Raise motorway speed limit: ABD
Drivers' group calls for hike to 80mph
80mph is safe says ABD
Spokesman Mark McArthur-Christie said: "With the huge improvements in all aspects of vehicle performance, the 70 mph limit only serves to create bunching of traffic, frustration and loss of driver concentration. Over half of all drivers break the limit, which creates a lack of respect for the whole system of speed limits, including those set for valid safety reasons.
"The 70 mph limit was, and still is, irrelevant to the issue of stopping multiple accidents in poor visibility. These accidents will only be prevented when drivers are properly trained to avoid the pitfalls of driving along a road with few visual reference points."
The ABD has called on the Government to increase the speed limit to 80mph on most parts of the network, to bring the UK into line with most other European countries.
It said that research has found that the effect on actual speeds would be an increase of less than 3mph, but far fewer people would be breaking the law. Even if the UK followed Germany's example and removed the upper limit altogether, speeds would increase by no more than about 10mph. In addition, drivers would be more likely to heed lower 70mph limits where they were valid, said the ABD.
Fears about an increase in accidents are unfounded. International comparisons show no correlation between accident rates and motorway speed limits, said the ABD. On unrestricted German autobahns, death rates are continuing to fall, despite gradually increasing speeds. Fatality rates on autobahns are also below those on US freeways, which often have lower speed limits than the UK.
Motorways are our safest roads, yet the penalties for exceeding the obsolete 70mph limit are far tougher than for exceeding other speed limits, said the ABD.
Effects on emissions of toxic pollutants and CO2 would be negligible, as would noise levels. On the other hand, the value of time savings would greatly outweigh the cost of extra fuel used.
ABD chairman Brian Gregory said: "The ABD has carried out a comprehensive study which shows that an increase in the motorway speed limit is long overdue. Predictions of carnage and environmental devastation are totally unfounded. A higher limit would allow drivers to go about their business without the constant threat of prosecution for driving at a safe speed."
countryboy said:
Sorry if I sound ignorant, but I thought the ABD had been campagning for an 80 limit for years now.
No they started off asking for 80 or 90 mph. Then debated for years which it should be. Looks like they finally decided.
Thats why I left after a year, I wanted no speed limit and concentration camps for anyone who thought speed limits were a good idea, and the straffing of busses by the RAF and trains to be...... well not really but 20 years on, a 10mph hike in the speed limit albeit in the face of any pro car measure being tantamount to heresy does kind of suggest that maybe the motorist is a tad too tollerant of persecution.
If I'm on an empty road (or there's no-one close enough to care) why should I indicate? Surely it's better to take the time to think about who you indicating for, and either indicate or not rather than blindly indicating all the time?
pstables said:
I agree on the middle lane hoggers but what's the problem with changing lanes without indicating?
If I'm on an empty road (or there's no-one close enough to care) why should I indicate? Surely it's better to take the time to think about who you indicating for, and either indicate or not rather than blindly indicating all the time?
I think the issue is with those who neither take the time to consider the necessity of indication nor actually indicate.
GlynMo said:
"100mph is more like it or better still variable limits with no restrictions in some sections depending on traffic and conditions."
And fry lane hoggers and no-indication lane-changers.
Lane hoggers definately. Given the amount of added time we all spend <70mph due to these fools, I am sure that it "costs the economy" a fair amount (strange how no-one seems to publish these figures...).
Recently, I have driven to Koblenz in Germany and back again for work, thrice. The European system of speed-limits and no-limit works very well. Except for Belgium. Belgian cars do not need indicators 'cus they never use 'em - ever. In Germany there is a popular joke that if you fail your driving test, you get a Belgian licence instead. So yes, let's have a European system of speed limits on our roads - but not for Belgians.
RANT END
deadlym said:
Not sure I believe this. My car uses ~15% more fuel doing 80 rather than 70.
I think emissions is one resonable argument that could be used to not up the motorway speed limit, whereas safety is not.
But most people already do at least 80 in clear conditions and most people I've spoken to say they wouldn't speed up if the limit was 80.
So I doubt there would be much change in speeds except of course less panic braking when people see a scamera van (or even a highways agency car!).
And even then, the average car only spends about a fifth of the time (I ready this from somewhere a while ago so don't quote me!) on the motorway anyway. So if the government really wants to start going on about emissions, then perhaps they should restrict the sales of sub 30mpg cars or sub 25mpg 4x4s.
trevorh said:
I think emissions is one resonable argument that could be used to not up the motorway speed limit, whereas safety is not.
However, isn't free-flowing traffic less polluting than traffic that's forever bunching up and then releasing?
Certainly is, but I'm not sure how that corresponds with upping the speed limit.
deadlym said:
Effects on emissions of toxic pollutants and CO2 would be negligible
Not sure I believe this. My car uses ~15% more fuel doing 80 rather than 70.
I think emissions is one resonable argument that could be used to not up the motorway speed limit, whereas safety is not.
But since you're going almost 15% faster you'll get there sooner and be polluting for almost 15% less time.
deadlym said:
I think emissions is one resonable argument that could be used to not up the motorway speed limit, whereas safety is not.
However, isn't free-flowing traffic less polluting than traffic that's forever bunching up and then releasing?
Certainly is, but I'm not sure how that corresponds with upping the speed limit.
I believe the OP is referring to the bunching effect you see when passing patrol cars, or cars that look like patrol cars, on an otherwise free-flowing motorway.
I too find it hard to believe that emissions on an average 50 mile motorway journey are greater than emissions on an average 5-miles-from-cold urban traffic jam journey, unless everything the industry AND the environment lobby have been telling us for the past 20 years is untrue...
Uriel said:
Effects on emissions of toxic pollutants and CO2 would be negligible
Not sure I believe this. My car uses ~15% more fuel doing 80 rather than 70.
I think emissions is one resonable argument that could be used to not up the motorway speed limit, whereas safety is not.
But since you're going almost 15% faster you'll get there sooner and be polluting for almost 15% less time.
Heh! Don't think it quite works like that though.
Anyway, I've had a look at the ABD site, and they're basing it on an increase in average speed of 2.5mph. I'm all for decriminalising what 57% of people already (safely) do, just wary that people will drive 10mph faster. For example, the common thought is 100 = ban, will the assumption be 110?
zevans said:
I believe the OP is referring to the bunching effect you see when passing patrol cars, or cars that look like patrol cars, on an otherwise free-flowing motorway.
I too find it hard to believe that emissions on an average 50 mile motorway journey are greater than emissions on an average 5-miles-from-cold urban traffic jam journey, unless everything the industry AND the environment lobby have been telling us for the past 20 years is untrue...
Ah, I understand. Yes, the "mobile jam" effect of patrol cars would probably be a thing of the past.
edit: Forgot to respond to your emissions bit - yes, fair point.
>> Edited by deadlym on Wednesday 21st December 16:55
deadlym said:
Effects on emissions of toxic pollutants and CO2 would be negligible
Not sure I believe this. My car uses ~15% more fuel doing 80 rather than 70.
I think emissions is one resonable argument that could be used to not up the motorway speed limit, whereas safety is not.
My car uses less fuel at 100mph than it does at 70mph. In any case adding 15% TO 5% of the total car output (because only 5% of emmisions are from motorway use) The total emmisions from vehicles account for only 0.003% of carbon emmisions for the planet. I suggest just building 1 nuclear power station, or closing the Guardian would account for 100 times the emmisions caused by raising the speed limit.
deadlym said:
Effects on emissions of toxic pollutants and CO2 would be negligible
Not sure I believe this. My car uses ~15% more fuel doing 80 rather than 70.
And how exactly do you know that? Seems more like the kind of info Kevin's dad, rather than a petrolhead, would record!
The main issue must be safety. Think of the cars that were around in 1965, which had powerful engines but shoddy brakes and certainly no driver aids. In comparison to today's standards surely a raise of 10 mph wouldnt make any difference to safety.
I remember reading that the Italians raised their speed limits by 10 kpm not long ago to stop people falling asleep at the wheel!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff