The 70mph motorway limit was a figure Barbara Castle pulled out of her arse as a temporary measure in the 1960s.
She didn’t introduce the 70mph limit, she just made the call to keep it once the temporary period was up… because collisions were down, injuries were down, fatalities were down… all of which made it popular, so it stayed. It should probably be 80mph now, with everything that’s improved and so many miles of motorway now having variable limits to use when busy… but if that resulted in more collisions, more injuries and more fatalities… would you want to be the minister that was responsible for all that… just to… well… what would be the beneficial trade off really…?
The 40mph everywhere muppets are still out in force everywhere else though.
Monospeeders are some of the worst drivers on the road. They're likely the same ones who think the middle lane of the motorway is the "cruising" lane. They terrify me.
Happy for the limit to drop to 60mph tbh. There’s a climate crisis and nobody wants to change anything that actually impacts them.
So you'd prefer doing 80mph in an EV rather than 60mph in an ICE vehicle?
Tbh, your attitude to excessive fuel consumption (for no REAL benefit) sucks. “I can afford it so it’s nobody elses business”.
Who defines "excessive"? EV's, then?
It's a complex question. Me doing 60 rather than 70 down the motorway isn't going to save the whales any time soon, and look at all that lovely taxation I'm pumping back into the economy! But if burning fossil fuels is a problem - and it is - then the solution is to stop doing that en masse.
But, that requires investment in infrastucture when we're still playing VHS vs Betamax over charging standards. When on holiday in Cornwall a little while back, even armed with GPS I genuinely thought I was going to run out of fuel before I found a petrol station let alone an EV charging point.
she just made the call to keep it once the temporary period was up… because collisions were down, injuries were down, fatalities were down… all of which made it popular, so it stayed.
Yet average motorway speeds went up not down.
Which rather suggests that absolute speed wasn't the issue, but rather speed differential. And Ford Cortinas. 😁
Speed limits reduce the speed differentials. As do minimum speeds as well of course. And reduced mixing of vehicle types.
Back on topic… restricting new cars to the same max speed would reduce speed differentials long term. Eventually.
I suspect tailgating is the biggest cause of accidents on the motorway.
that and those inexplicable **** bags that brake for no reason causing a tail of panic where everyone then brakes for no reason. Whilst you ease off whilst feeling smug because you have the ability to think and look ahead.
The whole drive to the conditions argument is a nonstarter because most people aren’t capable of doing so. Just have to be on any dual carriageway or motorway in torrential rain or fog and watch dickheads going at 70.
Speed on its own just isn’t the issue people seem to think it is
Nobody is saying that. There is no argument that speed plays a role in road safety though and it's very easy to control through existing technology, so why not do it?
<p>My car will drive itself for a period time and adapt to speed limits whilst also steering itself. It can change lanes by itself so long as you put the indicator on. With cruise control on it will automatically slow down for roundabouts and control your speed going round them. If you put it in eco it does all that slower than if you put it in sport mode</p><p> </p><p>You can pretty much switch off if you want.</p>
Nobody is saying that.
Plenty of people argue "but there's a number on a pole!" every time this discussion rolls around. It's braindead.
The whole system needs reviewing, it's half a century out of date. How often have you left a built-up area to drive into a twisty narrow single-track country lane with passing places only to have the car limit jump from 30 to 60?
There is no argument that speed plays a role in road safety though and it’s very easy to control through existing technology, so why not do it?
Existing technology is getting there but it's not quite at the point yet that you think it is, as several other posters have exampled.
In any case, what does "plays a role" mean? Speed is a factor as soon as you move. Excessive/inappropriate speed is a different matter. There's a world of difference in driving past a school at 4pm or 4am, or down the motorway on a clear day or in a blizzard. None of this gets taken into consideration, doing 70 in inches of snow and ice is perfectly fine but 71 in perfect conditions is breaking the law, it's madness.
Its hard to argue against automatic variable speed limits on cars or motorbikes. It would reduce deaths I am sure.
Would be very irritating tho. there is no reason other than fun to break speed limits.
As a cyclist zero tolerance for road crime would be great. Cars drivers might behave themselves and if they didn't they would be off the road.
Excessive/inappropriate speed is a different matter. There’s a world of difference in driving past a school at 4pm or 4am, or down the motorway on a clear day or in a blizzard.
Indeed, if there are any particular hazards, such as bad weather, or children leaving school, then you should be driving below the speed limit. The limit is the absolute maximum in best conditions. These individual interpretations of the law and justifications for breaking it, only emphasise the need for better enforcement.
So you’d prefer doing 80mph in an EV rather than 60mph in an ICE vehicle?
Probably. I dont own an EV and cant see that changing any time soon though. Currently (haha!) I suspect that range anxiety is probably why I dont see many go blasting past me at 80mph plus but I could be totally wrong.
Maybe you're on to something there though - if you have an EV with all the saftey features that prevent you crashing into other vehicles (yes, that pre-supposes they actualy work) then your vehicle can do 80mph on motorways IF all those safety features are engaged, if ot then it limits itself to 60 like the rest of us plebs.
If you drive an old diesel (like me) then you get limited to 60.
Then all those that NEED to go faster than 60mph have to pony up and buy a zero emission vehicle that is less likely to be subject to huan error causing an accident.
Then it's just* the small detail of the embedded environmentla cost of those vehicles.
*Yeah, that's a huge 'just'.
Who defines “excessive”? EV’s, then?
Good question - not me. Maybe some form of central authority could tax the shit out of luxury and status evs that are super inefficient and take up stupid amounts of resoure to produce.
It’s a complex question. Me doing 60 rather than 70 down the motorway isn’t going to save the whales any time soon, and look at all that lovely taxation I’m pumping back into the economy! But if burning fossil fuels is a problem – and it is – then the solution is to stop doing that en masse.
Of course it's a complex question when you look at EVERY single argument.
I disagree with the attitude that "me doing this wont fix the whole problem". No, it wont. But will 41 million people (number of UK residents that hld a driving license, roughly) being forced to do so have an impact? I suspect so.
Would it also maybe push people to think about all the other things that they have a god given right to do that aren't actually essential and cause massive harm? Like flying to ****ing Disneyland every year? Nah, probably not but I can dream!
Your taxation point - I'll refer you to my earlier argument about being able to buy a right to polute. I'll also add that I wonder how much monet would be saved on road maintenance, dealing with the total cost of accidents and delays etc that would be reduced by the reduction in speed limits (which we dont know the value of) and the reduction in hospital adissions etc due to poor air quality affecting people with breathing problems etc.
None of the above is something I can put any values on but I dont think I'm being totally off the mark in saying that there would be an impact.
But the govt (any govt) is never gonna reduce the speed limit so it's all achademic (if interesting).
Nah. I'm happy that folk wanting past me can accelerate to create a big enough speed difference rather than creep past at 1-2 mph.
Whilst there is the very rare occasion where the ability to speed up is useful to get you out of trouble, those occasions are vastly outnumbered by times when going faster gets you into trouble.
Citation needed.
a light, efficient, aerodynamic car at 70mph will make less noise, emissions and have better braking and handling characteristics than a 2.2 tonne range rover…
However, an electric, aerodynamic car at 70mph will make less noise, but will weigh 2 tonnes, and have greater tyre wear and produce more particulates than an ICE. It’s all swings and roundabouts.
My Ford is a 19-plate, and has satnav, but doesn’t have speed-sign recognition, or adaptive cruise control, and no way of fitting them, because they require specialised sensor suites that are designed specifically for individual car models - not just radar systems built into the front of the car, but sets of cameras and other sensors built into an array behind the mirror facing out through the screen.
There are hundreds of thousands of cars, possibly millions, that will be on the roads for probably another couple of decades, and which cannot be retrofitted with the sort of sensor systems people are talking about here.
Tbh having added to my carbon footprint by going to the USA for 2 weeks it’s utterly irrelevant what we do in this country, the USA will be the country that goes down in history as destroying the earth as we know it. China comes close but only because it produces loads of shit for the USA. Anything we do in this tiny country makes no difference, speed buy a V8 enjoy your fuel 👍
if there are any particular hazards, such as bad weather, or children leaving school, then you should be driving below the speed limit. The limit is the absolute maximum in best conditions.
Yes, but people are idiots, which is why we need limits in the first place. Maybe the 'smart motorway' idea needs to extend beyond motorways. A 10mph limit outside a school during operating hours and 40mph when it's closed sounds like a great idea to me. Hell, I'd be in favour of an exclusion zone at school start / finish times. If you're not a resident or a school bus then bugger off.
These individual interpretations of the law and justifications for breaking it, only emphasise the need for better enforcement.
It's perfectly possible to drive at legal but wildly inappropriate speeds. Driving without due care / reckless / dangerous is much harder to enforce than sticking up a Gatzo that's as much use as tits on a fish when it's snowing.
Its hard to argue against automatic variable speed limits on cars or motorbikes
Either the car drives itself or the driver has full control. A halfway measure is dangerous in my opinion
It’s bad enough already with the lack of attention.
Inattentive drivers picking up speeding tickets at least get a wake-up call or better banned by being caught.
Would be very irritating tho. there is no reason other than fun to break speed limits
There are plenty of other reasons.
Late.
Not paying attention.
To see how bad you can get the fuel consumption.
Broken speedo, mine currently under reads by 11mph.
Medical emergency.
Being halfway through an overtake and the nodder in the electric car with instant torque wakes up.
Thinking you’re still in France where it’s perfectly safe to do 80mph, whereas it’s terribly dangerous in the UK.
Personally I do large miles and keeping good lane discipline and concentrating on my surroundings helps make long journeys tolerable.
Being very aware of speed limits means I keep my job and sanity.
it’s utterly irrelevant what we do in this country, the USA will be the country that goes down in history as destroying the earth as we know it. China comes close but only because it produces loads of shit for the USA.
Why do you think China is developing so fast? Cos they are getting richer making the shit we buy. Not just the USA. Saying "yeah but look at them" is just stupid. And wrong.
The UK and USA would be in dodge without China making their stuff.
Imports are a net benefit to an economy like ours. I'm not saying this overall is a good or bad thing - just remember the way our economy is structured relies on China to do things cheaper than we can, without it we would collapse.
(CO2 Per Capita puts China below lots of big economies.)
Restrict cars to 70 fine, but they could still drive at 70mph in a 30mph zone.
So what? No-one said it would solve anything.
I am not sure the technology is there to allow cars with a speed limiter to ignore it on a track day or when driving in places where the limit is higher.
So what? The number of people that affects is statistically insignificant. Don't care.
Hell, I’d be in favour of an exclusion zone at school start / finish times. If you’re not a resident or a school bus then bugger off.
Well done, you've invented School Streets.
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/projects/2019/uk-wide/sustrans-school-streets
Bring back hanging
So what? The number of people that affects is statistically insignificant. Don’t care.
I can see why you don't care if you don't do track days.
On the other hand, thousands of people do them and it's an industry that also employs quite a few people either directly or indirectly.
But if you aren't affected...
Reduce motorways speed limits to improve congestion and reduce pollution through increased fuel efficiency.
Reduce urban speed limits to save pedestrian lives
Reduce country speed limits to stop 17 year olds impaling themselves on trees/fence posts with depressing regularity.
The national speed limit on country lanes is the most bonkers one for me. If the driving Gods want to "make progress" just try keeping it between the hedges on a twisty bit of broken tarmac at the speed limit.
None of this gets taken into consideration, doing 70 in inches of snow and ice is perfectly fine but 71 in perfect conditions is breaking the law, it’s madness.
That's taking speeding in isolation. There are other laws to cover doing 70 in inches of snow and ice
The national speed limit on country lanes is the most bonkers one for me. If the driving Gods want to “make progress” just try keeping it between the hedges on a twisty bit of broken tarmac at the speed limit.
We have lots of comparatively wide and well-maintained A-roads restricted to 50, but look into any of the minor roads as you pass and you'll see NSL signs. Now that's bonkers, not least because of the environmental and financial cost of additional 50 signs and 50 repeaters. Either make the NSL 50 or don't bother because PCVs and LGVs in E&W are restricted to 50 in NSL, so the large vehicles naturally restrict the speeds on A-roads.
...I wonder how much monet would be saved on road maintenance...
By painting fewer lines presumably 🙂
It could be Claude back by the treasury
Reduce country speed limits to stop 17 year olds impaling themselves on trees/fence posts with depressing regularity
You can reduce the speed limit to walking pace if you like, but Baz and Tommo in their Corsa’s don’t give a flying ****, laugh in the face of your speed limit and reserve their god-given right to wrap themselves round a tree.
Think of it as Darwinism. I don’t know what you were like, but christ only knows how I made it to 25 alive, given my propensity for lobbing motorbikes down the road when I was young and stupid. A right of passage innit?
I can see why you don’t care if you don’t do track days.
Omelette / eggs.
Either make the NSL 50 or don’t bother because PCVs and LGVs in E&W are restricted to 50 in NSL, so the large vehicles naturally restrict the speeds on A-roads.
And 40mph on every single carriageway in Scotland bar one. Oh look, inconsistency already and we've not even got going.
How many RTA's involve impatience and inappropriate overtakes (coupled with no existent verge maintenance such that there are no sight lines where there used to be plenty)?
Compare that to fatalities caused by wildly excessive speed excluding those self inflicted and I know where I'd rather be focusing my efforts, Smokey Nagata isn't my first concern.
there is no reason other than fun to break speed limits
I’ve just paid a speeding fine. One I was more than happy to.
I incurred said speeding fine driving my Father to hospital.
Because he was having a heart attack. And we were told that an ambulance would be over two hours to reach us. I got to the hospital in under twenty minutes because I broke the speed limit.
He arrested within a minute of us getting to the hospital, and was resuscitated twice. He’s only alive because I broke the speed limit.
I’d do it again.
Oh, and the offence? 44 in a 30. A 70mph limiter would have made bugger all difference.
That’s taking speeding in isolation.
Of course it is. That's what these threads always do. I'm surprised it took three pages for the idiotic but wholly predictable "making progress" snipe to make an entrance. If you're travelling faster than a number on a pole that was considered sensible half a century ago then you're literally worse than Hitler, the fact you couldn't get a Kraft Single between your bumper and the car in front is neither here nor there.
There are other laws to cover doing 70 in inches of snow and ice
Which laws are you referring to?
He arrested within a minute of us getting to the hospital, and was resuscitated twice. He’s only alive because I broke the speed limit.
That's shit. How's he doing?
TBH I'm in favour of GPS based speed limiters across all new vehicles (underpinning maps/data need to be maintained of course) and use of those limiters being the "expected standard" for all drivers so it holds you to 30 in a 30, 40 in a 40 and so on. But their use wouldn't be mandatory, at least not at first...
I do think the facility to override should be included, for edge cases like the one described above or others, but it all comes with a caveat that if you are caught speeding or involved in a collision and it is disclosed that you chose to turn off the limiter (or the telematics tell the truth) then that should factor in any sentencing decisions (other mitigations not withstanding)...
I do think, however, on a test drivers should be able to demonstrate they can control the vehicle's speed, within the posted limit, without relying on a limiter...
Basically all circumstances need to be considered, but overall any technology that reduces the probability of speeding is mostly beneficial, so implement it.
timba
Free Member
…I wonder how much monet would be saved on road maintenance…By painting fewer lines presumably 🙂
It could be Claude back by the treasury
This needs recognition. Particularly as it was my typo!
Interesting (to me) how many of the coutenr points seem to be variations of "yeah, but this is bad too" or "this has a bigger impact".
Starting with one thing doesnt mean we cant address another.
Start with limiting cars to 70mph on motorways.
Then look at the infrastructure needed to geofence schools during the relevant times of day to allow a lower limit when children are arriving / leaving - say 15mph?
Once that's available and proven that same tech can be used to geofence villages to stop bellends / inattentive drivers blasting through at 50 as they dont give a shit about the 30 signs and so on and so forth.
Track days? Keep your inefficient car purely for the track, then you can fit stupidly loud exhausts, non road legal whatever and inappropriate-for-the-road tyres etc without worrying abotu an MOT. Either store it at the track or trailer it there and back.
I know some guys who do just that with their track bikes and am aware of a couple of folks with cars that do the same - worked out cheaper to do that and they then didnt have to drive a car that they'd compromised for track performance on the road.
I also agree very much with what cookieaa posted above.
Anyone else remember the outrage and dire predictions of the death of pubs when the smoking ban was announced? Some of the same arguments too like tax income falling etc. But that's probably a little off topic.
Start with limiting cars to 70mph on motorways.
Why is that the starting point? Because it's easy? What problem are you attempting to address here?
Motorways are statistically the safest roads in the country. We need to worry about them after we've tackled people steaming past schools (or outside my front door for that matter) at 40mph+.
A person hit by a car traveling at 35 miles per hour is five times more likely to die than a person hit by a car traveling at 20 miles per hour. Speed is very much a factor and anyone that claims otherwise is, quite frankly, an idiot.
My older brother was killed and speed was the main factor. His height, combined with the speed the vehicle was traveling at meant his skull connected with part of the A frame. A couple of mph slower and this wouldn’t have been the case. I know this because I spent hours listening to testimony in court and had conversations with the people who work out this shit for a living.
Speed limits do need updating, are wrong in some areas and aren’t the only answer. However, they are all we have at the moment. Technology will hopefully alter this given time. Until then people will continue to die or suffer life changing injuries because others think they have a right to do as they please.
The car is king and punishments for causing untold grief with them are exceedingly light. I had a drunk, uninsured driver plough in to my house a couple of years back. Big hole in my living room, structural damage and expensive repairs.
He fled the scene, got banned for 12 months, some community service and had to pay me £150. My insurance excess was £300 and I occasionally get £5 in my account towards the £150. I laugh about it now because that’s the only option.
And apart from anything else people should know by now that anything involving IT and the car industry is going to be as secure as a paper bag in a monsoon. Yet more shit for folk to hack, probably with a ****ing Flipper Zero. Imagine how many TikTok views you'd get standing on a bridge forcing the cars below you to brake for no reason, christ you can already hack digital signs with them.
A person hit by a car traveling at 35 miles per hour is five times more likely to die than a person hit by a car traveling at 20 miles per hour. Speed is very much a factor and anyone that claims otherwise is, quite frankly, an idiot.
Nobody is claiming that isn't the case but the discussion was about 70mph+ which, last I checked, was pretty much a death sentence for any pedestrian.
In fact the argument is they should be addressing speeds/roads where cars are mixing with vulnerable users rather than concentrating on a vanishingly small amount of road users.
But you know the only way that's going to work? More traffic police. Relying on tech just doesn't work as it only catches speeders in one spot rather than the dangerous muppets everywhere else.
Perhaps not in this thread yet but in every other thread of this nature it happens. I know this because I’ve had to tell this story a number of times on here. I’ve even had posters tell me I’m wrong about why he died, so there is that.
Cars should be limited according to the conditions. How we do this, **** knows! Speed limits are the best thing we have at the moment but they are ignored or seen as mandatory minimums by a troubling percentage of drivers. There’s clearly a lot of people unable to judge conditions or drive in a way that takes others in to account.
I answered in my edit whilst you were posting - more traffic police.
Totally agree. Hopefully one day the tech will advanced to the degree where it can help but until then more visible dotters tsunami are needed
WTF - that is a fantastic autocorrect 🤣 deterrent
Speed is very much a factor and anyone that claims otherwise is, quite frankly, an idiot.
whilst I agree speed is a factor in the outcome of a crash the laws of physics show that speed has nothing to do with preventing the crash in the first place. A crash only happens when 2 objects occupy the same space at the same time. That has nothing to do with speed
Thanks for the primary school physics lesson there. What’s your point exactly? The outcome is what matters when it comes to cars and what they hit. Slower speed means less chance of life ending or life changing scenarios.
