What I will rant about is people whose speed is constantly changes. ...
Agreed pet motorway hate.
Chat Forum
[closed]
Speed limit going up ... and down.
-
Agreed pet motorway hate.Posted 1 year ago # -
Yes, now print the death stats for France Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal.
It could be very misleading. Not only does it depend in the amount of motorway driving, but also on average speed due to motorway congestion or enforcement. Obviously at 30 mph there are likely to be few fatalities on motorways, but that is not a very good reason for either reducing the maximum speed to that, or encouraging traffic jams......it's all about balance.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TheBrick - Member
EDIT: It validity is not influenced by the % obeying the rule by by it's rational.The % of people obey the rule is governed by the expected loss. and the high no of people breaking a rule implies that the expected loss is not high enough. Where
Expected loss = Probability of getting caught x consequence of getting caught.
There are other driving behaviour and laws that maybe as dangerous and more so but
1. They may be harder to gain a conviction on without intense surveillance
2. Proposing removing or adjusting a law because there are other things the MAY be worse but not as well enforced is trying to relate two unrelated things. It's a pretty strange argument when you look at it.
The law is in place because 70 is considered a safe limit. However, many (/most?) people are already driving above this speed on a regular basis. This suggests that the safe speed is above 70.
I disagree that it's a strange argument, the whole point of the limit is safety, and yet other things which are more dangerous are commonly ignored.
I feel your point 1 is irrelevant to this, because as stated I have seen police officers ignoring rules. It need not require intense surveillance, merely the regular traffic officer who is already on the motorway actually doing something about rules they see being broken.
Posted 1 year ago # -
My journey times in Germany are well below what they used to be in the UK. Two main reason higher speed limits on motorways and legal enforcement of lane discipline ( a decent public transport system that is a real alternative to driving also probably helps).
Really? We drive to the south of France each summer (family and riding) and, yes, our journey times are significantly better than they are in the UK. However, I'd reckon most of that is due to the roads being much less congested rather than anything to do with the speed limit. Lane discipline is slightly better but you still get knobs tailgating/closing on slower moving traffic at way over the speed limit.
Our average speed on UK motorway journeys is not even close to 70mph - and raising the limit is not going to make it any faster. In fact the variable speed limits on the M25 were brought in to improve flow - slower speeds = less stop start = better average speed.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The law is in place because 70 is considered a safe limit.
That is a reason (one of several) but not so much rational of how they came to that conclusion.
However, many (/most?) people are already driving above this speed on a regular basis. This suggests that the safe speed is above 70.Now that is a very strange argument!
Lots of people do something => it must be ok / correct.
That is a pretty crazy idea!
I disagree that it's a strange argument, the whole point of the limit is safety, and yet other things which are more dangerous are commonly ignored.
You are stating
danger of X> danger of Y
enforcement rate of Y > enforcement rate X
there for we should reduce enforcement of Y and do more enforcement on X.
X and Y are independent. Why would you want to reduce the enforcement of Y? Why not just increase the enforcement of X. They are independent and having less occurrence of Y is still beneficial.
I feel your point 1 is irrelevant to this, because as stated I have seen police officers ignoring rules.
I think you are confused, your comment dose not negate my point. Police officers commit just about every offence out there from murder to speeding. That dose not have any bearing on how hard it is to gain a conviction in the courts.
It need not require intense surveillance, merely the regular traffic officer who is already on the motorway actually doing something about rules they see being broken.
A speeding ticket can be issued without a court appearance, something like a dangerous undertaking move require more evidence and hence relatively a lot more surveillance. Many other offences are a lot harder to bring to court. The CPS require more and better evidence so it is highly relevent.
Posted 1 year ago # -
FWIW I had a police car come up behind me whilst I was doing ~80 in the outside lane yesterday. He was probably irritated that he had to sit behind me for a bit longer as I slowed down a tad when I saw him coming, so it took me rather longer to finish my overtake.
Our average speed on UK motorway journeys is not even close to 70mph - and raising the limit is not going to make it any faster
The overall average speed is a rubbish stat - my personal motorway average speed is more than 70mph, given I tend to avoid driving when the motorways are chocca. Do you not understand that if everybody stuck to the speed limit, raising the speed limit would even raise the overall average speed, given there are plenty of times and places where traffic can travel freely? For a lot of people being able to travel at 80 rather than 70 does make a significant difference to their journey times. Meanwhile when the motorway is chocca, raising the limit isn't going to make any difference.I reckon that if people drive faster (and while speed limits are rarely observed they are at least a guide), then there is more chance of a fatality when something goes wrong.
Indeed. Bring back the red flag man. Lower the motorway speed limit to 40mph - after all there's more chance of a fatility if something goes wrong at 50mph than 40mph. Realistically, the actual increased risk at 80 rather than 70 is dwarfed by all the other risk factors associated with motorway driving.Posted 1 year ago # -
I drive at whatever speed I feel like.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I would like to see figures on motorway deaths, and those on residential streets. I would expect that there are far more deaths of pedestrians on residential streets than deaths on motorways.
IMO the concentration of enforcement on motorways far outweighs the relative danger compared to other areas, but is far easier to perform.Posted 1 year ago # -
"However, many (/most?) people are already driving above this speed on a regular basis. This suggests that the safe speed is above 70."
Now that is a very strange argument!
Lots of people do something => it must be ok / correct.
That is a pretty crazy idea!
Not heard of the 85th percentile speed then?Posted 1 year ago # -
Do you not understand that if everybody stuck to the speed limit, raising the speed limit would even raise the overall average speed, given there are plenty of times and places where traffic can travel freely?
It would up the average speed, by very very little. Most people travel during the congested periods by definition, out side those periods a people would be able to travel up to 10 mph more, some of those people with that option would take it. Difference in average speed = buggur all! Remember also that at an increased speed there is a lower capacity to the road.
Phillip Hammond's Justification is for considering raising the speed limit is an economic one.
Meanwhile when the motorway is chocca, raising the limit isn't going to make any difference.
Posted 1 year ago # -
aracer - Member
Not heard of the 85th percentile speed then?
Enlighten me, but I still don't see what has speed got to do with the idea that lots of people doing "something" or believing "something" makes it correct.
Lots of people believed the world was flat, that does not make it so.
As I said the reason lots of people brake the law is because their expected loss is too low.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Most people travel during the congested periods by definition
Really? So there's more traffic in 4 hours a day than in the other 20? I fail to see how that follows "by definition", or given the vastly greater amount of time the motorways aren't hugely congested why the economic argument has to be invalid.Posted 1 year ago # -
Posted 1 year ago #
-
TheBrick - Member
You are statingdanger of X> danger of Y
enforcement rate of Y > enforcement rate X
there for we should reduce enforcement of Y and do more enforcement on X.
X and Y are independent. Why would you want to reduce the enforcement of Y? Why not just increase the enforcement of X. They are independent and having less occurrence of Y is still beneficial.
I am not saying that at all. THe speed limit should be enforced, perhaps more vigorously so than now - but the limit itself should be higher - reflecting what is actually a safe speed that a large amount of people are actually already doing on the roads.
IN ADDITION, other dangerous actions on the road should be dealt with which are not currently.
I think you are confused, your comment dose not negate my point. Police officers commit just about every offence out there from murder to speeding. That dose not have any bearing on how hard it is to gain a conviction in the courts.
I meant that a traffic officer ignored other people middle lane hogging, not that they were doing so themselves.
A speeding ticket can be issued without a court appearance, something like a dangerous undertaking move require more evidence and hence relatively a lot more surveillance. Many other offences are a lot harder to bring to court. The CPS require more and better evidence so it is highly relevent.
Who says that it needs to be prosecuted? Simply pulling over the driver, and telling them off is a good start. I do think that a lot of Middle Lane Menaces are simply unaware of the issue that they are causing.
Anyhow, I believe Germany already has automated cameras which check for distance between cars so it is not outside the realms of possibility that such a thing could be implemented here.
Posted 1 year ago # -
THe speed limit should be enforced, perhaps more vigorously so than now - but the limit itself should be higher - reflecting what is actually a safe speed that a large amount of people are actually already doing on the roads.
I agree. My argument on this point is always that the way the motorway limit is so discredited leads to people tending to ignore other far more important speed limits. Therefore raising the motorway limit (and possibly enforcing the new limit more tightly) would lead to better road safety overall.Posted 1 year ago # -
They need accurate speed cameras that can instantly ticket people as they drive through, and legislation to back them up.
Imagine that throng of cars streaming by at 85mph - tickets flying off the printers like coins from a paying out fruit machine.. hehehe
It'd stop speeding on motorways overnight!
Posted 1 year ago # -
I agree. My argument on this point is always that the way the motorway limit is so discredited leads to people tending to ignore other far more important speed limits. Therefore raising the motorway limit (and possibly enforcing the new limit more tightly) would lead to better road safety overall.
Go to the link you gave us a few posts up. Click the first link in the search, here, allow me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit
Go down to effectiveness and have a read. Fairly conclusive stuff I think. Lowering speed limits reduces fatalties and accidents, increasing the speed limit does the opposite. HTH.
Posted 1 year ago # -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit
Go down to effectiveness and have a read. Fairly conclusive stuff I think. Lowering speed limits reduces fatalties and accidents, increasing the speed limit does the opposite. HTH.
If you're looking at the table, then I don't think it's conclusive on its own.
Firstly we do not know what other changes were made to the roads at the same time (as we do not have easy access to 'J. Stuster and Z. Coffman, Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and
Speed Management, FHWA-RD-98-154, July 1998' to know the conditions of the study).Secondly the table shows that in some cases there was no significant change.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I do think that a lot of Middle Lane Menaces are simply unaware of the issue that they are causing
some people i have spoken to had no idea about lane discipline - i believe that it comes down the fact that the driving test is mostly on single lane roads. certainly here when it did venture on to multi lane roads you were turning off so soon that moving to the left played no part in driving as you navigate to the lane to turn off. obviously this is not the case on the m-way.
Posted 1 year ago # -
No significant change in Australia and American and I'll give you that there are some far more significant factors in the road fatalties than speed limits.
Namely Australians and Americans.
I find it fairly strange how many people seem to be opposed to reductions in speed limits. Especially amongst people who ride bikes. Assuming people paid attention to the speed limits (I know they don't but I bet most set their over the speed limit on some arbitrary link with the actual limit), then by increasing speed limits you're increasing the difference between slow road users like us and fast road users like car drivers. How could that possibly be a good thing?
Posted 1 year ago # -
then by increasing speed limits you're increasing the difference between slow road users like us and fast road users like car drivers. How could that possibly be a good thing?
Agreed in general, but we are talking more specifically about motorways here and last time i checked we cyclists aren't allowed on them.
Imagine if we were, it would bring a whole new dimension to the lorries overtaking, middle lane driving etc.. !
Posted 1 year ago # -
Americans are on average far worse drivers than we are IMO.
That's not to say everyone's worse than here, but that there's a large minority of people driving shockingly badly.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Brick,
putting
Do they not get people to check what he is going to say before he speak[sic] to the press?
in a posting where you also writeDeep misunderstanding of how traffic flows and car efficiently[sic] there.
andThis transport security[sic] really does seem like a huge idiot.
is rather ironic.Posted 1 year ago # -
aracer - Member
Most people travel during the congested periods by definitionReally? So there's more traffic in 4 hours a day than in the other 20? I fail to see how that follows "by definition", or given the vastly greater amount of time the motorways aren't hugely congested why the economic argument has to be invalid.
Sorry I was ambiguous there. The roads do not need to be at maximum congestion for there to be an effect on the ability to go > 70 mph. This occurs a lot more than 4 hr a day, epically in areas with high economic activity, which remember is what is needed for this proposal to make sense.
Even if you negate the economic argument the periods where > 70 mph can be achieved is limited and by definition these are times where there are less cars on the road the over all effect on motorway average speed will be very small.
retro83 - Member
I am not saying that at all. THe speed limit should be enforced, perhaps more vigorously so than now - but the limit itself should be higher - reflecting what is actually a safe speed that a large amount of people are actually already doing on the roads.
Apologies if I miss interpreted you on that point. You did however go on to state that because people break a law this should be a reason to adjust it.
Who says that it needs to be prosecuted? Simply pulling over the driver, and telling them off is a good start. I do think that a lot of Middle Lane Menaces are simply unaware of the issue that they are causing.
After an initial period where people were unfamiliar with the new policy if no deterrent would be enforced people would carry on driving in the same manor. If there is no expected loss to braking a rule then people will not obey it.
aracer - Member
Anyhow, I believe Germany already has automated cameras which check for distance between cars so it is not outside the realms of possibility that such a thing could be implemented here.Yep that could be a solution to one of the many other problems on the road.
aracer - Member
Enlighten meInteresting and quite a good argument to keep the speed limit where it is, to stop a upwards creep of speed.
It however does not present an argument for because people break a law they must know better which was the original proposition. People don't make good judgements of what is safe, especially when driving, they tend to go by what every one else is doing.
I am actually not necessary against a higher motorway speed limit but I've yet to see a argument for changing the speed limit that is not purely about vest interest of "getting home quicker".
To propose a change there must be an advantage to that change. Philip Hamilton is proposing that it makes economic sense, but being as the periods when it would have economic effect are period when the traffic would very rarely be-able to travel faster the 70 mph this does not add up.
Others have proposed it because there would be no effect on safety. This is false, even if you take do not increase the probability of having an accident (which is clearly a false assumption) the result of having an accident is clearly going to be worse. How big the effect is hard to say but there would be an effect on safety. The only benefit is a few people who are travelling very early or late on the motorways gain a little time (and unless you are doing multi hundred mile journeys the gain is very little. Add other downsides such as considerably more pollution and the advantages of getting home a little earlier there is not a strong case for changing the limit.
Posted 1 year ago # -
You could vary the speed limit by time of day more so than now. As well as lowering it in rush hour you could raise it off-peak and lower it when say it rains or is foggy. Could even be unlimited at 5am on summer mornings
Or - have no speed limit but heavily police any driving deemed dangerous by the rozzers. Which is the ideal solution, but very expensive probably.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Speed is irrelevant if you're not aware of the surroundings, the capability of the vehicle, and your personal capabilities. It merely dictates the amount of energy that needs to be disapated in an accident.
The only sure way of improving road safety is legislating tougher standards by which the privilage of holding a driving license is granted and maintained.
But this must be coupled with better public transport and pedestrian safety campaigns.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Speed is irrelevant if you're not aware of the surroundings, the capability of the vehicle, and your personal capabilities.
Not so. Speed dictates how far you travel whilst your brain's figuring out what to do, and also how long it takes to slow down in the event of an accident.
Appropriate speed can be maintained by being aware etc etc, but there is still a speed over which it is not safe. But safety is a sliding scale, so 'safe' is actually a threshold of accident risk.
We all know we are never completely safe, and we also all know that if we try the M25 at rush hour at 150mph we'll probably have an accident. It is clear to see therefore that accident risk is proportional to speed.
THEREFORE speed IS relevant.
The judgement as to what constitutes acceptable risk and what the risk is at any given speed is open to judgement.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The only benefit is a few people who are travelling very early or late on the motorways gain a little time
Well I've travelled on the M25 at ~10am and ~3pm and slowed down when entering the variable section for fear the cameras were working despite no speed limit on the electronic signs. Is that very early or very late? Or is the M25 in an area of low economic activity?Posted 1 year ago # -
It is clear to see therefore that accident risk is proportional to speed.
No. Varies with maybe, but certainly not proportional to.Posted 1 year ago # -
aracer the boy racer loves these threads..........dont-cha ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Or - have no speed limit but heavily police any driving deemed dangerous by the rozzers
Can't decide whether this is good or bad idea. As already mentioned drivers can be appalling risk assessors, either just doing as others do or driving to the letter of the law, eg "it's a 70mph limit so I'll do 70, even if the road is covered in snow and ice and there's thick fog." Forcing drivers to drive to the conditions may actually get their brains working...or it might be a bloodbath.Posted 1 year ago # -
No. Varies with maybe, but certainly not proportional to.
Quite right - lazy maths language from me.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Forcing drivers to drive to the conditions may actually get their brains working...or it might be a bloodbath
Interesting in Germany actually. On the de-regulated Autobahn bits there are a few people doing 150mph in flash cars, but they do accept that they are in the minority and don't hassle you. Then you get everyone else doing a range of speeds between 70 and 100mph, but that varies according to the situation it seems. However, the disadvantage is that there are more cars travelling at significantly differing speeds so there's a lot of lane changing and speeding up/slowing down which is a bit more manic.
Off the motorways, MOST people it seems stick to the limits but there are quite a few nutters who totally disregard any kind of speed limit or semblance of road manners and literally race through traffic. Compared to the UK where it seems most people go over the speed limit but there are far fewer total nutters.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Not so. Speed dictates how far you travel whilst your brain's figuring out what to do, and also how long it takes to slow down in the event of an accident.
Correct, but what's better: Having an accident at, say, 50 mph, or not having an accident at 80mph?
Someone that's alert and in control at 80 might stop faster then someone who's got no clue and isn't aware at 50mph. I thionk that's the point.
I still think that replacing air bags with large spikes or explosives would redice accident rates far more then anyting else!
Posted 1 year ago # -
PP you are arguing for the blatantly obvious!
Someone that's alert and in control at 80 might stop faster then someone who's got no clue and isn't aware at 50mph. I thionk that's the point.
That's quite true, but doesn't detract from what I said. Driving at 80mph doesn't actually make you concentrate more. Plus, if you are concentrating just as well at either speed, then 80mph definitely has a higher risk associated with it.
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
