[Closed] Speed limit going up ... and down.

He's an idiot if he thinks raising the speed limit to 80mph will make any significant difference at all to journey times on the whole.

Wow. Deep misunderstanding of how traffic flows and car efficiently there. This transport security really does seem like a huge idiot. Why do they let people with no idea do these important jobs? Do they not get people to check what he is going to say before he speak to the press?

Do they not get people to check what he is going to say before he speak to the press?

Isn't that the work of the Civil Servants?

I thought so, but clearly his Civil Servants don't like him, because the level of stupidity of stuff he comes out with is outstanding.

[url= http://www.howmotorwayswork.co.uk/ ]How Motorways work[/url]
[img] [/img]

TBH I'm not bothered either way, but what really bugs me is why do all the comments in online versions of papers run from newest first by default??

I thought so, but clearly his Civil Servants don't like him,

nice, in depth article in the telegraph there.

"[i]There were 132 deaths on British motorways in 2009, the last year for which full figures are available. In France and Italy the maximum speed limit is 81mph. In Ireland, Spain and Portugal it is 75mph. [/i]"

Yes, now print the death stats for France Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal.

We have the some of the lowest fatality figures in the world for our motorways, lets keep it that way.

I had to drive 160 miles for an interview the other week. Because I was was paying for the petrol I did the whole trip with the cruise control set at around 60mph.
You know it was incredibly relaxing and I had no issues with nodding off like I normally do on long journeys. Plus the car did 46mpg!

rockhopper +1

Although I do it because above ~57mph the midget lifts its nose and the steering goes light!

Wow. Deep misunderstanding of how traffic flows and car efficiently there. This transport security really does seem like a huge idiot. Why do they let people with no idea do these important jobs? Do they not get people to check what he is going to say before he speak to the press?

That post is just a little bit too ironic.

Yes, now print the death stats for France Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal.

Well I've driven in France, and I accept that the road death stats could be down to an extra 12mph on the motorways. However I suspect it's more to do with the fact that lots of young men drive like the criminals in the first Mad Max film.

It's the extra 12mph they're allowed. Makes them crazy!

I've driven in all those countries and I'd say that's a fairly common theme to be honest. Perhaps it's an overall approach to safety which includes the lower speed limits that generates our safer roads.

Yes, now print the death stats for France Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal.

We have the some of the lowest fatality figures in the world for our motorways, lets keep it that way.

Isn't the speed the main factor and not the limit? That's to say that if 90% of the accidents in the UK occur within the limits and 70% of accidents of the accidents in Spain occur outside the limit, we're comparing apples with pears, it's a little more complicated than just comparing the accident levels against the speed limit.
BTW the speed limit in Spain is 110km/hr which I think equates to about 66mph, no?

it would help the economy by generating more fuel revenue. not through shortened journey times.

they'd be better off upping the education of drivers so that more that ~10% could use the motorway properly!!

this morning i was the only car in the inside lane for about 1km. all three lanes travelling at 65mph!

Bear in mind that Hammond is on record as saying electric cars will ease congestion.

The default urban limit should be dropped to 20, and the motorway increased to 80 but rigidly enforced. We also need more police action against people driving like idiots, tail-gating, etc.

cranberry - Member

That post is just a little bit too ironic.

Are you suggesting something I have said is wrong? If so please say so. Or is it a veiled comment at something else, if so please be explicit.

France .... the maximum speed limit is 81mph

Its 130kph on the dry on motorways and 110 (ie under 70) in the wet and 110/100 on dual carriageways.

We also need more police action against people driving like idiots, tail-gating, etc

Yep.

BTW the speed limit in Spain is 110km/hr which I think equates to about 66mph, no?

It's not yet, at the moment it's 120kmh. The 110 limit is coming in from 07/03/11 (supposedly a temporary measure - it's apparently to help Spain save on fuel given the current problems in the middle east).

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).

Its naive at best to think that the 70mph motorway speed limets have any significant impact on motorway fatality's, other than perhaps making people believe they are on a morale crusade by driving at 70mph in any lane they want and blocking other traffic.

other than perhaps making people believe they are on a morale crusade by driving at 70mph in any lane they want and blocking other traffic

[i]Its naive at best to think that the 70mph motorway speed limets have any significant impact on motorway fatality's[/i]

I don't think it is but if you think you can provide evidence to the contrary then go for it. 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.

I've found German motorways to be a bit of a pain in the bum tbh.

Oh and 20mph for urban sounds pretty good to me, maybe increase the motorway speed but have a wet and dry limit like france (which I hadn't heard of before this) and I don't think dual carriageways should be over 70

I think the speed limits are generally fine as they are, but maybe the motorway limit should be raised to 80mph given that probably 50% of the traffic is doing this speed on a regular basis anyhow.

What I think should be more tightly policed are driving errors such as tailgating, middle lane hogging, overtaking without checking the blindspot, red light jumping and so on. But I suppose those things require somebody to actually make a judgement on rather than just saying YOU SPEEDING AND SPEEDING=BAD LOL MONIEZ PLZ

the limit on most of the motorways i drive on seem to be around 85 anyway.

YOU SPEEDING AND SPEEDING=BAD LOL MONIEZ PLZ

Or, to put it another way: Here are the rules, if you break them you get fined. If you feel hard done by - tough.

Keep the limit on motorways at 70.

If they raise it they take away the thrill of breaking it......

molgrips - Member

YOU SPEEDING AND SPEEDING=BAD LOL MONIEZ PLZ

Or, to put it another way: Here are the rules, if you break them you get fined. If you feel hard done by - tough.

But is a rule which is broken by 50% of people regularly actually a valid rule? Especially considering things such as those I listed which I consider much more unsafe are seemingly not policed at all.

CIP: I've seen a police car over take a middle lane mong and go back to the outside lane without doing anything. Yet that is dangerous, anybody driving properly who wants to overtake the MLM has to go through two lanes each way instead of one.

I've also been tailgated by an unmarked police car. Oh but of course that's fine as long as they haven't gone over the arbitrary number on the dashboard.

its a valid point doc if you upped it to 80 everyone would just charge round at 90.

nonk - Member

its a valid point doc if you upped it to 80 everyone would just charge round at 90.

Seemingly everybody already does. I always feel like the slowest car on the road doing 70.

I think I'm seeing a downward trend in motorway speeds on my journey to work. 4 years ago if you were doing 70mph you were in the minority and there were plenty of people going past you like you were stood still. Now 70 - 75mph seems to be the norm.

What I will rant about is people whose speed is constantly changing. Yes, I have pulled out to overtake you but that does not mean I want a race, there is no need to speed up now I am next to you. Also, just because there is a hill is doesn't mean you have to change speed, ease off or on to your pedal and you will remain at a contsant speed. Thanks!

But is a rule which is broken by 50% of people regularly actually a valid rule?

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.

What I will rant about is people whose speed is constantly changes. ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I drive at whatever speed I feel like.

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.

"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!

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.

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.

Most people travel during the congested periods by definition

Enlighten me

TheBrick - Member
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 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.

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.

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!

[i]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. [/i]

Go to the link you gave us a few posts up. Click the first link in the search, here, allow me.

[url] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit [/url]

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.

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.

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.

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?

[i]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?[/i]

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.. !

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.

Brick,

putting

Do they not get people to check what he is going to say before he speak[sic] to the press?

Deep misunderstanding of how traffic flows and car efficiently[sic] there.

This transport security[sic] really does seem like a huge idiot.

aracer - Member
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.

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 me

http://tinyurl.com/6l35aqd

Interesting 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 [b]for[/b] 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.

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.

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.

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.

The only benefit is a few people who are travelling very early or late on the motorways gain a little time

It is clear to see therefore that accident risk is proportional to speed.

aracer the boy racer loves these threads..........dont-cha ? 🙂

Or - have no speed limit but heavily police any driving deemed dangerous by the rozzers

No. Varies with maybe, but certainly not proportional to.

Quite right - lazy maths language from me.

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.

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! 😉

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.

PP you are arguing for the blatantly obvious!

Driving at 80mph doesn't actually make you concentrate more.