150 mph M25 8-10
Discussion
Red 4 said:
castex said:
Red 4 said:
when could increased speed, in your opinion, be a good thing ?
Are you sure this is the forum for you?If you are you implying that I don't like cars, speed and driving you are mistaken.
LoonR1 said:
Don't worry, that's the standard response if you ever question anything to do with speed. I got it in a post where I admit to soeeding pretty well all of the time, because I stated that 150 on UK roads is stupid and dangerous.
I'm not worried.I knew a bloke once who had a thing for speeding - silly speeds. (and driving whilst disqualified).
I remember we didn't quite find all of him.
The only saving grace was that nobody else was involved.
Motorcyclist - cut in half by a lamp post.
Red 4 said:
flemke said:
I wouldn't blame you if you hadn't read the rest of this thread (in fact, that might be a sign of your good sense), but I have never argued that, as it would patently be wrong. Increased speed has many implications, some bad and some good.
Just the last couple of pages !I stopped reading (most) of the very long threads on this forum a long time ago - it always turns into an argument and it gets so boring and predictable.
If I missed some of your posts I apologise.
Just out of interest though, when could increased speed, in your opinion, be a good thing ?
- Fewer vehicles on the roads at a given time, meaning fewer things to hit each other.
- Studies have found that a person's attentiveness, comprehension and reaction time will improve (up to a point) as the mental demand increases. With too much demand, ability will of course deteriorate, but with too little demand the actor is not sufficiently engaged to perform optimally. (Technically this parameter is sometimes referred to as "arousal", although that can lead to misinterpretation!)
This will vary from person to person, of course, and also by a given person's mood and fatigue level at a particular time, but the general principle is valid: if you're bored, you do not perceive as much information and you do not react as quickly as you do when you're engaged.
- I believe strongly that an individual is entitled to act as he(/she) wishes unless the ruling authority (democracy or dictatorship) can demonstrate that a proposed action would create a disproportionate risk of harm to others. All society, not only the directly affected, benefits whenever the state can reasonably avoid getting involved.
flemke said:
1. Shortened journey times, which although not a risk factor are nonetheless a social benefit.
2. Fewer vehicles on the roads at a given time, meaning fewer things to hit each other.
3. Studies have found that a person's attentiveness, comprehension and reaction time will improve (up to a point) as the mental demand increases. With too much demand, ability will of course deteriorate, but with too little demand the actor is not sufficiently engaged to perform optimally. (Technically this parameter is sometimes referred to as "arousal", although that can lead to misinterpretation!)
This will vary from person to person, of course, and also by a given person's mood and fatigue level at a particular time, but the general principle is valid: if you're bored, you do not perceive as much information and you do not react as quickly as you do when you're engaged.
4. I believe strongly that an individual is entitled to act as he(/she) wishes unless the ruling authority (democracy or dictatorship) can demonstrate that a proposed action would create a disproportionate risk of harm to others. All society, not only the directly affected, benefits whenever the state can reasonably avoid getting involved.
1. It isn't a "social benefit" if you are held up due to traffic congestion caused by a collision or if you are involved in a collision yourself. (don't forget to add the cost implications of collisions/ delays).2. Fewer vehicles on the roads at a given time, meaning fewer things to hit each other.
3. Studies have found that a person's attentiveness, comprehension and reaction time will improve (up to a point) as the mental demand increases. With too much demand, ability will of course deteriorate, but with too little demand the actor is not sufficiently engaged to perform optimally. (Technically this parameter is sometimes referred to as "arousal", although that can lead to misinterpretation!)
This will vary from person to person, of course, and also by a given person's mood and fatigue level at a particular time, but the general principle is valid: if you're bored, you do not perceive as much information and you do not react as quickly as you do when you're engaged.
4. I believe strongly that an individual is entitled to act as he(/she) wishes unless the ruling authority (democracy or dictatorship) can demonstrate that a proposed action would create a disproportionate risk of harm to others. All society, not only the directly affected, benefits whenever the state can reasonably avoid getting involved.
2. Fewer vehicles travelling at greater speed - see above.
3. You massively over-estimate the standard of driving (and roads) in this country. Most people are not enthusiasts and see driving as a chore to get from A to B.
4. See above. Your real-world logic is fatally flawed.
Kawasicki said:
No one is saying there isn't more risk with higher speeds. What's your point?
You need not look very far to see my point. It was a few posts above this quote. In a sentence: there aren't enough benefits to justify the increase in risk. La Liga said:
We accept and empower adults to make journeys at their discretion and use their private transport when they want. I don't think that's a point anyone on here would dispute or encompass into the way I was using the word "necessary".
We do question the necessity of how they undertake such journeys. We don't want them to do so in a manner which adds unreasonable risk relative to any rational and objective benefits.
I see no evidence there'd be any justifiable benefits anchored around the fundamental purposes of our road network i.e. facilitating movement and it being fundamental to our economic infrastructure. Indeed, the assessment of increasing speeds on our motorways concluded there'd likely be more deaths / injuries per year.
Now an increase in risk itself doesn't necessarily dictate the outcome (nuclear power has more risk than other power sources, but the benefits justify it), but I simply can't see the benefit/s to offset the increased risk with unlimited speeds on the motorway.
We do question the necessity of how they undertake such journeys. We don't want them to do so in a manner which adds unreasonable risk relative to any rational and objective benefits.
I see no evidence there'd be any justifiable benefits anchored around the fundamental purposes of our road network i.e. facilitating movement and it being fundamental to our economic infrastructure. Indeed, the assessment of increasing speeds on our motorways concluded there'd likely be more deaths / injuries per year.
Now an increase in risk itself doesn't necessarily dictate the outcome (nuclear power has more risk than other power sources, but the benefits justify it), but I simply can't see the benefit/s to offset the increased risk with unlimited speeds on the motorway.
La Liga said:
there aren't enough benefits to justify the increase in risk.
How about the benefits of a lower speed limit?If the risk/benefit analysis shows no logical reason to increase the speed limits, then it is highly likely that the same analysis shows a net benefit to society from lower speed limits.
Red 4 said:
3. You massively over-estimate the standard of driving (and roads) in this country. Most people are not enthusiasts and see driving as a chore to get from A to B.
4. See above. Your real-world logic is fatally flawed.
The standards of driving and quality of roads are high in the UK. The accident stats prove this, they are the envy of the world. I think you might have a distorted view of the dangers of driving in the UK.4. See above. Your real-world logic is fatally flawed.
Kawasicki said:
La Liga said:
there aren't enough benefits to justify the increase in risk.
How about the benefits of a lower speed limit?If the risk/benefit analysis shows no logical reason to increase the speed limits, then it is highly likely that the same analysis shows a net benefit to society from lower speed limits.
We're not talking about a mere 'increase' of speed limits, we're talking about no speed limits. A much greater extreme.
La Liga said:
here's a point where the risk / benefit falls which is more acceptable i.e. the rate of reasonable progress / economic facilitation vs the risks of harm.
So where do you think that point lies? 50, 60.....100, 110mph.La Liga said:
We're not talking about a mere 'increase' of speed limits, we're talking about no speed limits. A much greater extreme.
No speed limits doesn't mean everyone drives at top speed. People will choose a speed they are happy with. This is not new ground, even for the UK.Kawasicki said:
So where do you think that point lies? 50, 60.....100, 110mph.
On motorways? I think we're fine where we are. Kawasicki said:
No speed limits doesn't mean everyone drives at top speed. People will choose a speed they are happy with. This is not new ground, even for the UK.
No-one has said everyone will. People choosing what speed they are happy with isn't necessarily the right speed for the circumstances (probably often not with some drivers). Inappropriate speed for the circumstances is generally better at lower speeds than higher. A speed one person chooses may not be a speed others are comfortable with i.e. speed differentials at merges.
Kawasicki said:
No speed limits doesn't mean everyone drives at top speed. People will choose a speed they are happy with. This is not new ground, even for the UK.
Maybe not everyone, but even if 5% do that's going to make things interesting to say the least. Don't forget that if only 10 drivers choose to drive everywhere flat out then that's going to cause problems. Red 4 said:
flemke said:
1. Shortened journey times, which although not a risk factor are nonetheless a social benefit.
2. Fewer vehicles on the roads at a given time, meaning fewer things to hit each other.
3. Studies have found that a person's attentiveness, comprehension and reaction time will improve (up to a point) as the mental demand increases. With too much demand, ability will of course deteriorate, but with too little demand the actor is not sufficiently engaged to perform optimally. (Technically this parameter is sometimes referred to as "arousal", although that can lead to misinterpretation!)
This will vary from person to person, of course, and also by a given person's mood and fatigue level at a particular time, but the general principle is valid: if you're bored, you do not perceive as much information and you do not react as quickly as you do when you're engaged.
4. I believe strongly that an individual is entitled to act as he(/she) wishes unless the ruling authority (democracy or dictatorship) can demonstrate that a proposed action would create a disproportionate risk of harm to others. All society, not only the directly affected, benefits whenever the state can reasonably avoid getting involved.
1. It isn't a "social benefit" if you are held up due to traffic congestion caused by a collision or if you are involved in a collision yourself. (don't forget to add the cost implications of collisions/ delays).2. Fewer vehicles on the roads at a given time, meaning fewer things to hit each other.
3. Studies have found that a person's attentiveness, comprehension and reaction time will improve (up to a point) as the mental demand increases. With too much demand, ability will of course deteriorate, but with too little demand the actor is not sufficiently engaged to perform optimally. (Technically this parameter is sometimes referred to as "arousal", although that can lead to misinterpretation!)
This will vary from person to person, of course, and also by a given person's mood and fatigue level at a particular time, but the general principle is valid: if you're bored, you do not perceive as much information and you do not react as quickly as you do when you're engaged.
4. I believe strongly that an individual is entitled to act as he(/she) wishes unless the ruling authority (democracy or dictatorship) can demonstrate that a proposed action would create a disproportionate risk of harm to others. All society, not only the directly affected, benefits whenever the state can reasonably avoid getting involved.
2. Fewer vehicles travelling at greater speed - see above.
3. You massively over-estimate the standard of driving (and roads) in this country. Most people are not enthusiasts and see driving as a chore to get from A to B.
4. See above. Your real-world logic is fatally flawed.
This is a thread about motorway speeding. In the last year I have driven roughly 25,000 motorway miles and I can recall having been stuck in a queue behind an RTA on one occasion. Prior to that occasion, I cannot recall the previous time, but it would have been 2-3 years ago. We know that, per mile, RTAs on motorways are much less frequent than they are on other types of roads.
Then we get to cause of RTA. In 2013, "Exceeding speed limit" was a contributory factor in 4% (out of "176%" of contributory factors) of UK RTAs.
It appears that, both empirically and statistically, the frequency of speeding-caused crash delays on motorways is very low, and thus in the present UK driving environment "we" do not on balance lose time by exceeding the speed limit on motorways.
2. See above.
3. Regardless of whether the absolute number of British drivers who do or might take their driving seriously is high or low, it is indisputable that there are at least some British drivers who do or might their driving seriously. If that latter group, whatever its size, is motivated to drive better, then surely everyone benefits.
Furthermore, I believe your statement that most British drivers see driving as a chore proves a point that has been made earlier in this thread and elsewhere. To wit, the more instructions that authorities impose on drivers, the more people tend to live under the illusion that, so long as they follow the authorities' instructions, they need not think for themselves about the task at hand.
You and I, and most of the folks on this thread, know that driving is a serious business, which when not done properly kills innocent people every day. Anything that we can do to enlighten people as to the crucial importance of their own judgments in doing that job, and to stimulate their attention and focus whilst they are doing it, has got to be beneficial.
4. See above.
You had asked me to example the good things that come from driving faster. I do not suggest that higher speeds do not at the same time have negative effects. They include:
- shorter reaction time, once the hazard has been perceived,
- in the case of a collision, more damage, and
- greater risk of catching out the inattentive other road user who might have noticed one's vehicle approaching but presumed that it was traveling at the average speed.
These negative effects are all serious. My point has simply been that the consequences of driving faster are not exclusively undesirable ones.
Kawasicki said:
The standards of driving and quality of roads are high in the UK. The accident stats prove this, they are the envy of the world. I think you might have a distorted view of the dangers of driving in the UK.
No, I don't have a distorted view of road safety in this country but I can't see the logic in your view that increasing speed limits would improve road safety.Everyone sees bad driving on the roads, every day.
I think you are confusing your wish for less time spent driving and the convenience/ benefit of that with safety.
The roads are congested. I could possibly see an argument for raising the motorway speed limit at night but other than that I think your desire for increased speed would be futile in any case.
Kawasicki said:
In the UK you see less bad driving than most other countries.
And your point is ?We're not talking about other counties.
Other countries may have higher injury/ fatality stats - for many reasons - but that doesn't mean the UK's roads are necessarily "safe" or the standard of driving is good.
People come on here and whinge all the time about the various muppets they have encountered on the roads - and others come on here suggesting they should be allowed to driver faster than the other mere mortals on the road, because they think they are excellent drivers.
Mix the two together and you have a recipe for disaster.
Red 4 said:
Kawasicki said:
In the UK you see less bad driving than most other countries.
And your point is ?We're not talking about other counties.
Other countries may have higher injury/ fatality stats - for many reasons - but that doesn't mean the UK's roads are necessarily "safe" or the standard of driving is good.
People come on here and whinge all the time about the various muppets they have encountered on the roads - and others come on here suggesting they should be allowed to driver faster than the other mere mortals on the road, because they think they are excellent drivers.
Mix the two together and you have a recipe for disaster.
To believe otherwise is plainly wrong.
And yes, there are a few muppets on the road, and most people ignore motorway speed limits to varying degrees. Your recipe for disaster is already mixed, yet the stats shows that UK motorways are relatively safe, so something is stopping your disaster from unfolding. Probably the same thing that stops the disaster from unfolding on German autobahns. The judgement of the vast majority of the population is pretty good, they don't want injuries and death, so they protect themselves.
LoonR1 said:
Well it had to happen. It's been a few days, since the last idiot cropped up spouting this without having read the thread.
So there are no limits at all in Germany? Or just no limits at all on their autobahns?
Check your facts before answering. The answers are in this thread
Oh, aren't you a big man with a keyboard and an attitude. So there are no limits at all in Germany? Or just no limits at all on their autobahns?
Check your facts before answering. The answers are in this thread
I know full well how the Unrestricted Autobahn system works in Germany.
Let's not consider, for a moment, that the M25 is in effect an Autobahn. With twice the lanes in most places.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff