Arguments for raising the UK motorway speed limit
Discussion
Munter said:
Wills2 said:
Jonny_ said:
Would be keen to see those bloody awful "managed" motorways used for something constructive. Simplistically, when traffic conditions are suitable, they could allow 80mph in the outside lane of a 3-lane motorway.
They do now. Wills2 said:
How can you get a ticket for 74mph?
Damned if I know. I travel through it twice a week without issues. Something about not picking and choosing what laws to obey and reading all the road signs seems to work in my favour.Although I do wonder if I could just pay 10% tax and try and evade being caught doing it.
Phatboy317 said:
(fixed the formatting)
With a decent speed differential you seldom have to wait more tan a few seconds for a suitable gap, unless perhaps the traffic is heavy.
With a small differential you may have a gap next to you, in which case there's no problem. But you may have another vehicle next to you, in which case you'll probably have to wait a lot longer than a few seconds.
Look at what happens with lorries - they really do take ages to pass one another.
Yes, but the reduced speed differential means you've got more time to change lanes. If there's someone alongside you doing 1mph more than you, you've got more than a few seconds to change lanes.With a decent speed differential you seldom have to wait more tan a few seconds for a suitable gap, unless perhaps the traffic is heavy.
With a small differential you may have a gap next to you, in which case there's no problem. But you may have another vehicle next to you, in which case you'll probably have to wait a lot longer than a few seconds.
Look at what happens with lorries - they really do take ages to pass one another.
Mave said:
Yes, but the reduced speed differential means you've got more time to change lanes. If there's someone alongside you doing 1mph more than you, you've got more than a few seconds to change lanes.
Am I misunderstanding you, or do you have that backwards?If there's someone alongside you doing 1mph more than you, you'll have to wait at least 30 to 40 seconds for them to pass you and open up sufficient space for you to slot in behind them - by which time you'll probably have had to slow down for the vehicle ahead anyway.
Well, I haven’t exactly been swamped by well-reasoned arguments for increasing the UK motorway limit to 80mph. Here was me naively hoping that a series of killer arguments would be forged in the crucible of SP&L, but aside from a nice Lord Buckmaster quote from agtlaw, I’ve got almost nothing except bickering over traffic flow dynamics. Anyway, here’s a draft letter to the Minister for Transport.
Dear Sir
MOTORWAY SPEED LIMIT
I am writing to urge you to seek Parliamentary approval to increase the motorway speed limit in England and Wales to 80mph. The current limit is an anachronism that has not been revised since it was set, as a temporary measure, in 1965. Since then, the active and passive safety of vehicles, and motorway design, have improved enormously, and a review of the 1965 limit is long overdue.
Although there are certain vocal pressure groups who have come out against an increase in the motorway speed limit, a report by the RAC in 2014 [footnote] found that 70% of ordinary drivers surveyed thought that the motorway speed limit should be increased to at least 80mph. Among experienced drivers [footnote] the proportion supporting an increase was 80%. There would appear to be a clear democratic mandate for an increase.
A limit of 80mph is hardly uncharted territory. A limit of 81mph (130kph) is the norm in the majority of our European neighbours, where it is the limit in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany (on restricted sections), Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Ukraine, In Poland the limit is 87mph and Germany is of course well known for its unrestricted sections of motorway. The only European countries with limits at or lower than the UK are Albania, Cyprus, Georgia, Iceland, Latvia, Norway, and Russia. Not particularly good company for a leading European nation such as the UK to keep.
I will leave the detailed economic analysis to others more qualified than myself, but it seems logical that increasing the motorway speed limit would bring significant economic benefits by reducing journey times, especially outwith peak hours. When the Netherlands increased its motorway limit in 2012 from 120kph to 130kph, it was forecast by the Rijkswaterstaat, the executive arm of the transport and infrastructure ministry, that the time savings would boost the Dutch national economy by €75 million, and the Netherlands is a much smaller nation, and smaller economy, than the UK. The move was also expected to raise an extra €50-€100 million a year for the Dutch government in fuel taxes.
Furthermore, these benefits can be reaped at little or no cost. The money has already been spent to build an extensive motorway network. Private individuals have already collectively invested billions in private vehicles that are already capable of travelling safely and comfortably at 80mph. All that is required is a Parliamentary bill and the replacement of some signage.
It is not just a question of economic benefits, however. There is a more insidious problem with the 1965 limit. The RAC Report referred to above found that 67% of those surveyed admitted to breaking the current 70mph speed limit. I can think of no other law which is so widely and deliberately disregarded. The continuing presence on the statute book of a law which is disregarded by more than two thirds of those subject to it is completely untenable and brings the whole of the law into contempt.
Now I accept that some people have legitimate concerns about the impact increasing the motorway speed limit may have on the UK’s excellent road safety record. However, motorways, despite being our fastest roads, are our safest, accounting for only around 5% of fatalities, and car occupant safety technology continues to improve. I also accept that some people have environmental concerns about an increased motorway limit, as fuel consumption typically increases with speed. However, cars are becoming ever more efficient, such that cars today are often much more fuel efficient at 80mph than cars of merely [10?] years ago were at 70mph. [To be verified.] Ultimately, our system of fuel and vehicle taxation already incentivises fuel efficiency, and if certain individuals elect on occasion to experience higher fuel consumption in exchange for reduced journey times, that should rightly be their choice.
In light of these concerns, the prudent course, I would suggest, would be to trial an increased limit on certain motorways for a period of a year of more, and only to roll-out increased limits more widely if that trial does not produce a significant deterioration in road safety or environmental quality.
I would urge you to consider doing so.
Yours faithfully,
Dear Sir
MOTORWAY SPEED LIMIT
I am writing to urge you to seek Parliamentary approval to increase the motorway speed limit in England and Wales to 80mph. The current limit is an anachronism that has not been revised since it was set, as a temporary measure, in 1965. Since then, the active and passive safety of vehicles, and motorway design, have improved enormously, and a review of the 1965 limit is long overdue.
Although there are certain vocal pressure groups who have come out against an increase in the motorway speed limit, a report by the RAC in 2014 [footnote] found that 70% of ordinary drivers surveyed thought that the motorway speed limit should be increased to at least 80mph. Among experienced drivers [footnote] the proportion supporting an increase was 80%. There would appear to be a clear democratic mandate for an increase.
A limit of 80mph is hardly uncharted territory. A limit of 81mph (130kph) is the norm in the majority of our European neighbours, where it is the limit in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany (on restricted sections), Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Ukraine, In Poland the limit is 87mph and Germany is of course well known for its unrestricted sections of motorway. The only European countries with limits at or lower than the UK are Albania, Cyprus, Georgia, Iceland, Latvia, Norway, and Russia. Not particularly good company for a leading European nation such as the UK to keep.
I will leave the detailed economic analysis to others more qualified than myself, but it seems logical that increasing the motorway speed limit would bring significant economic benefits by reducing journey times, especially outwith peak hours. When the Netherlands increased its motorway limit in 2012 from 120kph to 130kph, it was forecast by the Rijkswaterstaat, the executive arm of the transport and infrastructure ministry, that the time savings would boost the Dutch national economy by €75 million, and the Netherlands is a much smaller nation, and smaller economy, than the UK. The move was also expected to raise an extra €50-€100 million a year for the Dutch government in fuel taxes.
Furthermore, these benefits can be reaped at little or no cost. The money has already been spent to build an extensive motorway network. Private individuals have already collectively invested billions in private vehicles that are already capable of travelling safely and comfortably at 80mph. All that is required is a Parliamentary bill and the replacement of some signage.
It is not just a question of economic benefits, however. There is a more insidious problem with the 1965 limit. The RAC Report referred to above found that 67% of those surveyed admitted to breaking the current 70mph speed limit. I can think of no other law which is so widely and deliberately disregarded. The continuing presence on the statute book of a law which is disregarded by more than two thirds of those subject to it is completely untenable and brings the whole of the law into contempt.
Now I accept that some people have legitimate concerns about the impact increasing the motorway speed limit may have on the UK’s excellent road safety record. However, motorways, despite being our fastest roads, are our safest, accounting for only around 5% of fatalities, and car occupant safety technology continues to improve. I also accept that some people have environmental concerns about an increased motorway limit, as fuel consumption typically increases with speed. However, cars are becoming ever more efficient, such that cars today are often much more fuel efficient at 80mph than cars of merely [10?] years ago were at 70mph. [To be verified.] Ultimately, our system of fuel and vehicle taxation already incentivises fuel efficiency, and if certain individuals elect on occasion to experience higher fuel consumption in exchange for reduced journey times, that should rightly be their choice.
In light of these concerns, the prudent course, I would suggest, would be to trial an increased limit on certain motorways for a period of a year of more, and only to roll-out increased limits more widely if that trial does not produce a significant deterioration in road safety or environmental quality.
I would urge you to consider doing so.
Yours faithfully,
Wills2 said:
Munter said:
Wills2 said:
Jonny_ said:
Would be keen to see those bloody awful "managed" motorways used for something constructive. Simplistically, when traffic conditions are suitable, they could allow 80mph in the outside lane of a 3-lane motorway.
They do now. How can you get a ticket for 74mph? That's like getting pulled over for doing 42mph in a 40 zone, things are getting out of hand.
LoonR1 said:
Things a rent getting out of hand at all. The story of getting a rocket for 74mph is BS. Look at the amoun of people on here who've got three points and they were all got for doing 34 in a 30 amd similarly low speed claims. I overtook a traffic car yesterday at am indicated 80mph and they didn't bat an eyelid.
There is a big difference between the speed that attracts the attention of a traffic car on other business, and that which gets a ticket from someone specifically there to enforce the limit.Phatboy317 said:
Mave said:
Yes, but the reduced speed differential means you've got more time to change lanes. If there's someone alongside you doing 1mph more than you, you've got more than a few seconds to change lanes.
Am I misunderstanding you, or do you have that backwards?If there's someone alongside you doing 1mph more than you, you'll have to wait at least 30 to 40 seconds for them to pass you and open up sufficient space for you to slot in behind them - by which time you'll probably have had to slow down for the vehicle ahead anyway.
If you take a scenario of 3 lanes doing 50, 60 and 70, and you doing 65 in lane 2;
and compare it with another scenarion of 3 lanes doing 50, 70, and 90 and you doing 80 in lane 2; then the additional time taken for a "space" to become available in the first scenario is totally offset by the additional time available before you need to change lanes.
The only time less speed differential between lanes becomes less safe (the scenario I think you're talking about) is if you're in lane 2 but are travelling close to lane 3 speed and have allowed yourself to close on the car in front.
Mave said:
Phatboy317 said:
Mave said:
Yes, but the reduced speed differential means you've got more time to change lanes. If there's someone alongside you doing 1mph more than you, you've got more than a few seconds to change lanes.
Am I misunderstanding you, or do you have that backwards?If there's someone alongside you doing 1mph more than you, you'll have to wait at least 30 to 40 seconds for them to pass you and open up sufficient space for you to slot in behind them - by which time you'll probably have had to slow down for the vehicle ahead anyway.
If you take a scenario of 3 lanes doing 50, 60 and 70, and you doing 65 in lane 2;
and compare it with another scenarion of 3 lanes doing 50, 70, and 90 and you doing 80 in lane 2; then the additional time taken for a "space" to become available in the first scenario is totally offset by the additional time available before you need to change lanes.
The only time less speed differential between lanes becomes less safe (the scenario I think you're talking about) is if you're in lane 2 but are travelling close to lane 3 speed and have allowed yourself to close on the car in front.
One often sees vehicles entering the motorway at low-ish speeds (they shouldn't, but they do), and this sometimes causes lorries in lane 1 to have to move over into lane 2.
But what happens if there's another lorry busy overtaking at the time? The lorry in lane 1 now can't move into lane 2, so it either has to brake, or the slow vehicle trying to enter the motorway either has to stop or move onto the hard shoulder.
Another example (this has happened to me) is on a dual carriageway, when you're in lane 2 overtaking a string of lorries which are travelling almost bumper to bumper, with cars both ahead of you and behind you. As you're part-way past the queue of lorries, another lorry ahead pulls out into lane 2 to pass another string of lorries. The cars in front of you have to brake, as do you. Now you're boxed in. You can't speed up, slow down or change lanes. Two miles further on, you're still boxed in, and your exit's coming up. There's nothing you can do - you miss your exit and end up driving nearly 20 miles out of your way.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Friday 20th February 22:07
It rarely happens but I found Clarkson's point on this issue rather convincing.
If the speed limit is raised to 80mph then, to keep mumsnet/greenpeace/BRAKE etc happy it will be strictly enforced with speed cameras everywhere meaning everyone will in fact be driving slower than they currently do now, when the motorway is clear and you can comfortably push past 70/80.
So raising the limit to 80 will probably slow down the people who currently exceed the speed limit.
Sorry if this is a re-post I didn't read every response.
If the speed limit is raised to 80mph then, to keep mumsnet/greenpeace/BRAKE etc happy it will be strictly enforced with speed cameras everywhere meaning everyone will in fact be driving slower than they currently do now, when the motorway is clear and you can comfortably push past 70/80.
So raising the limit to 80 will probably slow down the people who currently exceed the speed limit.
Sorry if this is a re-post I didn't read every response.
Mave said:
In neither of those scenarios does raising the speed limit mitigate the problem.
Those two scenarios show what happens when low speed differentials cause rolling roadblocks.Rolling roadblocks also occur when you get sanctimonious people who refuse to go 0.1mph above 70.
Mave said:
In the example you yourself experienced, if lane 2 wasn't moving fast enough for you to move past traffic in lane 1 and find a space, why couldn't you stick your left indicator on and ease off?
You can attempt to squeeze in between two lorries with barely three car-lengths between them if you fancy - I'd rather go 20 miles out of my way.GokTweed said:
It rarely happens but I found Clarkson's point on this issue rather convincing.
If the speed limit is raised to 80mph then, to keep mumsnet/greenpeace/BRAKE etc happy it will be strictly enforced with speed cameras everywhere meaning everyone will in fact be driving slower than they currently do now, when the motorway is clear and you can comfortably push past 70/80.
So raising the limit to 80 will probably slow down the people who currently exceed the speed limit.
Sorry if this is a re-post I didn't read every response.
Why should it be an either/or situation?If the speed limit is raised to 80mph then, to keep mumsnet/greenpeace/BRAKE etc happy it will be strictly enforced with speed cameras everywhere meaning everyone will in fact be driving slower than they currently do now, when the motorway is clear and you can comfortably push past 70/80.
So raising the limit to 80 will probably slow down the people who currently exceed the speed limit.
Sorry if this is a re-post I didn't read every response.
We tend not to pander to pressure groups in other areas, so why should we want to keep the likes of Brake and Greenpeace happy?
Edited by Phatboy317 on Friday 20th February 23:31
Mave said:
Phatboy317 said:
You can attempt to squeeze in between two lorries with barely three car-lengths between them if you fancy - I'd rather go 20 miles out of my way.
How does having a greater speed differential between lanes 1 and 2 change the separation between lorries in lane 1?You've seen what a physically-enforced 56mph limit does to lorry traffic, now multiply that by 100 to imagine the effect that an enforced 70mph limit would have on car traffic.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Saturday 21st February 00:05
Phatboy317 said:
you're confusing cause, effect and unintended consequences.
You've seen what an enforced 56mph limit does to lorry traffic, now multiply that by 100 to imagine the effect that an enforced 70mph limit would have on car traffic.
Are you saying that it is the 56mph limit that causes lorries to drive nose to tail in lane 1? I always thought it was quantity of traffic.You've seen what an enforced 56mph limit does to lorry traffic, now multiply that by 100 to imagine the effect that an enforced 70mph limit would have on car traffic.
Mave said:
Are you saying that it is the 56mph limit that causes lorries to drive nose to tail in lane 1? I always thought it was quantity of traffic.
They're physically limited to around 56mph - they can't go faster if they wanted to, so they all move at around the same speed.Look what effect it has.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Saturday 21st February 00:13
Phatboy317 said:
They're physically limited to 56mph - they can't go faster if they wanted to, so they all move at the same speed. Look what effect it has.
Well they can move at different speeds hence elephant racing. Anyway, you tend to expect all traffic in lane 1 to move at a similar speed. Do you think the separation between traffic in lane 1 would be greater if the speed limit for lorries were raised?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff