Hmmm, lets take a transport sytem based on a finite resource and lets legislate so that the finite resource gets used up even quicker, and causes more environmental problems.

It’s bread and circuses molgrips, and you seem to be unable to see it.

Ooh, ooh, I can drive a bit quicker…. Yes, but you are paying through the nose for it, and will continue to complain about the price of fuel and the poor victimised motorist while pissing into the wind.

Enjoy. Enjoy yourselves, it’s later than you think.

Future generations will look back and laugh at your silliness, just so you could get to your grannys on a Sunday 10 minutes quicker…

Its often pointless pulling over in the UK becasue the roads are so busy, the variable speed limit reinforces this as there are actually signs telling you to stay in lane.

Agree that 80mph is well overdue. I drive at 70 most of the time to conserve fuel, but if I’m in a hurry I drive at 86 purely becasue the last copper to give me 3 points for speeding on the motorway told me that was the cut off. Now it will be 96/97 even better, traveling through the night could be pretty rapid..

crikey – Member

It’s foolish populist nonsense to appeal to the Jeremy Clarksons of the UK.

Traffic, which is what everyone is complaining about, flows better when speeds are slower, hence the speed restrictions on the M25 when it gets busy. All this will do is get you to the next traffic jam quicker.

Reduce the speed limit to 55 mph, stop wasting fuel, reduce emissions, reduce delays, and if you need to be there quicker, just get up earlier
My thoughts too.
And going faster than 70mph scares me 🙂

“They just won’t need to keep looking around for cameras and will be able to look at the road more.“

No-one needs to keep looking round for cameras. It’s perfectly possible to drive in complete ignorance of the fact that cameras even exist. If doing so stops people looking at the road as much as they should then it’s their conscious decision to do that.

Thats a joke!
If you get over 50mph on the M25 you’re really moving.

molgrips – Member
When it’s busy, yes. When it’s not, 80mph would be more appropriate.

A big part is being made of the economic argument though, which is the times when the roads are busy!

“A big part is being made of the economic argument though, which is the times when the roads are busy!“

Quite. I mean molgrips himself said “what we need is everyone travelling at the same speed” and “when it’s busy, yes [traffic flows better when speeds are slower]“, and at congested times (ie when there’s more economic impact not only because they’re the times when more people are engaged on work-related journeys but also the simple mathematical point that that’s when the number of people on the motorway is greatest so the gains have the maximum multiplier) that’s best achieved by actually lowering the speed limit.

I also noticed that lane discipline is much better in Germany – overtake, then move into the inside lane

You’ve never driven around Frankfurt (or anywhere else), where they’ve more than two lanes…

IME Drivers across the world are pretty crap once there are more than two lanes.

For me, just get rid of the general speed limit on motorways, and then enforce ‘posted’ limits for urban/fog/rain/congestion.

This morning the outside lane of the M40 was up in the 90’s.

If people can get to work 10 minutes quicker, they will stay in bed for an extra 10 minutes…

Basic human behaviour, which seems to have escaped the notice of the ringmasters of this particular circus. Plus, getting to your destination will involve driving on A roads and possibly other minor roads, which in turn will lead to higher speeds on those roads as people assume that they are going too slowly after their increased speeds on the motorway.

Classic political dimwitted knobbery, designed to appeal to the stupids of the world.

‘Course, what they should do is raise the limit to 80, take the extra fuel duty revenue from that, stick a penny or two on a litre as well and add that to it, then plough all that cash into paying for more rolling stock on the railways and pulling fares back down to the point where it’s no longer twice as expensive to commute by train as it is by car (oh the victimised motorist) and put a few more buses on, and then that would leave the roads a bit clearer for everyone to charge up and down having a gay old time at 80mph. Everyone’s a winner, lovely jubbly.

Also, I would like peace on earth, Piers Morgan given 900 hours’ community service as a lesson to others, and a Cadbury’s Fruit and Nut tree in my garden.

and a Cadbury’s Fruit and Nut tree in my garden

I thought they were a root vegetable, hence the foil wrapping?

Foil wrapping?! You remember the 1980s too 🙂

I’ve got the effing song from the advert stuck in my head now.

Everyones a fruit and …. Yes, me too now… 🙂

It’s bread and circuses molgrips, and you seem to be unable to see it.

I can see all sides of the argument perfectly well thanks, I’m just pointing out the ones that some people here are overlooking.

You are right though – the economic argument is absolute crap.

My argument (if you read back) is that you should make a trade. Increase the limit and then MAKE SURE people stick to it. So we end up with predominantly 80mph traffic and no 85/90/100ers messing it up. However you’ve always got lorries, caravans and those who choose to drive at 65/70/75 anyway…

Plus, getting to your destination will involve driving on A roads and possibly other minor roads, which in turn will lead to higher speeds on those roads as people assume that they are going too slowly after their increased speeds on the motorway

My experience in Germany seems to back that up. Speed is hellish addictive, and many people’s driving seemed to back that up.

So, no economic argument, no environmental argument, we seem to be back to the Jeremy Clarksonesque populist nonsense reasoning then?

Bread and circuses.

I can’t afford to drive at 70, let alone 80. Spend most of my time on the motorway sat behind a big truck at 56mph. Much cheaper.

How many people check their tyres daily? Weekly? Ditto bulbs. Then there’s the complete disregard for safety and commons sense by not keeping the 2 second gap (as I mentioned earlier), or bothering to indicate, or overtaking on solid white lines of hashed junctions. And people want to allow these morons to drive faster?

And sadly, we’re not talking about a minority of drivers, but the vast majority.

I am totally against it. Unless we have regularly medical/eye exams and stricter tests/penalties I really do think motorists are incompetent at high speeds. Just drive on any motorway and witness the jet pilots in the fastlane as well.

No way. 70 is nothing to ANY car. Its the operator of the machinery that’s behind

if I’m in a hurry I drive at 86 purely becasue the last copper to give me 3 points for speeding on the motorway told me that was the cut off.

Bad advice – I got done for 85.

If you get over 50mph on the M25 you’re really moving.

Yet somehow I’ve managed to average 70mph on the M25 between the M20 and the M3 – which includes some of the busiest stretches – in the middle of the afternoon on a weekday. Just because it’s always busy at the times you travel doesn’t mean it’s always busy.

As for the economic argument, everybody is making the false assumption that most economic activity = most cars = rush hour. Rush hour is an irrelevance to economic activity – as identified by crikey up there (though I think he was trying to make a different point), the speed at rush hour has no effect on economic activity, just how long people get to spend in bed. Economic activity is affected by how long it takes people to travel whilst they’re already at work – see my comments above about the speed you can travel during the working day between rush hours.

my journey times won’t shorten because they’re constrained by flow and congestion rather than top speed

FTFY

Round here the traffic pretty much is always heavy when I’m on the road

FTFY

My argument (if you read back) is that you should make a trade. Increase the limit and then MAKE SURE people stick to it.

I’m sure that driving at 80 will increase the revenue to the treasury through fuel duty, but probably not enough to employ people or the technology to enforce it.

As for the economic argument, everybody is making the false assumption that most economic activity = most cars = rush hour. Rush hour is an irrelevance to economic activity

Not if you are a HGV driver driving along the M25 at rush hour. Its a truck park 24-7. Rush hour. More like rush three hours.

I would argue against increasing the speed limit to 80 as there are already too many idiotic drivers out there already, but since there aren’t too many police patrols enforcing the 70 limit, it won’t make a difference.

A lot of idiotic driving is down to drivers who believe their car will protect them with all kinds of driver aids and safety devices.

As for enforcement, a couple of thousand pounds fine, points on the licence or impound and crush the car for anyone caught using a mobile phone while driving.

Not if you are a HGV driver driving along the M25 at rush hour.

Ah – the vehicles for whom changing the speed limit will make no difference. Useful data point.

As for the safety thing – just how many accidents take place on the motorway involving vehicles travelling in excess of the speed limit – as opposed to say being an idiot under the speed limit, or driving too fast for the conditions when it’s foggy?

Ah – the vehicles for whom changing the speed limit will make no difference. Useful data point.

Rush hour is an irrelevance to economic activity

Economic activity is affected by how long it takes people to travel whilst they’re already at work

Which HGV drivers are. I wasn’t in this instance pointing out how changing the speed limit would affect HGVs only that with everyone else on the road going to work and as a result not economically contributing, there are others that are, who are hindered by such activity.

As for the safety thing – just how many accidents take place on the motorway involving vehicles travelling in excess of the speed limit – as opposed to say being an idiot under the speed limit, or driving too fast for the conditions when it’s foggy?

I don’t seem to remember saying that its just speed that causes accidents. I was commenting on whether the speed limit is 70 or 80, is not relevant if its not being properly enforced. Just like trying to enforce the ban on driving while using a phone is a bit pointless, because those that are caught are few and far between and you only get a small fine.

I can’t afford to drive at 70, let alone 80. Spend most of my time on the motorway sat behind a big truck at 56mph. Much cheaper.

Until Spitfighter pilot comes down the slip road and is intent on getting onto the motorway asap and wipes you and your car out.

Behind a truck in 3rd lane is probably the most dangerous place to be for many many reasons.

Hmmmmmm,

80mph on the motorway

Bin collection back to once a week

Conservative Conference in a couple of days time…..

Until Spitfighter pilot comes down the slip road and is intent on getting onto the motorway asap and wipes you and your car out.

Behind a truck in 3rd lane is probably the most dangerous place to be for many many reasons.

yeah, other drivers being selfish twunts with no concept of right-of-way.

good point emsz!

i dont think the speed limit should be increased to 80, they should just enforce the 70 limit, maybe drop it to 60 🙂 i’d be happy with that. lots more average speed checks, they seem to stop the bunching up effect of all the idiots ragging it up to 80-90 just to hit the brakes again and cause the concertina effect that only further enrages bad drivers.

60 is too slow. Enforce at 80 but if you put it upto 80 then a small proportion of drivers will feel obliged to drive above their talent/concentration and hand/eye co-ordination level and feel ‘edgy’ and possibly panic.

Some people need saving from themselves.

Nothing will happen. Its just a headline grabbing consultation.

Quick summary for those who can’t be bothered to read the whole thread:

A) On motorways where there is little traffic then 80mph will make little difference as people drive that fast or faster anyway

B) On motorways that are congested then 80mph will make little difference as people are stuck in traffic and travelling slower than that anyway

C) Most motorists (none of us obviously) need to drive better and this would make a bigger difference

D) Various other guff and opinions

Stopping distances will go up quite a bit – 490ft to 640ft IIRC. Given that most drivers can’t seem to leave a big enough gap as it is, this concerns me more than any other aspect of the proposal.

🙂 some of us are perfectly happy driving at 80 safely, but chose to drive slower (and as a result at a much smoother and more consistent speed) to conserve fuel and money.

I have recently done a few 300 mile journey so to pass the boredom i thought i would try different speeds to see what happened to the economy.

Cruise control at 70mph = 27.4 mpg
Cruise control at 100mph = 25.5 mpg

Averages over motorway section of journey alloing for speeding up and slowing down to take account of traffic / cops etc

70mph = 27.1 mpg
100mph = 24.9 mpg

It looks like most of the mpg’s escaped when speeding up to cruising speed and as 100mph is faster than 70mph it used more of them to get there.

I think this backs up what phil says about driving more steadily saves fuel.

Journey times were about 1 hour difference and consumption about 1 gallon difference.

Is arriving home 1 hour earlier worth £7?

🙂

ever since i started driving i’ve always cleared the trip counter when i fill up, means i can keep an eye on how much it costs me per mile. it also means that i can do my own little tests, drive at 56-60mph = 10p or less a mile, drive at 70 and all the accelerating and braking that comes with it = 15p a mile, drive like a dick = 20p+ a mile, more risks, more frustration at slower cars, only get home 2 minutes faster.

I strongly suggest none of you ever drive in NZ – you might have an eppy. Worst drivers in the world.

Cruise control at 70mph = 27.4 mpg
Cruise control at 100mph = 25.5 mpg

That’s your big Merc isn’t it? As above, the difference is less in big petrol cars.

In my diesel Passat, it’s more like this:

70mph = 53mpg
80mph = 48mpg
100mph = 40mpg

i never normally bother. i just sit in the middle lane randomly speeding up and slowing down. Occasionally I swerve or brake heavily for no good reason. Sometimes I wave my hands around and shout at my phone while drifting across all three lanes and changing speed erratically. If it is raining I put my rear fog light on and either try to hook my front bumper onto the rear bumper of the car in front or drive REALLY slowly and try and block other drivers who want to pass as I know best what speed everyone should travel at.

Oh, hang on. That is the other drivers. i am faultless 😉

Actually, thinking about it, 80mph will be pretty good for me. I’ll be able to use 6th gear in the Ducati…. Dukes are known to be a bit high geared and to be honest 6th isn’t much good until you get to 70. It’s a right pain in the arse keeping the damned thing below 80 on the motorways, I can tell you.

ever since i started driving i’ve always cleared the trip counter when i fill up, means i can keep an eye on how much it costs me per mile. it also means that i can do my own little tests, drive at 56-60mph = 10p or less a mile, drive at 70 and all the accelerating and braking that comes with it = 15p a mile, drive like a dick = 20p+ a mile, more risks, more frustration at slower cars, only get home 2 minutes faster.

Ahhhh! A fellow fuel geek in the making!

I shall have words with you tomorrow young man! 😉

*puts up his dukes*

mrspoddy coming along too? 😀

Is arriving home 1 hour earlier worth £7?

Even I got paid more than that an hour – for you WCA I’d have thought it several multiples of that. You’re surely far better off doing an extra hours work then driving faster and getting home at the same time.