|
Thats the biggest problem, if you raise it to 80 then people will think its ok to drive at 90, given the attitude they currently have towards the 70 limit. So the Government would have to clamp down on that massivley from day one. Right now police have very little interest in you doing 80-85, so 15mph over the limit, the same approach cannot be taken if the limit is raised. The margin for error must be closed drastically to 5mph at best. And i fear it'd take time to drum that into people.
And no i havent had any experience of driving in Europe at all. In fact ive never been to Europe in my life and havent driven outside the UK, but obviously ive seen clips of the mad way the Italians drive and yes i take the point, i agree Britains roads are pretty safe, but i still feel thats more in spite of the way people drive here rather than because of it. Theres alot of generally poor driving, not particularly dangerous though. I do my best to do everything correctly although im sure im not perfect, and i claimed i'd never done a three figure speed down a motorway in the early hours i'd be lying as well.
|
|
"Alot of roads in continental Europe are designed and geared up to take higher speeds, British roads are still the same as when the Romans pitched up and i just dont feel are made well enough to handle high speeds."
Bit of a rash statement when by your own admission you have never driven in another land ,I drive around europe on a regular basis and the roads in many countries are quite dangerous narrow lanes lots of trees lining the roads.Volume of traffic helps control speed the M1 in a morning and teatime the M25 anytime ,In Germany A2 is race track at times so is the A4 with cars doing in excess 160mph on a regular basis and when they crash the road is closed down for hours and the carnage is indescribable all for what to get to the next traffic jam a little quicker.
|
|
I am a firm believer in the principle that speed in itself does not kill, there are many factors that play a part - driving experience, skill, anticipation, discipline, concentration, conditions, courtesy, respect for other road users - you could go on and on.
What we should consider is the fact that we all see displays of bad driving all too often, so we must ask ourselves, is the present standard of UK drivers as a whole good enough. IMO it is not, and introducing a higher limit will not make everything right overnight.
It is a given that a lot of UK motorists will transgress any motorway speed limit posted so raising the limit is jut asking for trouble IMO. Remember the speed limit is set as a maximum. Heavies are still going to be limited and other drivers will be wanting to drive at what they consider a safe limit for their abilities and to some extent the type of car they choose to drive. The roads are there for everyone to share. Imagine the speed differentials that will be presented to lets say - less able drivers - carnage!
Many financial commentators are saying that the UK is bankrupt so where are we going to get the cash from to pay for the new signs to be installed? I will tell you where - us the motorist/taxpayer. Part of the debate is also about providing smart signs to vary speed limits which wont be cheap either. Do we really want to add yet another financial burden in these austere times? On the up-side would create jobs I suppose.
There has not been much mention of the important issue of increased fuel consumption, what with the price of fuel and CO2 emmissions. Raising the speed limits therefore seems at odds with Government policy of reducing CO2 emmissions and conserving fossil fuels. Some people will remember the USA reducing speed limits in the 70s' to conserve fuel.
Driving on the freeways in the USA allows for undertaking and overtaking and means you can get by slower drivers both sides instead of queing up in lane 3. Maybe thats part of the answer to making better progress but maybe not. What do people think?
|
|
But they have very stringent speed limits in most states of North America
|
There has not been much mention of the important issue of increased fuel consumption, what with the price of fuel and CO2 emmissions. Raising the speed limits therefore seems at odds with Government policy of reducing CO2 emmissions and conserving fossil fuels. Some people will remember the USA reducing speed limits in the 70s' to conserve fuel.
Totally irrelevant. The disincentive to excessive speed lies in exorbitant fuel taxes and road taxes already levied. That's why you see cars sitting in the inside lane trundling along at 55-it's not because the drivers are frightened the wheels will fall off if they do 70.
Private car use already pays the bulk of all taxes levied on fossil fuel consumption-yet contributes only ~15% of the country's carbon emissions. Heating oil, aviation fuel, coal, gas for central heating, electricity derived from fossil fuels etc. all get away virtually tax free. There may appear to be a moral difference between ramping up taxes on 4X4s as opposed to poor old grandma cranking the thermostat up to 25C but the distinction is a sentimental one with no scientific basis.
It's time we started taxing the 85% of fossil fuel consumption that doesn't come from cars.
Edited by unthrottled on 21/05/2011 at 20:33
|
|
I think increased fuel consumption through higher speed limits is absolutely relevant here. More traffic travelling faster = more fuel consumed + more CO2 in absolute terms, for society as a whole. Not progress and not good IMO.
How can the Government on one hand preach environmental prudence and yet promote fuel and CO2 profligacy at the same time. It just doesn't stand up and damages credibility.
(And of course I am not saying any Government doesn't have contradictions in policies).
Its clear the Government of the day will always have to "balance the books" through taxation and yes we do need action on all the other contributors. It would be fairer to spread the taxation burden across the whole spectrum of contributors so inviduals can choose how they spend their money on an even playing field and not just punish drivers.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Andy, and as you probably know, everywhere you go in the states there certainly isn't a lack of law enforcement officers on the prowl. Also, people seem to be more laid back in the states with less aggressive/pushy drivers.
In the UK it sounds as though there is going to be less enforcement!
|
|
Driving standards in the states are appalling compared to the UK. Most states have a ridiculously rudimentary driving test. Driving laziness is endemic-hence the predominance of automatic transmission. Yes, I have driven there.
If there is less motorway enforcement-good. I think the f***s (Forty All the Ruddy Time) should the ones the police should focus upon and hit the hardest.
|
|
unthrottled, I drive an automatic transmission car and I am certainly not a lazy driver. I hope you are not suggesting all auto drivers are lazy? Some cars just have to be an auto. Like a lot of other drivers, I get into my car and switch on my driving brain. Buts its clear too many drivers just go for a journey and forget there is a roadcraft process involved.
My wife says one of my favourite commentry lines is "if I was a traffic cop I would have pulled up the dawdler in front for obstruction". The F***S (and they are not necessarily old) most definitely cause a lot of frustration for the rest of us.
Had a pleasant journey recently to visit Alnwick, Northumbria on the A69 (50/60mph limits) and experienced a few of aforementioned F***S. People behind just get so frustrated and desparate to overtake and yes there were some pretty close calls. This is definitely more dangerous than a few miles over the limit on motorway.
|
|
But in America everything is in a straight line, how hard could it be? And i have Google Earth to verify my claim i dont need to go there.
Also Americans just prefer the automatic because one day someone there sat down and thought "why change gear yourself when you could have a car do it for you?" which is logic i can get behind! That sense of "why do anything more difficult than it needs to be?"
|
|
I wonder how many advocating a higher limit have been in the situation where all the cars in front have suddenly stopped VERY quickly. I have and it's a real brown trouser moment.
It's not until this happens you realise that UK motorways have blind bends. Since the 60s UK motorways have been designed for a 70 limit.
|
I wonder how many advocating a higher limit have been in the situation where all the cars in front have suddenly stopped VERY quickly.
Count me in that group. I wasn't concentrating. Entirely my own fault. Do you doggedly drive along narrow country roads at a constant 60 just because that's what the speed limit is?? Silly argument.
|
|
We are all aware that the speed limit on the motorways is 70mph. I challenge anyone to tell me what the minimum speed limit is.
The short answer is there is`nt one.
|
We are all aware that the speed limit on the motorways is 70mph. I challenge anyone to tell me what the minimum speed limit is.
The short answer is there is`nt one.
Tell you what, you try driving past a police patrol vehicle on a motorway at 25mph and see what happens. We're all due a good laugh on here.
While you're at it, do it in the second or third lane. Go on, you know you want to.
|
I wonder how many advocating a higher limit have been in the situation where all the cars in front have suddenly stopped VERY quickly.
Count me in that group. I wasn't concentrating. Entirely my own fault. Do you doggedly drive along narrow country roads at a constant 60 just because that's what the speed limit is?? Silly argument.
Absolutely. Although I would point out that many drivers do exactly that -- only they sit at 40 rather than 60. Nice and safe.
I can only assume that it is these drivers who automatically assume that everyone would travel at 80mph until they hit something if the law said so.
Funnily enough, in the completely derestricted highways of Germany we don't see people driving at 155mph 100% of the time. I wonder why.
|
only they sit at 40 rather than 60. Nice and safe.
40 is always safe primeradriver, Always. Even in 30 limits, outside school gates. On narrow streets with cars parked either side. Even in fog or ice. But I never do 60 on an open road. That would just be irresponsible. It means I never have to change gear you see. Or concentrate. I just pootle along at this arbitrary fixed speed. The instant mpg readout says this is the most economical speed and Mrs Unthrottled says my driving is ever so refined.
|
|
Sure you don't have a nap or read book,your an accident waiting to happen.
|
|
Jamie Grow up a little and see the world looking on google will do nothing.
Once off the freeways its like driving in the alps terrible road surfaces and driving in any big city after dark is a nightmare.
Edited by Andy Bairsto on 22/05/2011 at 08:52
|
|
A phobia of all things flying and boat/water related keeps me firmly on Her Majesty's green and pleasant land thank you very much.
|
|
Quote 1: "My main worry would be that UK drivers are amongst the worst in the world when it comes to lane discipline "
Quote 2: "And no i havent had any experience of driving in Europe at all. In fact ive never been to Europe in my life and havent driven outside the UK,"
Quote 3: "A phobia of all things flying and boat/water related keeps me firmly on Her Majesty's green and pleasant land thank you very much."
For Quote 1, try driving in Pakistan, or various parts of Africa. Quotes 2& 3 makes Quote 1 total nonsense...
Edited by moped on 22/05/2011 at 22:04
|
|
Moped - welcome back!
Jamie - you'll notice that people are sharply observant on this forum - rightly so: thus if you want to avoid being shot down, you need to be able to back up your statements if you express strong views such as that UK drivers have some of the worst lane discipline in the world.
We don't. But what we do have in the UK is a comparatively high density of traffic, even outside town and city centres, and therefore a greater need for people to observe lane discipline, and even more than that to avoid getting too close to the vehicle in front.
Edited by Avant on 23/05/2011 at 00:20
|
|
We'd all, as individuals, like to be allowed to drive a bit faster when we think it''s safe, but raising the limit to 80 mph on motorways and dual carriageways would soon just mean that those drivers who already do 80 will do 90 instead. I don't think there's any real need to raise the motorway speed limits. Cars might have improved since since the early days of motorways, when there was no speed limit on them, but traffic conditions on them have got much, much worse.
|
...but raising the limit to 80 mph on motorways and dual carriageways would soon just mean that those drivers who already do 80 will do 90 instead...
So what? I often choose to drive comparitively slowly on motorways but I don't feel threatened by those who choose to drive faster. Some people do seem to be very defensive about being overtaken and assume that anyone who opts to drive faster is a hooligan. I like the idea of choice. I don't think that everyone else is an inferior driver to me. I think most people drive better when they choose their speed based on judgement rather than a signpost. There isa tendency for government to infantise motorists and anything that restricts this condecending attitute is a good thing.
Edited by unthrottled on 23/05/2011 at 01:05
|
|
I think the more choice you give people means theres more chance they'll make the wrong one. This is the real world, on a real world 80mph motorway you cant press Alt Control Delete when you get it wrong.
We used to give people the choice whether to wear seatbelts or not, we used to give people the choice whether to use a mobile phone while driving or not, and people always demonstrated idiocy by taking the wrong choice, so then we had to make laws against it. How many years did they try the nicey nicey approach with these things? To all those people who whined and moaned when these things came into law, its not like you werent warned.
The majority of accidents are caused by some variety of driver error, and that will never be eradicated until we get computers driving the cars for us, and seeing as thats very unlikely any time soon the very least we should do is not encourage people to drive faster. I think i touched on earlier the only reason this is being considered as a means to speed up traffic and reduce congestion levels (which was one of my original points in favour of the idea) is because the Government has decided to take all our money away, so ideas like widening motorways and building new roads, bypasses and bridges are all on hold now, things which will still have to be done eventually, making things go quicker might put a plaster on the issues for a few years but they'll have to cough up eventually for practical long term solutions.
And to all those people shooting me down for stating an opinion (presumably illegal on here), stating driving in places like Pakistan is just a non starter. In this country you have to do a pretty gruelling program to be able to acquire a licence in the first place, ok perhaps alot of you 40 and 50 somethings didnt but people of my age actually had to work to get it and its difficult, maybe not as difficult as Finland and a few other continental countries but pretty difficult none the less, im pretty sure places like Pakistan and northern Africa doesnt have a 400 page book of rules, regulations and theory questions, nor do i reckon it has a (on average) minimum tuition with qualified instructor for 36 hours or a 40 minute theory and hazard perception test. So i suppose my point should be, given all the crap you have to go through to get your licence here, i feel the level of driving doesnt tally with it. So to compare it with places where the driving test is drive 50 yards, turn round and come back, is a bit pointless. You would expect people to not know how to drive in places like that.
Edited by jamie745 on 23/05/2011 at 02:37
|
I think i touched on earlier the only reason this is being considered as a means to speed up traffic and reduce congestion levels (which was one of my original points in favour of the idea)
Sorry Jamie-but I'm going to shoot you down again! High speed INCREASES congestion where the flow of traffic is choked. That's why traffic calming measures are used several miles upstream of lane closures on motorways.
Increasing the speed limit increases the braking distance so the increase in traffic speed is cancelled out by the reduced density of cars. That said, increasing the speed limit where traffic flow is not choked works perfectly well. As I said earlier, lots of drivers would not choose to drive faster. because driving faster significantly increases fuel conumption.
Edited by unthrottled on 23/05/2011 at 03:01
|
High speed INCREASES congestion where the flow of traffic is choked. That's why traffic calming measures are used several miles upstream of lane closures on motorways.
Increasing the speed limit increases the braking distance so the increase in traffic speed is cancelled out by the reduced density of cars. That said, increasing the speed limit where traffic flow is not choked works perfectly well. As I said earlier, lots of drivers would not choose to drive faster. because driving faster significantly increases fuel conumption.
Absolutely. A car at 70mph requires more room on the road than one at 50. Reducing the speed limit increases vehicle density on the road.
I drove from Liverpool to Leeds and back today. There were very few cars driving in excess of 70mph and I got the impression that everyone was easing off a bit to make their expensive fuel go further.
Those that were going well over 70 seemed to be Tonka Toys and they probably couldn't get their mpg into double figures however hard they tried!
|
"In this country you have to do a pretty gruelling program to be able to acquire a licence in the first place"
If only that were true.
Having taught my daughter to drive (she did have one paid lesson), I am well aware how "difficult" it is to pass the test, she passed first time, obviously.
|
|
80mph is a great idea and makes economic sense as our transport networks (officially) at 70mph are to slow.
80 is a great idea and will increase the economic productivity of the nation.
|
|
QUOTE: ...."" There will always be road safety organisations like Brake (who are essentially a propaganda organisation) who will obviously say this is wrong and more people will die, fact.""
I for one believe that Brake is a good cause. I'm sure the overwhelming majority of people in this country want our roads to be safer. Only a tiny minority of die-hard risk-taking petrolheads and kamikaze bikers would think otherwise.
|
|
I think Brake is a rotten cause. Any non-trivial actvity carries a finite level of risk. Most people agree that the level of risk should be reduced to the minimum REASONABLE level. Of course, the word 'reasonable' is subjective. As I've said before I don't think the most risk averse should be the ones who set the standard. Risk takers have to compromise-and so should the risk shy. I'm fed up with idiots who make trite statements such as "one death is one death too many".
In areas where there are pedestrians, clearly their safety has to take precedence. importance. But on motorways, every user presents a risk to other road users, and in turn, accepts the risk posed by others. If you don't like high speed driving, avoid high speed roads but please don't try to hobble everyone else.
|
|
There are no high speed roads in the UK there is a 70mph speed limit,
|
|
Evidentally some people think 70mph is the motoring equivalent to the speed of light in a vacuum.
|
|
Another thought - UPWARDLY VARIABLE speed limits, i.e. allowing 80 mph on clear stretches of road in optimal conditions (downwardly variable has been the norm so far, but why not look do things the other way round when conditions permit?). This would need to be supported by "surveillance" (CCTV or preferably patrol cars, and hefty fines for flagrant speeders as now, plus middle lane hoggers, mimsers... (anyone who gets in my way, basically! ;-) From a psychological viewpoint, if drivers have been held up in roadworks for most of the afternoon and then they finally reach a clear stretch of M'way with all lanes open (this does occasionally happen, I've seen it at least once!) and are allowed to go up to 80 to "catch up", even if only for a few miles, there is a feelig of exuberance and relief which would placate *most* drivers and lessen the likelihood of risky and aggressive driving, dangerous overtaking etc. and the other symptoms of frustration which will gradually dissipate. Probably.
|
|
Well, why raise the m/way limit in the first place? - any good answers? No, thought so.
Secondly, well it won't be 80mph will it? it will morph into a 90, with 100 quite often. Think of all the underskilled drivers we have who can barely drive to any standard, then add in larger speed differentials into the mix. There are some good drivers of course, but most of the drivers I see driving fast are accidents waiting to happen - playing the percentages & often with a chip for some reason: either old car trying to 'put up' with faster ones or something-to-prove types in their manhood/womanhood substitutes.
Going faster might (on an empty m/way at dead of night, with no traffic & a 200+ mile journey) conceiveably save some journey time - otherwise you're just barrelling into the back of the next jam, HGV overtaking at 56mph or 60mph outside-laner overtaking the HGV
|
|
Any good reasons for not raising the limit to 80? No, thought so.
Just the usual puritanical nonsense about everyone elses's driving being so substandard . Thin end of the wedge, petrolheads being irresponsible... blah, blah, blah
If speed differentials worry you so much, take the limiters off HGVs and impose-and enforce-a minimum speed limit.
Let the handwringers be driven off the motorways. There's a very slow A-road you can take instead.
|
"Fourteen per cent of accidents had a speed related contributory factor reported, either exceeding the speed limit or travelling too fast for conditions.
This rose to 24 per cent for fatal accidents, accounting for 25 per cent of all road deaths. Twenty three per cent of fatalities in these accidents were motorcyclists.
Young drivers were more likely to have a speed related contributory factor reported than those over 25, and more than four times as many male drivers had a speed factor reported as female drivers. Forty one per cent of male fatalities aged 16-25 were in accidents where a speed factor was reported."
Based on around 250,000 events. Can't see these stats going down by tacitly authorising higher speeds in inappropriate situations for inadequately equipped drivers.
|
|
If you're going to quote, at least cite the souces.
How many of these accidents pertain to motorways?
|
My source is
DfT
for motorway casualties
136 fatalities
848 fatal or serious
7249 accidents
|
Any good reasons for not raising the limit to 80? No, thought so.
Just the usual puritanical nonsense about everyone elses's driving being so substandard . Thin end of the wedge, petrolheads being irresponsible... blah, blah, blah
<Can't see much of an argument/reason there I'm afraid! Looks like simple gain-saying in fact. Maybe read the posting guidlines about responding to the argument, not the poster? Surely to change the status quo there must be a reason?
If speed differentials worry you so much, take the limiters off HGVs and impose-and enforce-a minimum speed limit.
<Ok, so now we have HGVs doing 80/90mph? Hmmm.. remember why limits were imposed in the first place? Make all drivers to drive at ~70mph as well, whatever their ability/disposition? I don't think that's sensible or safe - do you?
Let the handwringers be driven off the motorways. There's a very slow A-road you can take instead.
<Oh well, 'nuff said! >
|
|
Now you've resorted to being silly.
An HGV isn't capable of doing 90mph while laden. Unladen, it will stop on a sixpence so no safety issue. I've been in the US and on the highways trucks routinely travel at 65-70 mph. Does it cause carnage? No. It reduces those speed differentials that you pointed out.
|
|
My my,
Being just back from my first vist to the Uk Motorway network in a couple of years I had formed two distinct impressions.
(i) the "de-facto" motorway speed IS 80mph ( & a bit!)
(ii) the standard of driving has IMPROVED, lane discipline is much better.
pus actually the trucks now do NOT hold up the cars (mostly)
Anyway one need the frisson of fear from driving (too?) fast to stay awake properly.
cheers
&
snooze
|
< >
It is the nature of the game that LGVs do not run around unladen, so that is a little of a distraction from the point made. However, when they do stop quickly unladen the carnage is often spread across the arc described by their trailer.
We could, alternatively, drop the speed of the rest of the vehicles to match LGVs, just a thought.
|
|
Davmal-Thanks for the source clarification.
However 136 fatalities out of ~2500 total road deaths is a small percentage. Motorways are the fastest roads-and the safest. We are all agree that speeding at the wrong time/place is dangerous.
Sometimes I travel at 55mph on the motorways. But when the need arises, I like the opportunity to get a move on. I don't think the idea of forcing very slow moving traffic off motorways is fatuous suggestion. I don't understand why those who don't like motorway speeds insist on using motorways. To me that is equivalent to walking into a strip club and complaining about the sexually explicit nature of the place.
|
|
Agreed that it is a small percentage, but I would not like to see an upward trend, and in my limited capacity, I cannot convince myself, or have faith in the arguement that faster speeds would equate to safer travelling.
|
Well, why raise the m/way limit in the first place? - any good answers? No, thought so.
Yes, plenty. Allow modern well engineered vehicles to travel 10 mph faster than when the limit was set in times when vehicles had; poor brakes, dreadful tyres, poorer quality suspension and even the road surface itself was of a lower quality. Then there's the quantity of m/ways we have since the 70mph limit was set, albeit congestion comes into play.
Think of all the underskilled drivers we have who can barely drive to any standard, then add in larger speed differentials into the mix.
The only way anyone gets good at anything, is to practice it. If you dumb the subject matter down, then everyone gets dumbed down with it and the skills are all lost. For example, most Autobahn drivers use their mirrors more so than over here, whether or not they do very high speeds.
Going faster might (on an empty m/way at dead of night, with no traffic & a 200+ mile journey) conceiveably save some journey time - otherwise you're just barrelling into the back of the next jam, HGV overtaking at 56mph or 60mph outside-laner overtaking the HGV
My 520 mile regular trips from N.London to the Scottish Highlands have 1.5 hours knocked off the journey by putting my hoof down compared to a sedate speed conserving fuel. I'd rather have that 1.5 hours to myself...but...it's not just about that. At the higher speed i'm considerably more aware, i'm interested, there's no boredom, i'm a better driver. At sustained lower speeds, my mind wanders, I become bored, I miss things.
|
|
Accidents are unplanned so how do you know when its ok to speed the answer is you don't.It can be never safe to drive over the limit because you never konow whats going to happen next there are plenty of people in the graveyard who thought it was ok to speed and plenty of people who were innocent parties People who think its ok to speed are in some sort of denial like an alcoholic or a compulsive gambler.
|
Accidents are unplanned so how do you know when its ok to speed the answer is you don't.It can be never safe to drive over the limit because you never konow whats going to happen next there are plenty of people in the graveyard who thought it was ok to speed and plenty of people who were innocent parties People who think its ok to speed are in some sort of denial like an alcoholic or a compulsive gambler.
What a load of codswallop. I'd agree with you if someone just pressed the right hand pedal..and that was it.
The idea is you should be more aware, read your surroundings, make informed judgements, constantly re-assess, keep your guard up, not allow yourself to be distracted.
If you drive normally with your head up your wotsit, then you're correct...if you drive to the conditions, with common sense and are fully aware of what is going on...then there are times when you can go faster...in which case you are incorrect.
Using your logic, presumably it isn't safe for emergency service drivers to ever speed then?...and if you were to agree that is o.k., how about when they drive home again in their own cars, (not the legality, the safety).
|
|
Listen to Westpig. He's a police offier, I believe in quite a senior rank, and probably a better driver than most of us. Glad to see him confirming the point I made earlier - modern cars are far safer than they were in 1967 when the 70 mph limit came in. I'm sure that a 2011 Mondeo at 80 mph is safer, both actively and passively, than a 1967 Cortina at 70.
Edited by Avant on 27/05/2011 at 18:54
|
Listen to Westpig. He's a police offier
WHAT!!!
The aforementioned 90mph was a purely hypothetical figure that I WOULD drive at if the law permitted...um....er....
Edited by unthrottled on 24/05/2011 at 22:50
|
|
Simon Harwood is a police officer and most likely trained in civil disturbance management more than most of us, would we trust his judgement at the moment?
|
|
If westpig is police officer with anything to do with driving god help us.I suggest he takes a long hasd look at what he advocates and really thinks it through.
Accidents are not predetermined they happen because of many reasons and the slower you are going then the carnage is less.
|
|
If westpig is police officer with anything to do with driving god help us.I suggest he takes a long hasd look at what he advocates and really thinks it through.
Accidents are not predetermined they happen because of many reasons and the slower you are going then the carnage is less.
|
Accidents are not predetermined they happen because of many reasons and the slower you are going then the carnage is less.
How about 5mph everywhere then....and a red flag?
Surely it's about a reasonable balance. Some motorways can easily allow 80mph, why not have that, with the French system of less speed when it's raining.... and even less again when it's bad fog.
|
|
"Yes, plenty. Allow modern well engineered vehicles to travel 10 mph fastet than when the limiy was set in times when vehicles had; poor brakes, dreadful tyres.." etc
Not a reason to raise the limit really - those factors simply allow a greater safety margin to current speeds, which are, realistically, well above 70 mph anyway. All you do with higher speeds is take away some/all of that safety gain through better, more survivable, car design/construction & squander it. There have been some interesting studies done on risk appreciation & risk compensation that cover that very point.
"The only way anyone gets good at anything, is to practice. If you dumb the subject matter down, then everyone gets dumbed down with it and the skills are all ost..." etc
Can't see the logic here. Why would raising the limit magically make those who are content or only able to drive poorly suddenly think - 'Wow, 80 mph now - better raise my game!' - just not going to happen is it? If people drive poorly at 70 mph, they'll be the same as 80 mph - but with more catastrophic consequences!
"My 520 mile regular trips from N.London to the Scottish Highlands have 1.5 hours knocked off.... At the higher speeds I'm considerably more aware, i'm interested..." etc
I'm not sure using an extreme example of a 500+ mile journey at 'putting my hoof down' speeds (whatever that's a euphemism for..) & suggesting it's difficult to sustain concentration at current limits, means. I would suggest though, regular 'comfort' breaks on such a long journey would help maintain concentration better than 'hoofing it' to save time - and might be safer too, given that on that length of journey you're bound to encounter many people of lesser ability & poorer awareness levels than yourself.
No, not one reason on this thread so far to make me understand the necessity or desirability of this - well, other than the natural human desire for bigger/better/faster of course. I'm not immune to that either - I have driven all sorts of fast vehicles & motorcycle over nearly 40 years & regard myself as a competent high speed driver (not that it's ever fully learnt, of course..), but I'm aware that any in-built ability can never compensate for other road users' (and their foibles..) entirely & I'm happy to be 'limited' by the current speeds.
|
|
My goodness, what a lot of twaddle.
It appears that some of younz should not be allowed to drive at all.
Rather stay in bed wrapped in cotton wool( unless allergic to cotton)
I 100% agree with Westpigs sentiments ( & possibly expressed similar thought prior to his posting)
Driving requires skill, skill is acquired through repition & practise.
Underlying this is the need for sufficient innate intelligence and motor coordination.
However those at the lower end of the spectrum should drive within their limits.
This should not preclude those with the necessary skills from driving faster.
However recent psychological research from America (where else) suggests that those who are less intelligent ( or even thick) can be so cognitively challanged so as to be unable to recognise their limitions.
They (as above) should not be driving, unfortunately they , after multiple attempts will probably be able to pass their driving test.
That is unfortunate.
PS
My night vision is poor, therefore I drive slower & more cautiously at night.
I never saw myself as a "fast" driver, merely reasonably competent, their are others who are undoubtly more competent who can therefore driver faster & as safely, there are those who appear to be less competent, we are all different.
Live & let live. ( or drive & let others drive (on))
PPS
The single most dangerous action is bunching or tailgating, driving fast ( regardless of the speed limit) is not dangerous in itself, the proximity to the vehicle in front is.
Or the possible proximity to pedestrians in a built up area.
Edited by dieseldogg on 25/05/2011 at 13:40
|
|
I am a member of IAM and the german equivelent I have driven thousands upon thousands of miles in many countries and am present driving around 2k km per week in germany and believe me speed kills you cannot react as fast as conditions change the less chances you take the better your chance of survival.Westpigs logic does not stand up in the real world he has not thought his logic through I prefer to believe facts sooner than some american head doctor.I belive 70mph is about correct achieving good progress and being reasonable safe it was suggested if they had the same limits here in germany the death rate would be reduced on autobahns by 60%.
|
|
Collos,
Sorry but the IAM are not the "be all & end all" of driving skill & knowledge, merely imho of course.
Not all Driving Instructors are good drivers either btw.
I personally know an IAM driver who is nothing special in his general driving, & especially in respect of parking. But hey he "bucked up" and got through the assessment.
I also know and have been in a car with a senior accident inspector, who whilst blythly ignoring speed limits saw & interpeted stuff I was missing all whilst driving pretty fast.
It is ALL to do with a functioning brain.
One should not leave oneself in a position to be SURPRISED by what happens, one has failed to anticipate if this happens.
One SHOULD be able to react as fast as the situation changes, ( or one is driving beyond ones skill level, yes?) to at the very least minimize the negative outcome.
You know, defensive driving. like wot is tought to advanced police drivers, who are only normal human beings after all.
|
|
Whenever someone says they are in the IAM, it's best to walk away. It sounds like a scientology audit to me ie you pay a lot of money in return for spiritual driving enlightenment. Hmm...
Most insurers don't offer big discounts for IAM membership which must imply that they are not statistically safer. It's just a big, pompous ego-boost.
I've (hitherto!) never made an insurance claim in spite of driving an old car with no electronic driving aids, and have never had any points on my licence.
|
|
It's always interesting in discussions - that those who are defending an emotional position, as opposed to a rational one - almost always resort to personal invective & attempt to bring into question the personal qualities/abilities of their protagonist(s). & generally try to tackle the 'man' rather than the ball.
The thread makes an interesting re-read in that light!
Edited by woodbines on 25/05/2011 at 16:54
|
|
To whom are you referring, Woodbines?
Both sides of the debate have used rather subjective debating points. Defenders of the staus quo seem to have taken the line that virtually every driver bar them is an irresponsible road hog who will if given a inch will take a yard. There's also an implicit suggestion that membership of the IAM makes someone a superior driver-a suggestion that I think is entirely groundless.
|
One should not leave oneself in a position to be SURPRISED by what happens, one has failed to anticipate if this happens.
One SHOULD be able to react as fast as the situation changes, ( or one is driving beyond ones skill level, yes?) to at the very least minimize the negative outcome.
You know, defensive driving. like wot is tought to advanced police drivers, who are only normal human beings after all.
Give up dd, it's like teaching a kid Physics. Some will get it fairly quickly, some will take more time...and others never will.
What you've posted is absolutely correct.
|
Westpigs logic does not stand up in the real world he has not thought his logic through
It has nothing to do with my logic. I haven't just dreamt this up as an idea. It's a number of decades of personal experience and intense, expensive, quality training.
Have a look at 'safespeed.org'. When I first read that a few years back when Paul Smith was still with us, his basic principles rang true..he was talking sense..(haven't looked for years though, so hope it's still the same).
|
|
Cor! Westpig............ an I never even mentioned that I had married a Top ( IoP awarded) Physics teacher, wot got a brain der like.
PS
Her is a hopeless (but accident free) driver, refuses to reverse etc etc., but crucially recognises this & drives within her capabilities.........hence no accidents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jamie745
I certainly do not think that the Police would have very little interest if you are doing 15mph over the speed limit. They say that you should allow for a 10% adjustment so say 77mph, at the end of the day, if cops are sitting at the side of the road having not done much all day, I'm sure they would get you for 80 and definitely for doing 85...
Interesting thread though!
|
|
|
|
|
