M25 would then flow better. Presuming that to be true, one then might think that more people would be tempted to a Motorway route because of the time differential that traffic on those local roads might actually decrease.
Interesting thoughts.
I wonder if your assumption that the motorway would flow better would be correct in practice. More traffic would then be leaving and joining at the motorway interchanges. In my extensive experience of the M25 it is at the motorway interchanges that the biggest jams occur - the M25/M4 being a prime example. Possibly all it would achieve is that you made faster progress until you hit a bigger jam?
Could it be that more junctions would 'spread the load' and hence traffic move faster?
I really have no idea which theory is correct.
|
|
They were laser gunning on it today on the overhead bridge by the services and 2 T5 volvos lying in wait. Be warned, just speed at night!
|
Isn't it the case that road traffic regulations apply to any highway to which the public has access? Presumably the situation relating to the M6 toll road is similar that for to the two Severn bridges or the Dartford Tunnel and bridge.
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
I have long been a supporter of fewer junctions on the M25.
There is too much local traffic, doing just one or two junctions.
Local traffic should be on local roads.
Long distance traffic should be on motorways.
Simple, really.
|
Now they're widening the M25 between the M3 and M40 to what looks like 6 lanes each way it'll be interesting to see how things work out. I'd imagine they'd mark and sign the carriageways so as to stream the long-distance and local traffic separately.
Cheers, SS
|
"I'd imagine they'd mark and sign the carriageways so as to stream the long-distance and local traffic separately."
Dont be daft.
|
Now they're widening the M25 between the M3 and M40 to what looks like 6 lanes each way it'll be interesting to see how things work out. I'd imagine they'd mark and sign the carriageways so as to stream the long-distance and local traffic separately.
They do stream traffic on a number of junctions. All that happens is loads of cars overtake the streams queuing to leave and force their way in at the head of the queue. This is one of the main causes of the jams that build up before exits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
