Are UK speed limits appropriate?
Discussion
All the other threads on speeding are going a bit circular, but I think in general most of us DO accept that speed limits are needed although saying that the Germans do quite well without them
.
I believe that the curent speed limits are entirely innappropriate apart from 20 in town centres and around schools. I've also no problem with the urban speed limit staying at 30, maybe going up to 35mph. Where there is not a significant amount of pedestrian and/or cyclist activity then I believe the limit could quite happily go up to 70 on SC and 90 on DC.
When the current NSLs were introduced way back in 1965 the average car that was being driven would've been something like a Ford Anglia which had a top speed of 71mph and did 0-60 in 29.5 seconds. It had drum brakes all round and is the basis for the often-quoted Highway Code braking distances. It was not equipped with seat belts as standard and the wearing of them wasn't compulsory anyway. The headlights were filament based and as such gave very poor illumination. All these factors contributed to the 60/70mph NSLs.
Compare to today's average car, a Ford Focus. We'll take the base model, the 1.4 studio. It has a top speed of 101mph and 0-60 time of 13.8 seconds. It is equipped with 5 seat belts and air bags as standard. It has ABS, discs at the front, drums at the rear and emergency brake force distribution and assist. Halogen headlights allow you to see considerably further than filament based lights.
Tyre technology has improved immeasureably in the last 40 years as well. In 1965 we were all driving on crossply tyres not radials, and typically they were very skinny. Modern radials, with their lower rolling resistance are also generally wider allowing much better grip during braking.
For all these reasons 70mph was perfectly acceptable as a speed limit in 1965 but in 2006 90mph would be much more appropriate and more people would be willing to accept it as a limit, not a minimum.
. I believe that the curent speed limits are entirely innappropriate apart from 20 in town centres and around schools. I've also no problem with the urban speed limit staying at 30, maybe going up to 35mph. Where there is not a significant amount of pedestrian and/or cyclist activity then I believe the limit could quite happily go up to 70 on SC and 90 on DC.
When the current NSLs were introduced way back in 1965 the average car that was being driven would've been something like a Ford Anglia which had a top speed of 71mph and did 0-60 in 29.5 seconds. It had drum brakes all round and is the basis for the often-quoted Highway Code braking distances. It was not equipped with seat belts as standard and the wearing of them wasn't compulsory anyway. The headlights were filament based and as such gave very poor illumination. All these factors contributed to the 60/70mph NSLs.
Compare to today's average car, a Ford Focus. We'll take the base model, the 1.4 studio. It has a top speed of 101mph and 0-60 time of 13.8 seconds. It is equipped with 5 seat belts and air bags as standard. It has ABS, discs at the front, drums at the rear and emergency brake force distribution and assist. Halogen headlights allow you to see considerably further than filament based lights.
Tyre technology has improved immeasureably in the last 40 years as well. In 1965 we were all driving on crossply tyres not radials, and typically they were very skinny. Modern radials, with their lower rolling resistance are also generally wider allowing much better grip during braking.
For all these reasons 70mph was perfectly acceptable as a speed limit in 1965 but in 2006 90mph would be much more appropriate and more people would be willing to accept it as a limit, not a minimum.
what you have to bear in mind is that 'speed limits' are maximum speeds legally allowed.
Now, if they were treated as such - then yes, there would be no problems rasing them to the levels you metioned.
However, you need to consider the average british driver (i.e. non-PHer) - they seem to lack the ability to modify their driving style to their car (especially SUV's with braking distances of the old Anglia) and the conditions - and therefore if you raised the limit to 90 - you'd have people doing 95 in torrential rain on the M4 with about 10 yards of visibility.
I'd love to see limits put up - but I think we need better driver education and skill before we can - simply because think how many '40mph club' and '100mph 3 feet off the rear bumper of the car in front rep' drivers you see on a daily basis...
Now, if they were treated as such - then yes, there would be no problems rasing them to the levels you metioned.
However, you need to consider the average british driver (i.e. non-PHer) - they seem to lack the ability to modify their driving style to their car (especially SUV's with braking distances of the old Anglia) and the conditions - and therefore if you raised the limit to 90 - you'd have people doing 95 in torrential rain on the M4 with about 10 yards of visibility.
I'd love to see limits put up - but I think we need better driver education and skill before we can - simply because think how many '40mph club' and '100mph 3 feet off the rear bumper of the car in front rep' drivers you see on a daily basis...
mondeohdear said:
....way back in 1965 the average car that was being driven would've been something like a Ford Anglia which had a top speed of 71mph and did 0-60 in 29.5 seconds. It had drum brakes all round and is the basis for the often-quoted Highway Code braking distances.
It was also equipped with a mythological driver who had a reaction time of .7s (curiously not coincidentally exactly the same number of feet travelled as mph), whereas experimental thinking times (time from from hazard appearance to inital pressure on brake pedal) are closer to 1.5s
I would love to see speed limits raised. I have a car that can cruise safely at speeds into the three figures on motorways. On a good, clear SC road getting up to 80mph isn't off-limits either.
But, I don't think it's something that could come without training and (more importantly) a change in attitudes, too.
The problem is that the cars have now gotten so good that the limiting factor is the driver. And the first thing I'd say is that the average British driver has no idea how to cope with speed differentials.
You see it all the time; people pull out and force you to brake (whether it be a motorway lane change, a junction or a roundabout) because they cannot judge your rate of approach, and all too often assume you will be driving at the same speed they would be in that situation.
Imagine what a motorway would be like where the (legal) speed differential between cars could be as much as 40mph. (Technically it can be now, but it's rare for someone to drive slower than about 50 on a motorway.) Then the consequences of a "blind swerve" from the 50mph driver into the path of a 90mph one.
Now I'm all for the raising of speed limits and an emphasis on a "limit not target" culture, but I think the capabilities of drivers need to be taken account of (and improved to support the higher limits) as well as those of the car.
But, I don't think it's something that could come without training and (more importantly) a change in attitudes, too.
The problem is that the cars have now gotten so good that the limiting factor is the driver. And the first thing I'd say is that the average British driver has no idea how to cope with speed differentials.
You see it all the time; people pull out and force you to brake (whether it be a motorway lane change, a junction or a roundabout) because they cannot judge your rate of approach, and all too often assume you will be driving at the same speed they would be in that situation.
Imagine what a motorway would be like where the (legal) speed differential between cars could be as much as 40mph. (Technically it can be now, but it's rare for someone to drive slower than about 50 on a motorway.) Then the consequences of a "blind swerve" from the 50mph driver into the path of a 90mph one.
Now I'm all for the raising of speed limits and an emphasis on a "limit not target" culture, but I think the capabilities of drivers need to be taken account of (and improved to support the higher limits) as well as those of the car.
Indeed, I take your point about reaction times. In 1965 most cars didn't even have a radio to distract the driver. However, I'm willing to bet that the faster you're going the more you're concentrating on the road and therefore more likely to react quickly.
I also think that, as I said before, if you raise the limit to a more reasonable one people are more likely to obey it.
I also think that, as I said before, if you raise the limit to a more reasonable one people are more likely to obey it.
Timberwolf said:
I would love to see speed limits raised. I have a car that can cruise safely at speeds into the three figures on motorways. On a good, clear SC road getting up to 80mph isn't off-limits either.
But, I don't think it's something that could come without training and (more importantly) a change in attitudes, too.
The problem is that the cars have now gotten so good that the limiting factor is the driver. And the first thing I'd say is that the average British driver has no idea how to cope with speed differentials.
You see it all the time; people pull out and force you to brake (whether it be a motorway lane change, a junction or a roundabout) because they cannot judge your rate of approach, and all too often assume you will be driving at the same speed they would be in that situation.
Imagine what a motorway would be like where the (legal) speed differential between cars could be as much as 40mph. (Technically it can be now, but it's rare for someone to drive slower than about 50 on a motorway.) Then the consequences of a "blind swerve" from the 50mph driver into the path of a 90mph one.
Now I'm all for the raising of speed limits and an emphasis on a "limit not target" culture, but I think the capabilities of drivers need to be taken account of (and improved to support the higher limits) as well as those of the car.
But, I don't think it's something that could come without training and (more importantly) a change in attitudes, too.
The problem is that the cars have now gotten so good that the limiting factor is the driver. And the first thing I'd say is that the average British driver has no idea how to cope with speed differentials.
You see it all the time; people pull out and force you to brake (whether it be a motorway lane change, a junction or a roundabout) because they cannot judge your rate of approach, and all too often assume you will be driving at the same speed they would be in that situation.
Imagine what a motorway would be like where the (legal) speed differential between cars could be as much as 40mph. (Technically it can be now, but it's rare for someone to drive slower than about 50 on a motorway.) Then the consequences of a "blind swerve" from the 50mph driver into the path of a 90mph one.
Now I'm all for the raising of speed limits and an emphasis on a "limit not target" culture, but I think the capabilities of drivers need to be taken account of (and improved to support the higher limits) as well as those of the car.
You're quite right of course. If the 70 limit had been reviewed periodically since '65 then we would all bbe capable of driving safer at speeds than we are today. In 1982 when I was at university the police actually wanted to introduce an 80mph advisory speed limit which meant if you were doing 80mph then you were fine. If you were doing 90mph and an officer stopped you you'd have to explain to him, and probably a court, as to why you believe you were safe at that speed. You know, "This is a car that's been designed to travel safely at 155mph officer, here's my IAM membership and you and I are the only two cars on a perfectly straight motorway at 4am with no rain." Those proposals would have meant that the general motoring public would now be quite capable of driving at 80 now, and if they were going faster they'd already be examining why they believed it was safe. Consequently they'd be taking more notice of road and traffic conditions.
It's the mantras of "Speed kills" and "70mph=safe 78mph=dangerous" that are the real culprits.
Timberwolf said:
You see it all the time; people pull out and force you to brake (whether it be a motorway lane change, a junction or a roundabout) because they cannot judge your rate of approach, and all too often assume you will be driving at the same speed they would be in that situation.
Bear in mind that - on a motorway, for example - they do have a right to expect you to be approaching at no more than the posted limit. I've you're tooling up at 140 and need to do a bit of braking for the chap who pulls out on you doing 70, assuming you are at a similar speed, then you need to examine your driving as much as theirs.
mondeohdear said:
Timberwolf said:
I would love to see speed limits raised. I have a car that can cruise safely at speeds into the three figures on motorways. On a good, clear SC road getting up to 80mph isn't off-limits either.
But, I don't think it's something that could come without training and (more importantly) a change in attitudes, too.
The problem is that the cars have now gotten so good that the limiting factor is the driver. And the first thing I'd say is that the average British driver has no idea how to cope with speed differentials.
You see it all the time; people pull out and force you to brake (whether it be a motorway lane change, a junction or a roundabout) because they cannot judge your rate of approach, and all too often assume you will be driving at the same speed they would be in that situation.
Imagine what a motorway would be like where the (legal) speed differential between cars could be as much as 40mph. (Technically it can be now, but it's rare for someone to drive slower than about 50 on a motorway.) Then the consequences of a "blind swerve" from the 50mph driver into the path of a 90mph one.
Now I'm all for the raising of speed limits and an emphasis on a "limit not target" culture, but I think the capabilities of drivers need to be taken account of (and improved to support the higher limits) as well as those of the car.
But, I don't think it's something that could come without training and (more importantly) a change in attitudes, too.
The problem is that the cars have now gotten so good that the limiting factor is the driver. And the first thing I'd say is that the average British driver has no idea how to cope with speed differentials.
You see it all the time; people pull out and force you to brake (whether it be a motorway lane change, a junction or a roundabout) because they cannot judge your rate of approach, and all too often assume you will be driving at the same speed they would be in that situation.
Imagine what a motorway would be like where the (legal) speed differential between cars could be as much as 40mph. (Technically it can be now, but it's rare for someone to drive slower than about 50 on a motorway.) Then the consequences of a "blind swerve" from the 50mph driver into the path of a 90mph one.
Now I'm all for the raising of speed limits and an emphasis on a "limit not target" culture, but I think the capabilities of drivers need to be taken account of (and improved to support the higher limits) as well as those of the car.
You're quite right of course. If the 70 limit had been reviewed periodically since '65 then we would all bbe capable of driving safer at speeds than we are today. In 1982 when I was at university the police actually wanted to introduce an 80mph advisory speed limit which meant if you were doing 80mph then you were fine. If you were doing 90mph and an officer stopped you you'd have to explain to him, and probably a court, as to why you believe you were safe at that speed. You know, "This is a car that's been designed to travel safely at 155mph officer, here's my IAM membership and you and I are the only two cars on a perfectly straight motorway at 4am with no rain." Those proposals would have meant that the general motoring public would now be quite capable of driving at 80 now, and if they were going faster they'd already be examining why they believed it was safe. Consequently they'd be taking more notice of road and traffic conditions.
It's the mantras of "Speed kills" and "70mph=safe 78mph=dangerous" that are the real culprits.
Some good stuff there. It must be a unique situation where a limit was imposed so long ago without periodic revue, come to that who and what assumes the skill to make that decision if it where to happen?
One must also bear in mind that some speed limits are not only there to control mph per se, but also to keep road noise down in residential areas (tyre roar, induction/exhaust noise, etc). That's often a reason for some 3-lane carriageways being set at a seemingly ridiculously low 30 or 40mph.
7db said:
Timberwolf said:
You see it all the time; people pull out and force you to brake (whether it be a motorway lane change, a junction or a roundabout) because they cannot judge your rate of approach, and all too often assume you will be driving at the same speed they would be in that situation.
Bear in mind that - on a motorway, for example - they do have a right to expect you to be approaching at no more than the posted limit. I've you're tooling up at 140 and need to do a bit of braking for the chap who pulls out on you doing 70, assuming you are at a similar speed, then you need to examine your driving as much as theirs.
Entirely agreed. My point is that when the driver at 50mph pulls out in un-signalled, in front of you doing 70, the closing speed is small enough that you usually have plenty of time and options for dealing with it. You don't need to necessarily be exceeding the limit - there are plenty of drivers who travel slower (or even don't know the limit!) and will assume the same behaviour from those around them.
If you were doing 90, then there would be less time, less space, and the likelihood of an accident is far higher.
I learnt enough times from being young, foolish and a bit too free with the accelerator pedal that sheer approach speed won't prevent a driver from making a move - that some will even ignore a flash of lights/touch of horn once they've taken the decision to move.
I usually keep my speed differential to below 20mph when I'm approaching traffic. The risk of someone doing something idiotic outweighs the reward of getting where I want to go earlier.
Timberwolf said:
I usually keep my speed differential to below 20mph when I'm approaching traffic.
Do you keep the differential to below 20mph even when the road is absent from any hazards that might cause the other vehicle to stray into your path?
Edited by ipsg.glf on Friday 22 September 12:10
It's not so much that I object to the actual 'numbers' (except the 70 mph on a motorway which IMO could easily and safely be raised to 80 mph) it's the placement of the lower limits that I object to.
Doesn't matter what the actual limits are 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 - it's where they're placed that is critical.
In some cases 10 mph is an appropriate limit - outside schools at the start and end of the school day for instance. No need for them to there for the majority of the day, weekends or school hols. Why can't regulations be drafted for varible limits and limit signs be tied in to the school patrol flashing lights.
Likewise the higher limits are ALL appropriate in certain places - what's not appropriate is 30 mph limits on DC's to cut noise etc.
One example locally: A DC was built to cure the snarl ups from the M4 into Swansea - lovely bit of road, quite safe to do 70mph weather/traffic permitting. Couple of years on the farmer whose land the DC passes through sells adjoining fields to developers who build x hundred houses, using the DC as access.
Now, because the residents are complaining bitterly that they can't access the estate easily/safely and noise there's ANOTHER set of lights - priority to the estate until you arrive there - and the limit has been dropped to 40 along the whole stretch of road.
FFS, they KNEW the DC was there when they bought their houses - they had to drive along it to get to the site.
Doesn't matter what the actual limits are 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 - it's where they're placed that is critical.
In some cases 10 mph is an appropriate limit - outside schools at the start and end of the school day for instance. No need for them to there for the majority of the day, weekends or school hols. Why can't regulations be drafted for varible limits and limit signs be tied in to the school patrol flashing lights.
Likewise the higher limits are ALL appropriate in certain places - what's not appropriate is 30 mph limits on DC's to cut noise etc.
One example locally: A DC was built to cure the snarl ups from the M4 into Swansea - lovely bit of road, quite safe to do 70mph weather/traffic permitting. Couple of years on the farmer whose land the DC passes through sells adjoining fields to developers who build x hundred houses, using the DC as access.
Now, because the residents are complaining bitterly that they can't access the estate easily/safely and noise there's ANOTHER set of lights - priority to the estate until you arrive there - and the limit has been dropped to 40 along the whole stretch of road.
FFS, they KNEW the DC was there when they bought their houses - they had to drive along it to get to the site.
ipsg.glf said:
Timberwolf said:
I usually keep my speed differential to below 20mph when I'm approaching traffic.
Do you keep the differential to below 20mph even when the road is absent from any hazards that might cause the other vehicle to stray into your path?
If I will have to pass in an adjacent lane, yes.
People can (and will) do stupid things. Accidents (mechanical failures, punctures) can happen.
For example, I was approaching a vehicle towing a trailer some time ago. As I got close, the trailer very suddenly (and alarmingly) started to sway, and the driver needed to use two lanes and the hard shoulder before it was under control again.
(Once I'm alongside, I do tend to try and get past quickly, for the obvious reason given by the example above. A 20mph difference usually gives a reasonably small TED.)
Even though it's far more unlikely for a small, rigid vehicle to do the same, the chance is there. I'd rather be overcautious, and if that means losing x hours of my life driving needlessly slow in a car, then so be it.
Of course, the counter-argument is that I'm using reduced speed to compensate for a lack of observation, planning and understanding. As a still-inexperienced driver, I may well have a different game plan in another 5/10/15 years.
Edited by Timberwolf on Friday 22 September 12:27
The argument about increasing limits falls down at the moment as far as I'm concerned because of the appalling standards of the nut behind the wheel in most cases. Until that is improved then nothing will change.
Too often we assume that everyone on PH is a driving God.
This morning I followed someone, who shall remain nameless. The vehicle sporting a prominent Pistonheads.com speed matters sticker. From the manner of their conduct I would say this was NOT someone who just happened to be driving a vehicle owned by a another person who was the PH-er.
I have to say, with regret, that the manner of that person's driving made me ashamed to be member here. Conduct like that on the roads we can do without. Four offences in 90 seconds, one of which was borderline to dangerous. Not clever.
They actually saved precisely zero seconds in their journey. Also not clever.
Actions by others kept that persons neck in one piece, in addition to establishing their own safety. Doubly not clever.
Too often we assume that everyone on PH is a driving God.
This morning I followed someone, who shall remain nameless. The vehicle sporting a prominent Pistonheads.com speed matters sticker. From the manner of their conduct I would say this was NOT someone who just happened to be driving a vehicle owned by a another person who was the PH-er.
I have to say, with regret, that the manner of that person's driving made me ashamed to be member here. Conduct like that on the roads we can do without. Four offences in 90 seconds, one of which was borderline to dangerous. Not clever.
They actually saved precisely zero seconds in their journey. Also not clever.
Actions by others kept that persons neck in one piece, in addition to establishing their own safety. Doubly not clever.
The general public is perfectly capable of using motorways with a 90mph speed limit. Its rare to see a car in the middle lane doing less than 70mph as things stand.
Just go to France or Italy, their speed limits are higher and their motorways are nowhere near as good as ours.
I don't believe that increasing the speed limits will make any real difference to the speed of traffic on the motorway, it'll just mean that we won't have to worry about cameras quite so much. I've seen people doing silly speeds in torrential rain on the motorway, but the vast majority of people slow right down when the rain is hammering on their window.
Idiots will be idiots no matter what the speed limit is.
Just go to France or Italy, their speed limits are higher and their motorways are nowhere near as good as ours.
I don't believe that increasing the speed limits will make any real difference to the speed of traffic on the motorway, it'll just mean that we won't have to worry about cameras quite so much. I've seen people doing silly speeds in torrential rain on the motorway, but the vast majority of people slow right down when the rain is hammering on their window.
Idiots will be idiots no matter what the speed limit is.
Parrot of Doom said:
The general public is perfectly capable of using motorways with a 90mph speed limit. Its rare to see a car in the middle lane doing less than 70mph as things stand.
Just go to France or Italy, their speed limits are higher and their motorways are nowhere near as good as ours.
I don't believe that increasing the speed limits will make any real difference to the speed of traffic on the motorway, it'll just mean that we won't have to worry about cameras quite so much. I've seen people doing silly speeds in torrential rain on the motorway, but the vast majority of people slow right down when the rain is hammering on their window.
Idiots will be idiots no matter what the speed limit is.
Just go to France or Italy, their speed limits are higher and their motorways are nowhere near as good as ours.
I don't believe that increasing the speed limits will make any real difference to the speed of traffic on the motorway, it'll just mean that we won't have to worry about cameras quite so much. I've seen people doing silly speeds in torrential rain on the motorway, but the vast majority of people slow right down when the rain is hammering on their window.
Idiots will be idiots no matter what the speed limit is.
Yes, it's more about driving skill than speed limits. A great many discussions on here have highlighted that speed-caused accidents only amount to less than 5% of all accidents. To improve safety, concentrating on speed limits is one of the last things that should be on the list. Germany and the Isle of Mann are good examples of where there are no speed limits in ceratin areas and no problems because of it. Look at who are most involved in vehicle accidents - the under 25s and the elderly. Those same groups are the least caught exceeding the speed limit.
7db said:
Bear in mind that - on a motorway, for example - they do have a right to expect you to be approaching at no more than the posted limit. I've you're tooling up at 140 and need to do a bit of braking for the chap who pulls out on you doing 70, assuming you are at a similar speed, then you need to examine your driving as much as theirs.
There is the other extreme where people will overtake a vehicle on the m/way with a very small speed differential, often to keep to the 70 limit. Even if a safe distance is maintained off the traffic in front, said overtaker is spending a lot of time close along the overtakee (if such a word exists) in the adjacent lane for some time, occupying the blind spot for longer, etc.
There is an optimum speed differential - not too fast so as to cause the sorts of problems mentioned by 7db and Timberwolf, not too slow so as to linger too long in blind spots, cause congestion across the lanes, etc. I aim for this on a motorway or good DC.
If limits are to be enforced rigidly, then I think motorways should be 90. Traffic seems to travel up to this speed safely, even with a few drivers going faster.
Edited by alphadog on Friday 22 September 13:23
alphadog said:
If limits are to be enforced rigidly, then I think motorways should be 90. Traffic seems to travel up to this speed safely, even with a few drivers going faster.
Out of interest, would you support a move to 90mph limits on motorways with SPECS at every on and off ramp to enforce it?
7db said:
Out of interest, would you support a move to 90mph limits on motorways with SPECS at every on and off ramp to enforce it?
I certainly would. TBH a lot of the time I see no reason to travel above 80, but on certain sections of the M25 and things like the M6 Toll Road I can see little reason not to be able to travel at 90-100....
In terms of increasing the speed limits, I would welcome this in some areas (DC where there used to be an NSL but has now for no reason been reduced to 50 etc..) but would also welcome a reduction in speed limits in other areas. As above, I think 20mph should be rigidly enforced outside of schools during school hours..
In terms of more numpty drivers on the roads, perhaps more traffic police taking action against MLMs would ensure they start to pay attention to the road etc.....
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff