[Andrew]

It seems this must be the most sensible suggestion to come out of our Government for a while, increasing the speed limit from 70MPH to 80MPH on the motorway.

I'm all for this as I quite regularly travel above 70, just keeping up with the flow of traffic. Very few people seem to stick to 70MPH on the motorway.

The excuse given by people against this seem to be the normal stuff given with cars, more lives at risk and think of the environment etc. Though surely these people should know that it is a legal limit, it doesn't mean you have to drive it.

Speed is normally a factor in accidents, but isn't necessarily the cause. Poor driving is, if you are not confidence at that speed, then don't drive at it or perform risky manoeuvres that you're not confident with.

What's everyone else's thoughts on this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15116064

[sivispacem]

I agree with almost all of what you've said. The simple fact of the matter is this- excess, illegal speed is the primary cause of something like 8% of accidents. As you've quite rightly said, most individuals exceed the speed limit on motorways already, so all the legislation is set to do is decriminalise the activities of the majority. The "oh, increasing the speed limits will cause more casualties" argument doesn't fly as these speeds are being done routinely by most motorway drivers and accident rates continue to fall. The only feasible argument against it is the environmental one, and even that's not a completely proven case- increase in speed limits may well decrease congestion, therefore reducing traffic jams in which cars continue to emit pollutants whilst having no forward momentum- in itself posing a far greater increase in pollution than permitting vehicles to drive a little faster.

Personally, I don't think there's any empirically proven link between vehicle speed and accident rates. Take Germany, for instance, who have de-restricted autobahns and yet one of the lowest average motorway casualty rates in the world. Contrast with the United States, which has 65mph speed limits on all major roads but comparatively high accident rates. At the end of the day, the primary cause for accidents is driver error and driving "too fast for the conditions". That's not the same as exceeding an arbitrary speed limit, no matter what idiotic organisations such as BRAKE may try and say. I know many roads on which it would, traffic and weather conditions permitting, be safe to exceed 100 miles per hour on a quite regular basis- in fact, people quite commonly do. That road now has large warning signs all down its length informing people that there have been "23 casualties in 10 years" on it. That's 2.3 casualties a year. I know car parks with a higher accident rate than that.

As I've said before, speed itself isn't inherently dangerous or harmful. Driving too fast for environmental conditions, or outside of ones training, experience and comfort is.

[Andrew]

I think organisations like Brake would like us to all drive at 30MPH everywhere whilst encased in some form of protection foam. I fully agree driver error is the cause, I drive a 60 mile round trip everyday to get to work and back. Which involves 20 miles of motorway and 10 mile of city driving, I'm far more at risk in the city then I am on the motorway.

The motorway speed limit is one I've never quite understood as our current road speed is something like this:

National (Dual Carriage Ways / Motorways) 70MPH
Single Carriage National 60MPH

That has never made sense to me that a motorway with a lot longer slip roads and more lanes is the same speed as a dual carriage way that has shorter slip roads and only two lanes. Not to mention I can do 60 down a small country lane because it's national.. Only 10MPH less than a nice straight three lane motorway.

Poor driver judgement of the situation is the cause of accidents.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Andrew @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 13:02)

That has never made sense to me that a motorway with a lot longer slip roads and more lanes is the same speed as a dual carriage way that has shorter slip roads and only two lanes. Not to mention I can do 60 down a small country lane because it's national.. Only 10MPH less than a nice straight three lane motorway.

Unmarked roads (commonly referred to as C roads) are almost entirely NSL, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to drive down them at the speed limit. My history on the issue is a little fuzzy, but I believe that the 60mph NSL was introduced considerably after the 70mph limit on motorways, which came in in the 60s and which has been speculated over for almost 50 years with regards to changing it.

This is an interesting aside related to my earlier post, shamelessly stolen from Wikipedia

QUOTE (Wikipedia)

In 2008 14% of collisions reported to the police had a speed related contributory factor (either "exceeding the speed limit" or "travelling too fast for conditions")

So that's 86% of motoring accidents with no relation to speed in any circumstances, either exceeding the speed limit or driving too fast for the conditions. Think that says it all, really.

[The General]

Now I wish, Canada would do the same. Our speed limits on our highways are lower than the Americans! We drive at 100km per hour, which is equal to 62 miles per hour. This is f*cking bulllsh*t! Plus add the fact that the majority of drivers on our highways go at least 20 over the limit.

[Lurch]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 07:54)

Contrast with the United States, which has 65mph speed limits on all major roads but comparatively high accident rates.

The US varies. In cities out east, it's 55. Rural areas, it's 65 or 70 depending on the county. Usually 70 though. Out west, cities are usually 60 or 65. Rural areas are usually 75. There's a few 80 mph zones in a few Texas highways.

This post has been edited by Lurch on Friday, Sep 30 2011, 16:37

[zyonig]

Yeah most euro speed limits on motorways are 120/130 kph. Well over 70 mph.

I don't see any real convincing arguments for not increasing the speed limit in the U.K.

[chris]

The only argument i can think of against this is that most people already exceed the 70mph limit and do 80-85mph, so when it goes to an 80mph limit then people will be exceeding that bu a further 10-15mph.

I'm all for it though, i tend to drive around 80 at the moment so it's a good thing i can do it legally, i also feel comfortable driving above 100mph but i rarely do that because A. My car is a small engined escort that wasn't designed for high speed driving and B. just because i feel i'm capable of driving at high speeds, there's still going to be some soft twat not paying attention who pulls right out infront of you.

I was going about 115mph downhill on the motorway because it was clear of cars, i was in the outside lane just cruising when up ahead in the slow lane i saw a corsa indicating to overtake a truck, i thought i'll be okay here because it's only going to use the middle lane, i was wrong. The stupid c*nt driving pulled into the middle lane and for no obvious reason pulled right out infront of me in the fast lane forcing me to undertake them. I have no idea why somebody would do that though, the middle lane was f*cking clear but for some reason they crossed two lanes, i went into hulk mode raging and then got overtaken by a Gallardo that made me look like i was doing 30mph so it made me happy again.

[zyonig]

Well there is already (and has been for a long time) a 10% "tolerance" zone. Basically making 77mph acceptable. And bear in mind that it is a well known fact among policymakers that if the limit is 70 then it will always be slightly exceeded. If it is increased to 80 mph then that is likely to be slighly exceeded also? Or maybe not. Perhaps there will be less tolerance for exceeding 80 mph. Maybe making an 80 limit might mean less strain on british traffic courts.

Most modern vehicles on british roads are easily capable of cruising safetly at 80 and over. Perhaps passing this law might make justification for tightening MOT laws or stricter emission controls an easier argument to win in the near future. There may well be some other reason for bringing this up around now. Even with the current petrol prices the UK government would likely be very happy if taxpayers were burning more gas and paying more tax revenue.

[Andrew]

Whilst reading the BBC comments, a lot were mentioning what the rush is, and that journey times are only decreased by something like ten minutes. However what these people fail to realise, is that the ten minutes helps me avoid an extra 30 minutes on to my total journey as a result of hitting city centre traffic. Unless I leave extremely early, I have some extremely strict timings to keep to, otherwise I'll end up with a massively increased journey time.

[Darlomidge]

QUOTE

Well there is already (and has been for a long time) a 10% "tolerance" zone. Basically making 77mph acceptable. And bear in mind that it is a well known fact among policymakers that if the limit is 70 then it will always be slightly exceeded. If it is increased to 80 mph then that is likely to be slighly exceeded also?

Agreed. It's well known that when Police Offers are doing speed checks they simply ignore those doing around that speed from around 77mph to 80mph anyway. So by upping the speed limit to 80mph, will it therefore be acceptable for people to travel at 87mph-90mph? If thats the case, we could have a serious problem with fatalities on the roads.

This post has been edited by Darlomidge on Saturday, Oct 1 2011, 13:07

[Daniel4]

Won't make much difference, the speed limit is 85 really

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Daniel4 @ Sunday, Oct 9 2011, 17:26)

Won't make much difference, the speed limit is 85 really

Depends, really. If you blow past an unmarked car at 80 in the driving rain or heavy fog, your going to get pulled. People band about the 10%+3mph thing, but at the end of the day it's entirely at the volition of the officer involved. Police guidelines suggest 10% leeway but that's not a hard-and-fast rule or any kind of defence. Remember, there are other penalties besides speeding- driving without due care, careless driving or dangerous driving- and these can all be used even if you are travelling well below the designated speed limit.

[Daniel4]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Oct 9 2011, 16:30)

QUOTE (Daniel4 @ Sunday, Oct 9 2011, 17:26) Won't make much difference, the speed limit is 85 really Depends, really. If you blow past an unmarked car at 80 in the driving rain or heavy fog, your going to get pulled. People band about the 10%+3mph thing, but at the end of the day it's entirely at the volition of the officer involved. Police guidelines suggest 10% leeway but that's not a hard-and-fast rule or any kind of defence. Remember, there are other penalties besides speeding- driving without due care, careless driving or dangerous driving- and these can all be used even if you are travelling well below the designated speed limit.

Of course, if someone is driving dangerously, they're driving dangerously

[JayC]

Really this whole thing is a non-issue and just mentioned by the Tories as a distraction to the poor state of the worldwide economy.

Wether they change it or not people who want to drive at 80 still will and those who want to drive slower still can. I drive the appropriate speed for the conditions, the limit is a suggestion of what should be safe the majority of the time.

My prediction, none will remember the suggestion in a month and nothing will change.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (JayC @ Monday, Oct 10 2011, 10:56)

Really this whole thing is a non-issue and just mentioned by the Tories as a distraction to the poor state of the worldwide economy. Wether they change it or not people who want to drive at 80 still will and those who want to drive slower still can. I drive the appropriate speed for the conditions, the limit is a suggestion of what should be safe the majority of the time. My prediction, none will remember the suggestion in a month and nothing will change.

A very cynical attitude, but probably accurate. It's interesting to see that the Tories are giving the motorist some leeway, though, after over a decade of them being mercilessly punished for no discernible reason by Labour.

[JayC]

Labour did love to f*ck us but I don't see motoring in the UK getting any better in the future. Theres no way the Tories will lower taxes on gas or VED as it brings in far too much cash to give up.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (JayC @ Monday, Oct 10 2011, 23:45)

Labour did love to f*ck us but I don't see motoring in the UK getting any better in the future. Theres no way the Tories will lower taxes on gas or VED as it brings in far too much cash to give up.

They've already cancelled out Labour's increase in fuel duty and passed new legislation shutting down rogue clamping organisations in the UK. VED isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things, not compared to the compulsory purchase tax on cars bought elsewhere in Europe.

[JayC]

True but they also introduced the law that makes it illegal to have an uninsured car with tax on it which punishes those with rarely used second cars who would buy day insurance as now you need to reinsure, go buy tax, and then apply for a refund on the tax the next day.

I didn't know about the clamping as thats been completely illegal in Scotland for years.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (JayC @ Tuesday, Oct 11 2011, 13:39)

True but they also introduced the law that makes it illegal to have an uninsured car with tax on it which punishes those with rarely used second cars who would buy day insurance as now you need to reinsure, go buy tax, and then apply for a refund on the tax the next day.

There's already a mechanism for people who have uninsured vehicles kept off the road for occasional use- SORN. Regardless, you'd be a bit of an idiot to keep a car taxed but not insured on a property unless it was declared SORN- people can still steal it, or it could still be damaged by flooding or other natural disasters. It's still perfectly legal to keep a car uninsured but taxed, just not legal to have it parked or stored on a public highway- only on private property.