for British roads and motorways

would you make any major changes from the current limits?

20mph around schools during school time? 30 mph otherwise?
100 mph on motorways or would you scrap them entirely? Maybe have different limit depending on the conditions - like they have in France?

Could you go faster if your car had better brakes & tires? Does it matter this would give the police an enforcement problem?

30 limits in residential areas are adequate. Maybe reduction to 20 around certain areas, however better crossing facilities for pedestrians and more "personal responsibility" on their part would be more useful than limit reductions.

Some 40/50 limits may be reviewed, some just are not needed especially if they are to feed a strategically placed speed camera. Some, of course, are justified.

Raise limits on motorways to 85mph for cars and reduce the times at which lorries can either use motorways or overtake. I.e. prevent use or overtaking at peak periods. Incentivise lorry companies to use motorways at night, e.g. lower road tax etc. Either make undertaking legal or make "middle/outside lane hogging" a 3-point penalty.

Better motorway training for new drivers, again, much more important than simple focusing on speed.

As I've 'matured' I've come to realise that, for some urban areas, 30mph is too fast and 20mph would be more appropriate, however a blanket 30 mph limit for 'built-up areas' is, in my mind too restrictive.
Our nearby town is blighted by young drivers in pimped-up small cars driving around at high speeds. In response, the local authority has installed 'traffic-calming' measures (restricting the road width at intervals and installing humps) which have absolutely no effect on the antics of the said youngsters.
If the Police would act against these tearaways by stopping them and explaining that unless the anti-social behaviour ceased then their vehicles would be impounded (many are not road-legal, and I'm sure there are reasons to stop them and even prosecute) then maybe some relief would ensue. Instead, I was visited and questioned for overtaking a slow-moving (15mph as she joined from a side-road) Driving-school car (I doubt that I exceeded the speed limit during this manoeuvre, and it was only in the opinion of the driving instructor that his pupil was 'startled' by my action). :ugh: I suppose said instructor wanted me to follow him/her through all the subsequent width-restrictions. (I do give learner drivers appropriate consideration, but I'm not prepared to treat them as I would a funeral courtege.)

Paint a large yellow cicle onto the road wherever there is a road-traffic death. Anyone caught exceeding the speed limit over the top of such an obvious sign of danger should receive extra penalty points and fines. Speed cameras in the same location only serve to p155 people off but "driving over somebodys' grave" ought to make them think. The French have a system of sticking black cut-out shapes of dead people by the road to serve the same purpose, I believe.
I've often wondered if the banning of airbags and safety belts would instil a greater deal of respect for the road. Maybe it would help if airbags were replaced with sharp metal spikes?
Motorway 80, dual carriageway 60, urban 30, town centres 20 or less?





18 months in physio after a ****er hit me doing 40 in a 30 zone whilst trying to put his seatbelt on. His truck was also on the wrong side of the road.

130kmph (80mph) in the dry and 110kmph (68.35mph call it 70eh?) in the wet.

Seems to work pretty well.

What it it's just spitting?!

Motorway: 80mph
Dual-carriageway: 70mph or less (depending on number of junctions, bends etc)
Main road: 60mph
Urban areas: 30/20mph

Slight thread drift - has anyone else noticed how junction warning signs on new stretches of motorway/dual-carriageway are now at 2/3 mile and 1/3 mile rather than 1 mile and 1/2 mile? Could very easily become 1 km and 1/2 km. Call me paranoid but...

I would go for 85 or 90 mph on 3 lane motorways. Car brakes and tyres are so much better today than they were when the 70 mph limit was brought in 25 years ago (was it really that long ago?). It would also fit into the reality of how fast traffic actually moves. Not sure whether I am justified in saying what follows, but if you assume the majority of people have a strong sense of self preservation and the majority of people have exceeded the 70 mph limit on motorways, this could be due to fact they feel safe exceeding the current speed limit by 10, 15, or 20 mph, depending on the vehicle in which they are travelling.

Spikes on steering columns is an interesting idea. So in the event of a small shunt, the spike springs out and impales itself into the forehead of the driver? That'll learn him, eh?, not to drive like an idiot !

I've just watched two complete @<hidden> drag race their tw@<hidden> at 50 or 60mph in a 30mph zone at 7:15am, straight through a point where a child was killed recently (driver was doing more than 30 but not much as I recall). I don't think the speed limit at that spot needs to be changed but a pedestrian crossing is essential and I am amazed one hasn't been installed since the accident.

Harsher penalties for flagrant and/or frequent abuse of the speed limit is a good idea and impounding and scrapping of perpetrator’s cars (complete with sound equipment!) is an excellent proposal!

Agree with reassessment of 40/50 limits, I know several that could be 60 quite reasonably. Not sure I'd want to see the Mway limit raised to as much as 100; I know most of you lot are pilots and have great reactions, but there are too many dimwitted idiots out there that shouldn't be let loose on a tricycle!

D Sqdrn,

Think you've hit the nail on the head - different vehicles are (safely) capable of different speeds, although this would be a nightmare to legislate.

HW

Interestingly, a minor, unclassified, otherwise unrestricted road near me has just had a 50mph limit put on it. Personally, I wouldn't dare try it at 50 mph......from a safety viewpoint, 40 is more to the point - the road is only just wide enough for two cars to pass, and has lots of bends

They've started sticking these shock messages on petrol pumps round here, something like 'two thirds of speeding deaths are on rural roads' or something similarly impossible to prove. So looks like narrow roads are in the spotlight. Probably makes sense as they are far more dangerous than dual carriageways and motorways, you only need some young boy-racer to come speeding around a corner on a lane to ruin your life. It's too easy for boy racers to afford cars nowadays, when I were a lad it was too expensive.

Speed limits will soon be enforced rigidly by average speed cameras everywhere just to cut carbon emissions. Claiming it's due to safety will soon be forgotten, they are already putting the technology in place to check our speeds over long distances on safe roads like motorways. If they get a GPS receiver in every car like they are trying it will be easier still, speed on that country lane and the ticket will be in the post. I even suppose it will be technically possible to look at the sharpness of the bend and width of the road and use that to decide a specific 'safe' speed.

Make an IQ test and a reflex examination standard requirements for anybody applying for a driver's license. Then remove all speed limits.

Problem solved, no more road deaths, no more pointless fines, and much less congestion.

No need to thank me.

Motorway - 80mph

Dual Carriageway - 70mph, slowing down to 50/60mph with junctions and cameras

Schools areas - 20-30mph with cameras

Country Roads - 50mph

A nightmare again to legislate but perhaps an advanced driving test to be able these speeds.....some folks cant cope at 70!!!

Motorway, no limit....but draconian reckless driving rules

Dual/main roads 70 mph

residential 30 mph

within 200 mtrs of schools 15mph

abolish speed bumps

Introduce traffic flow management in london, rather than traffic congestion.

Why not just do away with speed limits everywhere, also do away with speed cameras/bumps/traffic calming measures and police camera cars.

Just fit speed limiters to every car that read transponders and set the maximum speed at any location to the safe limit.

Overnight you have saved a massive amount of money but also lost a lot of revenue, sacked loads of administrators, saved thousands of hours of court time and probably saved many lives.

Oh yes I forgot, the speed freaks and Jeremy Clarkson ass sniffers wont hear a word of it (probably invoke the Uman Rite act).

Oh yes I forgot, the speed freaks and Jeremy Clarkson ass sniffers wont hear a word of it (probably invoke the Uman Rite act).
Why not while we are at it, regulate how much C02 we emitt, those that breath more pay more......
Those that breath less pay less....of course those that are dead pay nothing, that is, until they start to decompose..and then the cost goes up again.

Hmmmm how much for a transponder that knows where I am all the time?:hmm:

Hmmmm how much for a transponder that knows where I am all the time?You're probably carrying one already.
Some people refer to them as mobile 'phones, but they are really electronic tagging devices that the men in black have tricked us into carrying everywhere with us.

Once road charging comes into force you will have one fitted to your car anyway.

Grumpy not-that-old man mode
There is a little sh!t aged 19 who lives nearby and has just passed his test and he drives at sixty or seventy along the back roads near here in his souped up stupid wee car.
There are tractors, JCBs, horses, people walking on the road, oh aye and me.

This is on very narrow country roads. There are holes in a drystone wall at a blind hairpin where people keep on going through itand he's treating it like a race track.
Only speed limiter that wee git will understand is a cricket bat round the side of the head if I go down to his house and tell his mummy.
Fos

Slight thread drift but important because it would improve traffic flow and avoid some people risking overtaking in the wrong place.
I believe that in the USA they have a law that requires slower moving traffic,e.g. caravans, tractors etc. to pull over at the first available safe place when the build up of traffic behind gets above a certain number of vehicles. I think the number is about ten but i'm not sure.
It would be a nice law to have here in the UK.

I've matured over the years, Foss.
I no longer drive a souped-up stupid wee car.
I drive a family diesel estate (turbocharged).
I still drive along that narrow country road.
In the old days people would hear me coming (thanks to the custom-built large bore heavy copper exhaust.
Nowadays I surprise them . . .

Group
Not as much as a surprise I get if I am heading towards a tractor with spikes or pointy things on the front when I turn round a bendy bit.
I drive slower these days. I'm getting old. :{
Fos

Thread drift

Or even the surprise that everyone got on the A14 at Newmarket two days ago. Especially a BMW X5 driver that is. There he was cruising along the three lane eastbound stretch when an articulated tanker lorry (not fuel) came straight down the slip road from the service station, crossed (and blocked) all three lanes, took out the central reservation and came to rest sticking into the fastlane of the westbound carriageway. The BMW driver had nowhere to go except into the side of the lorry.

The biggest surprise of all was that the tanker was driverless!

(I don't know why there was no-one in it but the lorries fill up at the rear of the service station and it is a straight run down the slope to the A14). They were all very lucky as at 8.40am the road is usually busy but free-flowing.

I drove past as the first fire engine was arriving (no police yet) and wondered why the people standing around were so smiley and why the lorry was at such an angle to the carriageway but it's wheels, trailer and cab were all in line. I also blessed my luck that the accident had happened at the exit to the service station so I was able to get round the rear of the tanker using a bit of the slip road. Little did I realise why at the time!

Thread drift over

Paint a large yellow cicle onto the road wherever there is a road-traffic death. Anyone caught exceeding the speed limit over the top of such an obvious sign of danger should receive extra penalty points and fines. Speed cameras in the same location only serve to p155 people off but "driving over somebodys' grave" ought to make them think.

Whilst I see the point of this for making people think twice about being stupid, is it really fair to fine someone for being 5mph over the limit just because an accident once happened there? It isn't always an indication that the same will happen again.

I can never make my mind up about this sort of thing. 85 in my small car feels brisk and any faster would feel foolish, but the same speed in my father's car feels like walking pace and it has the brakes to match this kind of poke, but then you can't say "people with good cars can drive faster" because it would impossible to enforce. I'd rather see aptitude testing and retesting but we know that will never happen because far too many people would find themselves using our glorious public transport network.
Electronic speed restrictors are a waste of time, because you could easily be dangerous on some NSL roads by doing 50mph, never mind 60. No amount of gadgetry can make up for decent education and good sense.

Ginger ;)

you only need some young boy-racer to come speeding around a corner on a lane to ruin your life.

In my case it was a 40 year old in a BMW

Foss

We had one of those here a year or two ago. He hit a tree in the end.

His passenger survived.

In an ideal world, I'd ask everyone to take a "chill pill" before they got behind the wheel.
This would enable them to drive 5mph slower, extend common courtesy to others and arrive where they wanted to go a few minutes later, but a lot less stressed in the knowledge they'd not ****** up anyone else's day.

Make the driving test 3 times harder and make everyone resit it every 5 years. Most of the hold ups we see here in Glasgow are due to numpties who cannot merge into faster moving traffic, screwing it up for everyone. Oh and automatic castration for tailgaters

In my experience most of the drivers who do ****up everyones day are the ones so chilled and relaxed that they are totally oblivious to what is happening around them.

Far better to share the roads with those who stay alert and think about what they are doing. They are the ones who do show courtesy because they notice what other road users are doing and respond accordingly.

Many drivers do take a form of chill pill, it's called alcohol. It no doubt makes them very laid back but doesn't seem to help their driving.

Passed a Lothario on an Italian AutoStrada last week driving one of those white van thingies with transparent front cab panels.

That's how I know he had one leg propped up casually on the dash while texting on his phone at 120kph......:ugh:

Agree about the castration, though.

Ripline

If I were to have such a challenging job as setting speed limits in this country I reckon I'd probably be earning a totally unjustified 6 figure salary. I'd probabaly not give a toss about speed limits either because I'd be so rich I'd have a chauffeur to drive me around and damn everyone else who suffers increased journey time or injury as a result of my poor decision making.

Why have speed limits?

Make all roads totally unrestricted.

Prosecute for:

Driving without due care and attention (hefty fine)
Careless driving: sequestration and sale of vehicle
Dangerous driving: Sequestration of vehicle plus prison sentence

Wasn't it during the original oil crisis (1970's?) that the USA speed limit was changed to 55mph in order to improve national fuel consumption?

With existing concerns over global warming, couldn't this be considered for the UK?

TightSlot

Great idea. Actually let's go a stage further and stop people driving at all. That should help global warming.

Ban aviation too - those carbon emitting hooligans!

Wasn't it during the original oil crisis (1970's?) that the USA speed limit was changed to 55mph in order to improve national fuel consumption?It was also when the national speed limit was introduced in the UK. The limit was initially 50/60/70 for two-lane/dual carriageway/motorways then the limits for two-lane and dual carriageways was later raised (to 60/70 respectively, can't remember when) but the motorway limit was left unchanged.

The limit was set in around 1967 as 70MPH on all previously derestricted roads. Single carriageways, dual carriageways and motorways.

During the 1973 crisis there was a 50MPH overall limit for a short while. Then motorways went up to 70, duals to 60 and singles stayed at 50. In about 1977 the single and dual carriageway limits were raised by 10MPH, incidentally with no effect on either speeds or accidents.

National speed limit in the UK was introduced in the '60s, and tinkered with ever since. Was reduced to 50mph on non-divided roads in the oil crisis days in '73/'74. Remember going to the post office to get the ration book but it was never used, though fuel economy of the car increased significantly when driving at 50mph. There again, you could get four star in '73 for about 34p per gallon, or three gallons for a quid. Lot of money a quid back then so you got a discount for being a good customer.

Actually let's go a stage further and stop people driving at all

:}

But there is no suggestion that driving should be banned? The suggestion is simply that a reduction in the speed limit to 55mph should be considered as a possible compromise. The potential reduction in global warming gases might far outweigh the tinkering that present aviation policies encourage.

I'm no tree-hugger, it just strikes me as an odd situation - many people are apparently willing to wear hair shirts over aviation emissions, but an initiative that might actually make a serious contribution is not even discussed because it would mean that we have to drive 15mph slower on some roads?

if it's lower carbon output you'd like, then you could achieve the same by not allowing any person to buy a new car with an engine of more than 750cc?

that should enable most cars to reach 55 mph flat out......even with a full load of adults ! (Unless they are from the USA.)

I reckon the difference in fuel economy for a chelsea tractor when travelling at 55 mph rather than at 70 mph is neglible. (But am prepared to be corrected by someone who has the information.)

I was thinking more in terms of safety, though I take your point.........

not allowing any person to buy a new car with an engine of more than 750cc?
Interesting idea - we're clearly thinking along the same lines (although probably travelling at speed towards the tunnel in opposite directions)
:E

fuel economy of the car increased significantly when driving at 50mph.
Confirmed! During the 'fuel crisis', garages were uncertain of their supplies, and 'needing' to make a long-distance return trip to visit parents I was concerned about being stuck at the roadside. I managed to fill a couple of 2-gallon (metal) cans (the sort that petrol was sold in before the days of roadside pumps), and with a full tank, set off. Restricting my level-road speed to 50mph I held that accelerator position (it's the change in throttle setting that wastes fuel as the mixture breaks-down and then has to be enriched to recreate the required speed), losing speed as hills were climbed (gear changes, when necessary, were made at open-throttle - the previously-mentioned 50mph-on-the-level setting), and the vehicle allowed to 'overspeed' down the hills. In effect, the engine became a constant-speed device (at which internal combustion engines are efficient - providing you choose the appropriate 'mid-range' speed).
Result was that, instead of having to stop en-route and top-up from my cans, I reached my destination on the original tank of fuel. During my visit I was able to replenish the tank (some garages were restricting sales to four gallons unless you were a regular customer), and returned safely without needing the contents of the cans.
Incidentally, whilst many filling stations at the time imposed a four-gallon limit, some also made that a minimum, in order to prevent motorists from going from garage-to-garage and topping-up (thereby increasing the queues for very little return to the garages).
The technique still works today (with my turbo-diesel family estate). When travelling the length of the country (especially at night, and with no urgency) I adjust my steady speed to correspond with that of the trucks (which are governed to 56mph) so I'm not constantly catching-up with side-by-side overtaking heavies. The benefits are significant and I can easily achieve over 600 miles on one tankful. Journey times are very little different too.

Back to speed limits - No 1 son is co-ordinating a citizens' 'speed watch' in his small Surrey village (you know, schools, shops, garages, kids, etc) with 'citizens' speed guns', and with a police 'presence' (but no 'official' speed guns) and they recently clocked

87 drivers over 47mph (Limit 40) including a local lady who "'did not know the speed limit was 40"

1 motor-cyclist at 93mph.

.............in a short space of time. No convictions obviously, but this madness needs to stop.:ugh:

Motorways: Normal maximum 100 mph, but variable up or down depending upon traffic and weather conditions, the particular motorway and the time of day.
It's illogical having the same speed limit on all motorways at all times and in all places. eg The M1 during the day needs speed limits. The M74 at night, in the very early hours of the morning and for much of the day, does not.

I'd support harsh penalties on tail-gaters provided there were equal or even harsher penalties on drivers who drive for miles in the middle lane, especially when they do so at or about the same speed as vehicles in the left lane or, worse, when there's nothing in the left lane. They are the cause of most of the tailbacks on motorways. The left lane almost always has the least traffic. Alternatively, allow overtaking on either side.

There will always be exceptions who drive too fast for the conditions but, if the majority of drivers break a speed limit on a particular road, it's usually (not always) because the speed limit is lower than it needs to be.

Well said Heliport.

Some people seem to take a way too simplistic approach to road safety in that they think speed is the only killer.

Lane hoggers should get fines like they do in Germany. I wonder why German autobahns have the lowest fatality rates per passenger miles, despite having no speed limits.
87 drivers over 47mph (Limit 40) including a local lady who "'did not know the speed limit was 40"
this madness needs to stop.
Uh, what madness? 40mph is perfectly safe but 48mph is "madness" all of a sudden??? There are no other parameters that go into judging road safety?


An alert driver at 50mph is a lot safer than somebody changing their CD at 30 mph.

A driver with good reflexes at 50mph is a lot safer than a slow poke at 30 mph.

A small nimble sportscar at 50mph stops a hell of a lot quicker and avoids accidents a hell of a lot better than a SUV at 30mph.

I like the rolling limits on the M25. If I had my way I would extend them to all motorways and remove the maximum so that, if conditions allowed, I could get up to Dux in one hour legally. I would lower limits everywhere that there was a junction. I get pissed off waiting to get out of side roads. :*

I adjust my steady speed to correspond with that of the trucks (which are governed to 56mphWhich country are you in? The Highway Code states that HGVs are restricted to 60mph on motorways, but I haven't seen that happening in the UK.

Which country are you in?
:confused:

I'm in the UK, and do a lot of motorway driving, and my experience is that HGV drivers keep to the speed limit. Perhaps because they haven't got a choice - they have governers fitted that may allow a few mph leeway, but not much.
Trucks which are just below the HGV weight and driven by people with ordinary licences often break the speed limit. They are just a larger version of the 'white van' idiots. HGV drivers are amongst the best on the road, IMHO.
Some people complain about being held up while HGVs overtake, but they're often the Middle Lane Owners Club sort who, when they do venture into the outside lane to overtake, do so at 5 mph more than the vehicle they are overtaking. The sort who proudly proclaim they've never had an accident in n years driving, but have probably caused a few.

HGV (and all towed trailers above 25kg) maximum (motorway and dual-carriageway) limit in the UK is 60.

EEC Governed speed (all EEC countries) for HGVs (but not all trailers) is 90 kph = 56 MPH (near as dammit).

Driving licences have come to be accepted as a right, not a privilege. Until that changes (and of course it never will because no government would have the balls to introduce the necessary changes, including making EVERY licence holder resit their test) then arguing over arbitrary limits is pointless.

Imposing a (say) 110km/h limit on a road guarantees a steady stream of traffic sitting up each other's kazoos at 114km/h. Brilliant.

Sorry folks, speed limits are meaningless diversions from the real problem, which is that licences to drive potentially lethal weapons are handed out willy nilly to any moron who can (a) drive around the block without hitting anything and (b) do a successful reverse park.

Both of these things need be done (here in Oz at least) only during the office hours of the testers, so there is no need to demonstrate an ability even to turn the headlights on, let alone drive at a higher speed than 60km/h on anything but a dry bitumen road.

Governments' sanctimonious bleeding about the road toll while placing revenue-raising speed cameras on the safest roads in the state makes me want to throw up.

Teach people to drive properly and the whole speed limit argument dissolves in its own hypocrisy. :mad:

PanPan - you are not a journalist by any chance, are you? The way you have truncated and misinterpreted my post suggests you are - or should be.:ugh:

To restate:

Nowhere did I state that "48mph is "madness" all of a sudden"

Nowhere did I state that all the 47mph+ drivers were driving at exactly 48mph.
An alert driver at 50mph is a lot safer than somebody changing their CD at 30 mph.

A driver with good reflexes at 50mph is a lot safer than a slow poke at 30 mph. both statements of course dismiss the fact that the risk of injury to others (eg the children and other residents of the village) is dramatically increased by the 50mph driver over the 30mph driver, whether changing a CD or not.

Sorry, BOAC. you dug the hole you find yourself in. You didn't specify what speed the 87 drivers over 47mph were doing, you simply implied that all of them were part of "this madness".

Your other selective quote,
the risk of injury to others (eg the children and other residents of the village) is dramatically increased by the 50mph driver over the 30mph driver, whether changing a CD or not.
is also emotive and almost certainly untrue. I'll take my chances with the 50mph driver any day over the 30mph driver changing a CD.

I repeat that the fixation with arbitrary limits is counter-productive.

Some people complain about being held up while HGVs overtake, but they're often the Middle Lane Owners Club sort who, when they do venture into the outside lane to overtake, do so at 5 mph more than the vehicle they are overtaking.
Yet it is OK for the HGV overtaking another with barely 1mph of difference in speed?

Sorry, but when I see HGVs close together in the inside lane, I overtake on the outside. Staying in the middle is far too dangerous.

BOAC:
Nowhere did I state that "48mph is "madness" all of a sudden"

But your post very clearly says "No convictions obviously, but this madness needs to stop." after refering to people exceeding 47mph in a 40mph zone. Unless you were solely refering to the biker, but with luck he'll "lose control" somewhere and resolve that problem without collateral damage.

eal401Yet it is OK for the HGV overtaking another with barely 1mph of difference in speed? I wouldn't say it's OK, but I don't see it as a significant problem, partly because the frequency is minute in proportion to the frequency of car drivers hogging the middle lane, and partly because on most occasions the problem can easily be resolved by passing in the outside lane.

--------

I don't know why but, for some reason, the overwhelming majority of UK drivers just will not use the left lane - even when it's clear, and even on a deserted motorway with no other vehicles in sight for miles ahead.
My impression is that many join a motorway, get into the middle lane as soon as they can, and then stay there for the rest of their journey.
I've occasionally asked why, when travelling with drivers of that sort, and the most common answers are variations of 'It saves moving in and out of the left lane to overtake lorries or other slower moving traffic' :rolleyes:, and 'The left lane is for lorries and slow traffic, the middle lane is for normal driving and the outside lane is for overtaking.' :rolleyes:

I'm never sure if the lane-hoggers don't use their mirrors so are oblivious to the stream of traffic trying to get past, or know full well people want to pass and selfishly couldn't care less.

Tail-gaters
There are some bad instances, but I don't find them as much of a problem as the lane-hoggers. The driver being tail-gated is often (not always) just as much at fault - the sort who could easily move over but get pleasure out of deliberately holding up the following driver.
A friend recently complained she'd been tailgated for a couple of miles on a motorway by 'some idiot'.
Could you have moved over?
Yes.
Why didn't you?
Why should I? I was doing 70.
:ugh:

FL

"for some reason, the overwhelming majority of UK drivers just will not use the left lane - even when it's clear"


Possibly due to the terrible condition of that lane - sections of the nsl on the A12, for example, are like cart tracks.

I don't think that is a reason in most cases because I often find the middle lane is the one that has been resurfaced and therefore provides the smoothest ride. Even rutted left lanes can be used if you're prepared to drive very slightly off centre.

Things like huge traffic jams at motorway slip-road entrances just hint that people don't know what they're doing. I agree that unnecessarily slow drivers are more dangerous than people give them credit for. I've seen people with the patience of a saint glow incandescent with rage after being forced to travel at half speed on a clear road thanks to someone who hasn't looked in their mirror since they lost their hair. When people are boxed into such a situation, they are more likely to attempt less than ideal overtakes. Of course, in our modern ubersafe H&S world, overtaking is on a par with chicken molesting, even when done in complete safety. I'm not really going anywhere with this, but I hate seeing people driving who take absolutely no pride in making a good job of it. probably the smae ppl who rite like vis on forums bcos vey hav no pride lol.

Cheers

Ginger ;)

Well, I'm amazed! I wonder if those 'free-thinkers' amongst you who decry speed limits in built-up areas would mind if I drove along their residential roads at 80mph while their kids/family/whatever were in the road? I promise not to change CDs at the time too. No - I suspect they would be belly-aching loudly. Someone else's road - no problemo, mate. How much over 40mph do you 'f-ts' think IS acceptable in a built-up area? Let's have some figures please and the readership can judge for themselves.

The evidence for survival rates against speed of impact for pedestrians is incontrovertable.

Nobody, but nobody, is suggesting doing 80 in built up areas either when there are people in the road or otherwise.

The point at issue is whether the current speed limit regime is correct for dissuading drivers from going too fast without unnecessarily restricting progress. Survival rates against speed of impact are irrelevant since we are discusing speed limits, not recommended impact speeds for having accidents at.

A traffic police aquaintance told me of an Oxfordshire village which had the speed limit reduced from 40 to 30, not because there had been any acccidents but purely because of pressure from residents. The 40 limit had been observed by the vast majority but once it was lowered speeds of 50+ were not unusual. Drivers could see that 30 was unnecessarily slow and felt they may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. Raising the limit back to 40 solved the problem.

BOAC, if all speed limits were abolished, what speed would you drive through built up areas at when there was a chance of pedestrians in the road? Why do you assume the rest of us would do 80?

87 drivers over 47mph (Limit 40) including a local lady who "'did not know the speed limit was 40"

1 motor-cyclist at 93mphIt would be interesting to know what the total number of cars during this time was. What was the distribution of speed like amongst all the drivers? I think there is an 85% rule, which says something like the speed limit should be set at the 85th centile as this sort of takes into account what a reasonable driver thinks is a safe speed. Or something like that.

We have a 40 through our village and it's also probably a bit too fast. However when the council highway department comes out and does their measuring things, they say there is no justification for lowering it, or putting in additional calming measures, as not enough drivers break the 40. Or something like that, whenever the council start doing things I go glassy eyed and give up the desire to live. So in a way, you might say the speed limit is fine as it is.

I'd simply multiply every British speed limit currently in force by minus 1.609, then round to the nearest ten.

Kill two birds with one stone, that would.

TW

It would be impractical, and never happen because no goverment would risk the loss of votes it would bring. I'd put the motorway limit up to 100. BUT only allow drivers on motorways that had passed an additional test. And any deviation form safe and common snese driving would lead to the loss of that licence.
Annoying though it is to agree with FL, I do on his point over the drivers reluctance to use the inside lane. Prime example being a 2 lane stretch of the M3 this morning, around a mile of nothing on the inisde lande, and everyone doing 50 in the outside. Why? An HGV in the distance, being overtaken by another HGV.
The drivers I've stopped for hogging the middle lane have claimed it's because they can't get out from the inside lane, and get stuck. That to me means a lack of planning ahead while driving.
Off motorways, 20 near schools, not just during school hours, they are in use by children long after in some cases. 30 in other urban areas, except where there are barriers preventing pedestrians getting onto that road. 60 on all other roads.
Why low? Easy, brakes may be better than they were, drivers are not. Improve driver standards, then raise speed limits.

The evidence for survival rates against speed of impact for pedestrians is incontrovertable(sic).

Can you quote the research to back up that statement please?

The drivers I've stopped for hogging the middle lane have claimed it's because they can't get out from the inside lane, and get stuck.

Do you mean you actually pull people over? Are air traffic controllers allowed to do that?

Ginger ;)

My cousin's German husband was a civilian worker with the German Polizei.
He acquired one of the 'stop' paddles and carried it in his car. When he was unable to force other drivers to give-way to his forceful driving (he was really mean and nasty in everything that he did, believing himself to be one of the survivors of the true 'master race', he would wave the stop paddle at them. That usually cleared his way.
I believe he eventually met his match during a parking incident when the other driver beat him to the space that he had his eye on. He produced the paddle, but was then arrested for impersonating a policeman.
I suppose you can't win them all . . .

The drivers I've stopped for hogging the middle lane have claimed it's because they can't get out from the inside lane, and get stuck.
Out of interest, how do you justify stopping them?
I only ask because the Highway Code indicates than lane discipline is guidance not mandatory. (Not that I am justifying middle-lane hogging by any means!) It says you "should" not you "MUST"
Quote:
Lane discipline
238: You should drive in the left-hand lane if the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower moving vehicles it may be safer to remain in the centre or outer lanes until the manoeuvre is completed rather than continually changing lanes. Return to the left-hand lane once you have overtaken all the vehicles or if you are delaying traffic behind you. Slow moving or speed restricted vehicles should always remain in the left-hand lane of the carriageway unless overtaking. You MUST NOT drive on the hard shoulder except in an emergency or if directed to do so by signs.
MT(E&W)R regs 5, 9 & 16(1)(a) & MT(S)R regs 4, 8 & 14(1)(a)

What do the "regs" at the bottom refer to?

If you are overtaking a number of slower moving vehicles it may be safer to remain in the centre or outer lanes until the manoeuvre is completed rather than continually changing lanes.This is that bit that "Left lane evangelists" often seem to ignore. Obviously open to interpretation (how small a gap are we talking about), but the intent is clear: you shouldn't be ducking and weaving in and out of the left lane.

The number of times I've seen someone dive into the left hand lane when they can clearly see a slow-moving truck up ahead and know they are going to have to pull out again. That's not safe, and it isn't the intent of the "keep left" rule either.

eal401

Re lane-hoggers -
bjcc ... Out of interest, how do you justify stopping them?

I don't know how bjcc justified it, but two possibilities are:

If others are inconvenienced: 'Driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.'
I've never known (nor heard of) anyone being prosecuted for lane hogging; there appears to be a greater risk of being prosecuted for overtaking lane hoggers on the left.
IMHO the problem is sufficiently serious that there should be an 'awareness' campaign followed, after a reasonable warning period, by strict enforcement and prosecutions. (In much the same way as the publicity re mobile phones.)
It is a major cause of congestion on our motorways and, whether it should or shouldn't, it often causes frustration and irritation - which is not conducive to road safety.

Even if no immediate/actual inconvenience to others: 'Driving without due care and attention.'
(Statutory definition: Driving in a way which “falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.” )
Although arguably harsh, I'd have the same campaign in the hope of changing the UK driving culture. On one view, drivers driving for miles in the middle lane on a relatively empty motorway aren't doing any harm. However, they tend to stay there even when traffic in the middle and outside lanes catches up, forcing two lanes into one.
Also, the 'no undertaking' law forces faster traffic using the left lane to move across two lanes and back again just to pass.

I like the American system of being able to pass on either side.

What do the "regs" at the bottom refer to?
MT(E&W)R = Motorways Traffic (England & Wales) Regulations 1982
MT(S)R = Motorways Traffic (Scotland) Regulations 1995



Grainger

I'm a "Left lane evangelist" :) , but I'm not advocating ducking and weaving in and out of the left lane.
The drivers I'm concerned about are those who hardly ever (if ever) use the left lane, those who drive virtually entire journeys in the middle lane even when going at much the same speed as traffic in the left lane (or the left lane is empty), and those who refuse to move over when they are holding up traffic even though they could do so perfectly safely.



FL

The number of times I've seen someone dive into the left hand lane when they can clearly see a slow-moving truck up ahead and know they are going to have to pull out again. That's not safe, and it isn't the intent of the "keep left" rule either.
If I am overtaking a strewn-out line of vehicles, but being followed by a vehicle whose driver wants to travel faster than I am (and, assuming that I am not, in turn, being 'held up' by the vehicle(s) ahead of me) I will indicate a left turn as I pass the vehicle before the next reasonable space before the next vehicle to overtake (!), then pull-in hoping that the following driver is alert enough to be ready to accelerate and overtake me so that I'm not inconvenienced and so that I can pull-out behind him (or her). Of course, if the overtaking stream is being held back by dawdlers who are refusing to give-way (as described above), then I'm not going to willingly 'move-back' in the queue.
I don't 'intentionally' undertake vehicles who stick in outer lanes, but will change lanes (where there's a reasonable gap) when the inner lane(s) are moving faster in order to escape from the outer-lane hoggers (on roads such as the A1).
Some you win, some you lose . . .

M. MouseCan you quote the research to back up that statement please? - it is called 1/2 x M x V² - basic physics. Hit someone at 40 mph and their body and your vehicle have to dissipate almost twice as much energy as at 30mph. That hurts more.

As far as the original question (which seems to have wandered into lane discipline) is concerned, I am very much with Paris Dakar but would add a limit of 70mph on other roads with lower limits on narrow/slippery roads.

It is a sad fact of life that driving skills bear no correlation to disposable income and a lot of people are driving cars/bikes with performance that is well beyond their abilities. How you sort that I know not.

EAL 401

FL is spot on as far as reasons for stopping are concerned, additionally there is the matter of driver education. Even though you are supposed to have read the highway code, few have. Being stopped by Police is something people tend to remember, so one can hope the message sinks in!

By 'focing' overtaking traffic to the outside lane to pass, it in effect causes a bottleneck, thus tailgating and danger.

BOAC, you seem to be more interested in surviving an inevitable accident, whereas I (and most others) are more concerned with avoiding the accident in the first place.
the risk of injury to others (eg the children and other residents of the village) is dramatically increased by the 50mph driver over the 30mph driver, whether changing a CD or not.
Bull! Absolute rubbish!

I would rather have an alert driver coming at me at 50mph, taking evasive action and not hitting me at all, rather than almost certainly getting hit by somebody doing 30mph while changing a CD.

You talk about basic physics, but ignore principles of basic probability. You completely disregard all variables other than speed when calculating the risk.

You're probably the kind of person who buys a huge SUV so he can increase his chances of surviving an accident. Whereas, I am the kind of person who buys a small nimble car and avoids the accident completely. I know which one makes more sense to me.

PPY - you are 180 degrees out on my car:) .

you seem to be more interested in surviving an inevitable accident, whereas I (and most others) are more concerned with avoiding the accident in the first place. - 'dead' right there, Sir/madam. I dare not doubt your stated excellent driving skills, but dispute the "(and most others)" from what I see daily on our roads.

Anyway, is anyone going to have the balls to offer a speed they would accept in the road outside their house in the village? 80mph past the shops and school and their kids, or is that only ok in a non-NIMBY area? Of course it is safe - all the 80'ers are all wizard drivers and have autochange CDs in their nice cars. 70mph? Let's hear the views?

....oh, and the 'risk' IS increased, stopping distance for example, not to mention tyre burst or avoiding PPY and clobbering my grandchildren instead etc etc.

How many drivers would swerve to avoid a dog (or cat)?
My father (who taught me to drive) warned against such responses in case you end up on the footway mowing-down pedestrians.

I've never known (nor heard of) anyone being prosecuted for lane hogging;
I have heard of it, a colleague's sister if I recall correctly. The charge was as quoted by FL.

Just interested to hear other's perspectives on the subject.

I would like to see the RTA applied to foreign HGV's as well as our own. A55 today....and every day in fact on the bit where, for obvious and sensible reasons the speed is reduced to 50mph from Old Colwyn to Mochdre....the limit is not applicable to Irish (in particular it would seem ) HGV's which, considering North Wales Police stance on speeding and the fact the road is not a million miles from their HQ surprises me somewhat... that said, Irish HGV's treat all speed limits with disdain anyway. Another example, today, M60 and a Slovakian HGV ignores the 40mph in the roadworks...by a considerable margin....and then elects to overtake in the third lane just under the viaduct !:mad: Why should these drivers not be prosecuted like a UK driver would be ?.

As for the left lane debate.....I stick in it because that's were I am supposed to be if it's clear. This simple and salient fact blissfully ignored by the middle lane fraternity who seem incapable of er, M S M . I have watched at least three sour faced "drivers" in the last month gesticulating and scribbling down my registration as I have proceeded past them at an indicated 60 -65mph with a clear lane ahead..whilst they sat there in the middle lane at a nice 50 ish....being "good and safe drivers" of course.The problem is now so acute that it seems to affect dual c/ways as well. I have lost count of the number of "drivers" whom I see in clear road conditions sitting in the outside lane per se. Off peak on the Moronway it's the same story. I do note however, mainly on the M74, that the matrix signs at least carry a sensible message "Stay left unless overtaking". Oddly enough, people do.

I would also get rid of cruise control.....you have a right foot which is perfectly capable of this function......or should be.

The US 20mph zones when children are around works for me.

Generally the older you get the more experience you have, and you are more receptive to lower limits because you have a different perspective to the 19 year old who thinks he's immortal and a brilliant driver.

If you put in place and could enforce a mandatory sharp spike on the steering wheel for all drivers convicted of speeding more than 10mph over a limit, lets face it, people wouldn't speed, and if that spike was there, you'd be pretty careful until it was taken out - a crash would be rather undesirable!

There's no effective punishment regime for speeding other than totting up in the UK, so those who don't care about their speed do what they like, while those who do care generally stick around the limits. The limits themselves make little difference because we can't enforce them

BW

How many drivers would swerve to avoid a dog (or cat)?


I believe that the drivers of Citroen 2CVs don't.

I was informed that they, being mostly vegetarian animal lovers, buy that particular car because in the event of the unthinkable the car falls to bits and the animal is unharmed.

I say chaps, just by a nice blown Jaguar and all this becomes an irrelevance.

You'll drive like a perfect sissy most of the time due to the shocking fuel burn and body roll, but, when one of those cretins in a regular poor man's car or stinking lorry blocks your passage, you have 400 odd horses and even more torque to breeze you safely past before you've had so much as half a chance to exceed any of those nonsense speed limits.

As soon as the road ahead is clear once again, just let the old Leaper see you on your serene way once again at 'Warp Gentlemans' Club' until the next such occurrence.

Simple, and most highly recommended.

Irish HGV's treat all speed limits with disdain anyway
Don't see any need to single out the Irish there.

Many was the time travelling over the hated roadworks on the Thelwall Viaduct, some lorry would hurtle up to inches from my back bumper because I had the audacity to understand the concept of speed limits and SPECS.

And any deviation form safe and common snese driving would lead to the loss of that licence.

Tough measures by bjcc :}

I would also get rid of cruise control.....you have a right foot which is perfectly capable of this function......or should be.

Fooey bom booey!!!!!

I'd sooner be rid of me engine than the cruise control.

eal401
..... I had the audacity to understand the concept of speed limits and SPECS.

For those who may not-
SPECS devices (disrespectfully referred to by some drivers as 'yellow vultures') are currently approved by the Home Office for use in one lane at a time.
Drivers should not change lanes between a pair of SPECS cameras.

Mr Med Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, and head of roads policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers:
'Motorists are strongly advised not to seek to evade detection by unnecessarily changing lanes as this would generate a greater risk of collision.
It is irresponsible for motorists to deliberately seek to evade detection.'

A spokeswoman for the Home Office:
'The manufacturers applied for the camera to be type-approved to measure one lane only. It has been type-approved for this use - this can be either the lane under the camera or a lane to either side of it.'

The SPECS units consist of a surveilllance camera with infra-red illuminators attached to either side. http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/speed-camera-types/specs-speed-camera.jpg



If there are two units on a gantry, it's particularly important not to change between lane 3 and lane 1.
http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/speed-camera-types/spec-average-speed-camera.jpg


Note: The problem doesn't arise if there are three units over three lanes, so drivers are free to change lanes as necessary - mindful, of course, of the Chief Constable's warning that 'changing lanes generates a greater risk of collision.' (If you agree with that view.)

Speed cameras have boomed on British roads from a handful a decade ago to about 3,500 fixed sites and 3,500 mobile devices today.


FL

I've made my point previously that the real problem derives from the ridiculously low standards required to receive a licence to kill, so I'll contain my remarks to lane discipline.

My own State government is apparently talking about banning overtaking on the inside, which I am led to believe is the standard in the UK. I'm not sure about the US; I recently spent a couple of weeks driving there in my usual fashion, and the concept of not being allowed to overtake on the inside never occurred to me.

Flying Lawyer and others have described beautifully the welded insularity of those occupying middle and overtaking lanes when there is no need to. I have long taken the approach that the smoothest and quickest way to anywhere on a multi-lane highway is on the inside lane, and if those occupying outer lanes want to ignore the message implicit when I pass them on the inside, well, that's their problem. We get back to the standard of driver instruction.

BUT. This system can only work if (1) overtaking inside is allowed (and why shouldn't it be?) or (2) if it's not allowed, then a brutal enforcement of the law is upheld. KEEP LEFT UNLESS OVERTAKING. Is that so hard to understand?

I can only imagine the aggrieved howls from those sanctimonious lane hoggers when they are given a ticket. "I was doing the speed limit!"
Well, tough titty to all of you. Get out of the bloody way. It's not your duty to impose your own laws on the rest of us. The police will look after that.

But.......but.......am I now being told that it is unfair of me to change lanes? Not playing the game by nipping into another lane and evading speed calculation?

Then how the blooooody blue blazes can I move over to the nearside again?