RE: 80mph limit will cost £1bn say campaigners
Discussion
Pagey430 said:
my fear is 80 would be strictly enforced by average speed cameras everywhere.....rather leave it as it is...
We all think that whilst driving at an indicated 80mph on the speedo will generally only be about 72-73 actual mph anyway, so to do 80 actual mph will probably read 90mph ish on a speedo anyway!I never drive to my speedo on a motorway, i rely on my gps speed!
I don't know if these e-petitions do anything, but may be somthing worth signing to try and counter brake, and show public support:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/3946
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/3946
mrmr96 said:
Seems most of the extra cost is "£766.6m in fuel costs." but that's down to the drivers, as there's nothing stopping people carrying on at 70mph if they want to save fuel. The drivers who will do 80mph are, dare I say, probably already driving at 80mph with the existing limit in place.
Quite! Applying some more logic: more spent on fuel = more taxes received by gubbermint. If 60% (being conservative) of fuel cost is tax, that's £460m which easily outstrips the £242.8m of other costs, therefore, I propose the headline "80mph limit will make £217.2m says AyBee"!
Edited by AyBee on Monday 21st May 13:56
VR6 Turbo said:
Dear Brake
please could you explain how Germany hasn't imploded?
thanks VR
This. please could you explain how Germany hasn't imploded?
thanks VR
I just can't deal with 'Brake' the nicely, nicely charity who just have no-one with any logic whatsoever working for them.
Additionally, vehicles moving faster (even vaguely) will mean more tax reaped by the government due to increased fuel usage (sad but true) and a more efficient economy (yet more tax gains) as the population can move about quicker and easier. And where are we now? In a recession. Simple maths but I can't see much wrong with that.
What would probably happen is 10 years of long, drawn out 'public consultation' and 'consultation groups' costing many £millions before the whole scheme is dropped because the government don't have the balls to actually follow something through.
Edited by Si_man306 on Monday 21st May 14:04
Edited by Si_man306 on Monday 21st May 14:05
Doesn't the UK have the lowest car speed limit amongst our Western European friends? France is 80.8 mph (130km/h), Spain and Holland are 75mph. I can't be bothered to look up the rest but you get the idea.
Oddly, I do believe that the UK had the HIGHEST speed limit for coaches in Western Europe, also at 70mph.
Go figure!!
Oddly, I do believe that the UK had the HIGHEST speed limit for coaches in Western Europe, also at 70mph.
Go figure!!
Why on earth are Brake a charity? Seriously, why?
All this reminds me of a significant moment in our industrial history. In 1808, Richard Trevithick created a steam locomotive called 'Catch Me Who Can', a challenge suggesting that this machine, unlike locomotives before it, could not only pull more than just colliery trucks, but carriages full of people, and more to the point, could pull them faster than any number of horses attached.
As a result, he offered a trial run in London, offering passenger rides on his new contraption.
Protesters, including some notable society figures and members of Parliament, were vehement in their assertion that Trevithick was being wildly reckless with people's lives. It was reasoned - with the apparent science to match - that due to certain atmospheric pressures, the human head would explode if it moved faster than any natural, organic being. The other argument running at the time was economic. It was a waste of time and money, and, I mean, come on - who needs to go faster than a horse can carry them at any rate.
So, with medics standing by to collect up bits of brain, and horsey types picketing the station, Catch Me Who Can steamed off on its maiden journey with a carriage full of passengers.
No-one died.
We now have railways.
Steam engines powered the industrial revolution and booted the British economy several hundred years ahead of the competition. When we refer to 'developing economies' now, we refer to industrial revolutions. The desire and ability to go a bit faster made us the country we are today.
Brake, go to hell.
What about the benefits of increasing the speed limit? Let's do some quick street fighting maths on the numbers.
The deparment for traffic statistics (http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/traffic/) reckon we did 61bn miles of motorway driving. Let's assume we all do 70mph on average, that's 871m hours of driving. Change the average speed to 80mph cuts that down to 763m hours of driving. The change in the average speed will benefit us all by 109m hours of driving. Given that average car occupancy is 1.58 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmtran/505/505we18.htm) that saves us 172m people hours. At the minimum wage (which is a ridiculously low estimate for average wage) of £6.08 per hour that turns into £1.046b, so we're in profit from changing the speed limit. Given that car ownership (probably) increases with income, let's use a better average wage figure of £12.50 (source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-o... that raises the gains to £2.15b, or a profit of over £1bn per year. In these cash strapped economic times, surely this is a simple change we can all get behind.
Moral of the story: If you only look at the costs of doing anything, you'd never do anything even the stuff that was free (as you'd be indifferent between doing nothing as both have no benefits)
The deparment for traffic statistics (http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/series/traffic/) reckon we did 61bn miles of motorway driving. Let's assume we all do 70mph on average, that's 871m hours of driving. Change the average speed to 80mph cuts that down to 763m hours of driving. The change in the average speed will benefit us all by 109m hours of driving. Given that average car occupancy is 1.58 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmtran/505/505we18.htm) that saves us 172m people hours. At the minimum wage (which is a ridiculously low estimate for average wage) of £6.08 per hour that turns into £1.046b, so we're in profit from changing the speed limit. Given that car ownership (probably) increases with income, let's use a better average wage figure of £12.50 (source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/ashe/annual-survey-o... that raises the gains to £2.15b, or a profit of over £1bn per year. In these cash strapped economic times, surely this is a simple change we can all get behind.
Moral of the story: If you only look at the costs of doing anything, you'd never do anything even the stuff that was free (as you'd be indifferent between doing nothing as both have no benefits)
Egbert Nobacon said:
The bigger question is why is Brake allowed to classify itself as a charity and reap the tax benefits associated with that status - when in reality it's just a political pressure group trying to assert the warped views of a few onto the majority ?
My thoughts entirely.I think I'll write to the charity commissioners and ask.
WRITE TO YOUR M.P.
I just did.
To get your MP's name and email address just use the simple postcode locator at http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/
My email said:
Just a note to say that I strongly support the trialling of 80mph speed limits on stretches of motorway that are safe enough to allow it. Motorists are already exercising their common sense and travelling at these speeds when conditions permit. I see no reason to suppose their behaviour will be any different if the limit is raised. They will continue to travel at speeds they feel comfortable with. It would just mean they didn't need to be concentrating on looking out for police cars and speed cameras. They could concentrate on potential road hazards instead, making the whole experience safer for everyone. Those few nutters who drive recklessly now will continue to do so regardless of posted limits and should continue to be the focus of
police enforcement of good driving practice, which is by means measured by speed alone.
In 2010 1870 people were killed on UK roads.Another drop by the way 
40% of deaths occurred on rural A roads. A further 22% occurred on other rural roads.
32% occurred on urban roads.
Only 6% occurred on motorways even though they took 20% of all traffic
The results for deaths on roads then is as follows.
Non built up roads 993
Built up roads 739
Motorways 118
So out of those those 1870 people killed,only 6% 0r 118 were killed on motorways.
I wonder why brake are focusing their attention on the safest roads in the uk then?
Then lets take the figure of 118 deaths.
How many of these deaths were a direct result of speed (note speed not speeding)
How many were down to,drink driving,not looking/paying attention,falling asleep etc?
40% of deaths occurred on rural A roads. A further 22% occurred on other rural roads.
32% occurred on urban roads.
Only 6% occurred on motorways even though they took 20% of all traffic
The results for deaths on roads then is as follows.
Non built up roads 993
Built up roads 739
Motorways 118
So out of those those 1870 people killed,only 6% 0r 118 were killed on motorways.
I wonder why brake are focusing their attention on the safest roads in the uk then?
Then lets take the figure of 118 deaths.
How many of these deaths were a direct result of speed (note speed not speeding)
How many were down to,drink driving,not looking/paying attention,falling asleep etc?
Edited by TPS on Monday 21st May 14:31
TPS said:
Motorways 118
So out of those those 1870 people killed,only 6% 0r 118 were killed on motorways.
I wonder why brake are focusing their attention on the safest roads in the uk then?
And, IIRC, that 118 includes at least one person who jumped from a bridge and was killed "on the motorway".So out of those those 1870 people killed,only 6% 0r 118 were killed on motorways.
I wonder why brake are focusing their attention on the safest roads in the uk then?
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff