Why was the 70 limit introduced?
Discussion
dcb said:
As already said, I believe the fuel saving thing came later.
(Temp NSL 50 mph on single carriageways & 60 on dual carriageways),
late 70s.
Blinking youngsters.
UK 70mph limit came in in 1965 - B.Castle Something must
be done. She didn't think to ask Cobra to stop testing their
chariots on the M1.
50 mph for fuel saving was IIRC 1974.
Of course, the cost of the time wasted at 50 mph far exceeds
the possible cost of fuel saved, but there again something
had to be done and asking a politico to do it is asking for
trouble.
Sure it wasn't 1976? Passed my test that year and I'm sure the limit was in then. Remember being pulled over by the Beak (along with several others) for a tyre spot-check just after coming off the M1 - was bricking it as my speedo cable had gone ping while on the M1 and the needle stuck at 75!
from www.speedlimit.org
Q: When was the 70 mph motorway speed limit introduced in Britain?
A: The 70 mph National Speed Limit was introduced as a temporary measure in December 1965. It is often blamed on Barbara Castle, but at the time the Minister of Transport was Tom Fraser.
The reason given was a spate of serious accidents in foggy conditions, but it is often claimed that the MoT had been alarmed by AC Cars testing their latest Cobra on the M1 at speeds up to 180 mph.
It was confirmed as a permanent limit in 1967, by which time Barbara Castle (a non-driver) had become Minister of Transport.There was surprisingly little debate at the time: the fact that the average family car of the time could only just exceed 70 mph perhaps had something to do with this.
It should be noted that this limit applied to all previously "derestricted" roads, not only motorways.
Q: When was the 70 mph motorway speed limit introduced in Britain?
A: The 70 mph National Speed Limit was introduced as a temporary measure in December 1965. It is often blamed on Barbara Castle, but at the time the Minister of Transport was Tom Fraser.
The reason given was a spate of serious accidents in foggy conditions, but it is often claimed that the MoT had been alarmed by AC Cars testing their latest Cobra on the M1 at speeds up to 180 mph.
It was confirmed as a permanent limit in 1967, by which time Barbara Castle (a non-driver) had become Minister of Transport.There was surprisingly little debate at the time: the fact that the average family car of the time could only just exceed 70 mph perhaps had something to do with this.
It should be noted that this limit applied to all previously "derestricted" roads, not only motorways.
matchless said:
simple as some bright spark thought it would be a good way of raising revenue from speeding fines after all it's all about the money you know! nothing else matters nowadays does it?
Oh yeah it's a real money spinner in the grand scheme of things, particularly when viewed against government budgets.
£42 million surplus in the last four years from SCPs.
And the budget for Policing the capital this year alone is nearly £3 billion.
The NHS budget back in 2002-3 was over £65 billion & due to be £90 billion by 2007.
The income generation myth really doesn't hold true, there are far easier ways to raise a paltry £42 million in four years, for far less aggro.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th April 00:12
Fat Richie said:
As already said, I believe the fuel saving thing came later.
(Temp NSL 50 mph on single carriageways & 60 on dual carriageways),
late 70s.
Blinking youngsters.
UK 70mph limit came in in 1965 - B.Castle Something must
be done. She didn't think to ask Cobra to stop testing their
chariots on the M1.
50 mph for fuel saving was IIRC 1974.
Of course, the cost of the time wasted at 50 mph far exceeds
the possible cost of fuel saved, but there again something
had to be done and asking a politico to do it is asking for
trouble.
Sure it wasn't 1976? Passed my test that year and I'm sure the limit was in then. Remember being pulled over by the Beak (along with several others) for a tyre spot-check just after coming off the M1 - was bricking it as my speedo cable had gone ping while on the M1 and the needle stuck at 75!
Nein ..per history book on cars und British Driving (AA book) - was 1965 when Mrs Castle brought in this limit..
Papa has news cutting also.
He was most upset...
Meant he had to drive slowly here ... 
He was always going on about it .. Was small child when we had holiday..here.. was in W-Wales - You had strikes everywhere.. und I seem to remember seeing a strange habit of buying bags of sugar for some reason.. sticks in my mind as never saw anything like that before..
I thought all English people had a ridiculously sweet tooth for a long time after than .. I recall ..
It rained a lot.. More than it does in Appenzell Und up in Cumbria (Ist the mountains.. it gets wet.. ) Papa was creating again.. he was told he had to drive at 50 mph --- meant he had to drive even more slowly... on his hols here..
He was not used to this.. He now a little more used to slow drives.. ist not so fast in the Alps 
They eat too much muesli .. vonhosen said:
The income generation myth really doesn't hold true, there are far easier ways to raise a paltry £42 million in four years, for far less aggro.
Paltry my arse!
It's not so much about how much they raise, but more to do with how much they don't have to spend on real traffic policing.
vonhosen said:
The income generation myth really doesn't hold true
It may not in your eyes, however a reasonable percentage of public opinion might say otherwise.....you see it's all about perception isn't it
vonhosen said:
there are far easier ways to raise a paltry £42 million in four years, for far less aggro.
Please enlighten
yoda954 said:
The income generation myth really doesn't hold true
It may not in your eyes, however a reasonable percentage of public opinion might say otherwise.....you see it's all about perception isn't it
vonhosen said:
there are far easier ways to raise a paltry £42 million in four years, for far less aggro.
Please enlighten
Well put 1p on a litre of fuel & that gets you something in the region of £500 million a year I'm told & most won't even notice the price increase.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th April 07:19
vonhosen said:
The income generation myth really doesn't hold true
It may not in your eyes, however a reasonable percentage of public opinion might say otherwise.....you see it's all about perception isn't it
vonhosen said:
there are far easier ways to raise a paltry £42 million in four years, for far less aggro.
Please enlighten
Well put 1p on a litre of fuel & that gets you something in the region of £500 million a year I'm told & most won't even notice the price increase.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th April 07:19
Not so long ago we had a fuel protest over these stealth pennies...
Just my pennyworth...
TripleS said:
Incidentally, I wonder what form of construction is used in current Formula One tyres? Another thing I note is that whereas the trend on high performance road cars has for many years been towards very low profile tyres, Formula One tyres have extremely high sidewalls. I wonder why this different approach. Presumably the relationship between tyre behaviour and suspension design, with the tyre providing more of the suspension effect on an F1 car?
OT a bit, but generally:
F1 cars need very stiff springs - your'e talking 2000lb or more. This is because the downforce is all put into the body. With softer springs, at 200mph the body would be dragging along the floor. So basically there is no suspension. The forces must go somewhere, so the tyres are designed in such a way as to act like suspension.
Why was the 70 limit introduced? ENVY politics by a person without a driving license... as is ALWAYS done by Labour........... what do you exopect from those workshy shysters..... Wilson was a damned murdering commie criminal but bLIAR is worse.....we've just got to wait for the revolution and string the barsteward up!!!!
vonhosen said:
The income generation myth really doesn't hold true
It may not in your eyes, however a reasonable percentage of public opinion might say otherwise.....you see it's all about perception isn't it
vonhosen said:
there are far easier ways to raise a paltry £42 million in four years, for far less aggro.
Please enlighten
Well put 1p on a litre of fuel & that gets you something in the region of £500 million a year I'm told & most won't even notice the price increase.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 11th April 07:19
Uh, think of all the jobs generated though. The profit is low, the operating turnover is much much bigger.
How many pointless jobs are there in scamerati and such like? They are justified on the grounds of "safer" roads, they pay for themselves, and allow ALOT of money to be saved on adequate policing.
Just looking at one number, their operating profit, is ignoring the much bigger picture!
Dave
Mr Whippy said:Quite so, and this is the point.
Uh, think of all the jobs generated though. The profit is low, the operating turnover is much much bigger.
How many pointless jobs are there in scamerati and such like? They are justified on the grounds of "safer" roads, they pay for themselves, and allow ALOT of money to be saved on adequate policing.
Just looking at one number, their operating profit, is ignoring the much bigger picture!
Last year speeding fine revenue in UK was what - £120M or so?
IIRC, £20M-ish was profit, leaving £100M in expenses.
Assume that 75% of the SCPs' expenses is labour.
If the average person in an SCP cost £25k in wages, taxes and benefits, that's 3,000 people whose occupation is trying to catch out citizens and force them to support the 3,000.
In such a regime, does anyone seriously think that the 3,000 are not motivated to increase the fine income that supports them?
vonhosen said:
The income generation myth really doesn't hold true, there are far easier ways to raise a paltry £42 million in four years, for far less aggro.
thats £42m profit right? thats profit AFTER paying wages and expenses of all the scamera parasite partnerhips. so actualy if you are employed by them income generation is quite important!
>> Edited by francisb on Tuesday 11th April 11:05
JMGS4 said:
Why was the 70 limit introduced? ENVY politics by a person without a driving license... as is ALWAYS done by Labour........... what do you exopect from those workshy shysters..... Wilson was a damned murdering commie criminal but bLIAR is worse.....we've just got to wait for the revolution and string the barsteward up!!!!
Can we leave the straight-jacketed foaming at the mouth at the door please?!
If you actually read the thread you'll realise that its been confirmed three times by separate posters that Castle didn't bring the limit in!
JJ
jacobyte said:
Incidentally, I wonder what form of construction is used in current Formula One tyres? Another thing I note is that whereas the trend on high performance road cars has for many years been towards very low profile tyres, Formula One tyres have extremely high sidewalls. I wonder why this different approach. Presumably the relationship between tyre behaviour and suspension design, with the tyre providing more of the suspension effect on an F1 car?
OT a bit, but generally:
F1 cars need very stiff springs - your'e talking 2000lb or more. This is because the downforce is all put into the body. With softer springs, at 200mph the body would be dragging along the floor. So basically there is no suspension. The forces must go somewhere, so the tyres are designed in such a way as to act like suspension.
Thank you for that, and sorry about the OT bit.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
jazzyjeff said:
Why was the 70 limit introduced? ENVY politics by a person without a driving license... as is ALWAYS done by Labour........... what do you exopect from those workshy shysters..... Wilson was a damned murdering commie criminal but bLIAR is worse.....we've just got to wait for the revolution and string the barsteward up!!!!
Can we leave the straight-jacketed foaming at the mouth at the door please?!
If you actually read the thread you'll realise that its been confirmed three times by separate posters that Castle didn't bring the limit in!
JJ
There might be a little problem in the detail, but you must admit the general sentiment was extremely good!
Best wishes all,
Dave.
vonhosen said:
Well the 70 limit was purely arbitary AFAIK, just a guess. And that was 40 years ago when crossply tyres resembling that of a bicycle were coupled to drum brakes on cars which had the suspension and handling characteristics of a steamed pudding.
If 70MPH was safe then something like 250MPH should be OK now!
The vehicle is least likely to be the weak link in the chain & most limiting factor.
No sh1t Sherlock. Actually many/most of the cars on the road in the early 1960's WERE the weakest link if going much beyond 70MPH was the issue.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff