Speed awareness course....interesting but.....

[CraigyMc]

wst said:

I'm more interested how close automated cars will choose for following distance... imagine situations where your car joins the M4, slots into a pack of cars half a mile long that's cruising at 105mph with <2 feet of air between the bumpers of each car...

I reckon that once that technology's around, you'd find Tesla etc selling the idea of electric self-driving cars to the Southern USA by turning up at NASCAR races and doing demonstration runs around the ovals...

In some respects it's actually safer for them to be close to each other - there's no space for them to have a speed differential build up. You might end up with cars that have some sort of interlock eventually (because on a motorway or similar, an 8 or 12 wheeled vehicle that holds itself straight is safer than 2 or 3 vehicles that all have to do the job solo).

This is getting way from what I am interested in though, which is the motivation people have for being absolutist about speeding: is it economy? ecology? lack of trust in drivers? The actual safest way to travel on a road is obviously not to travel at all - is that what the endgame is here?

Clinging to an arbitrary number (70mph), the history of how that number came to be and the lack of any actual rationale for why it's that number and not one more or one less, is irrational. Thinking that I can drive down a road in the UK at 70mph in my car, get to France and go 81mph and then to Germany and do 143mph in the same car (because that's what the motor is capable of) and that somehow 70mph is "correct" for the UK, is confusing to me. Hence: questions.

[vonhosen]

CraigyMc said:

wst said:

I'm more interested how close automated cars will choose for following distance... imagine situations where your car joins the M4, slots into a pack of cars half a mile long that's cruising at 105mph with <2 feet of air between the bumpers of each car...

I reckon that once that technology's around, you'd find Tesla etc selling the idea of electric self-driving cars to the Southern USA by turning up at NASCAR races and doing demonstration runs around the ovals...

In some respects it's actually safer for them to be close to each other - there's no space for them to have a speed differential build up. You might end up with cars that have some sort of interlock eventually (because on a motorway or similar, an 8 or 12 wheeled vehicle that holds itself straight is safer than 2 or 3 vehicles that all have to do the job solo).

This is getting way from what I am interested in though, which is the motivation people have for being absolutist about speeding: is it economy? ecology? lack of trust in drivers? The actual safest way to travel on a road is obviously not to travel at all - is that what the endgame is here?

Clinging to an arbitrary number (70mph), the history of how that number came to be and the lack of any actual rationale for why it's that number and not one more or one less, is irrational. Thinking that I can drive down a road in the UK at 70mph in my car, get to France and go 81mph and then to Germany and do 143mph in the same car (because that's what the motor is capable of) and that somehow 70mph is "correct" for the UK, is confusing to me. Hence: questions.

I don't see people arguing 70 is safe & 71 isn't.
It's merely a line drawn in the sand. If we are to have limits the line has to be drawn somewhere & enforcement has to come with it.
It's also hard to argue that the UK 's policies are inferior to France, Germany et al when our fatality figures (per mile, per vehicle, per head of population) etc are superior. If that's to be the measure.

Personally I'd prefer (for purely selfish reasons) to be able to choose my own speed in urban areas, rural areas, dual carriageways & motorways. After all if I could choose a safe speed for circumstances on motorways & rural roads I wouldn't suddenly loose that ability just because it's now an urban area.
At the same time I can understand why the authorities wouldn't want me to be able to choose my speed without an upper limit, as I'd undeniably be prepared to present more risk to the populace than if they restrict my choices in relation to speed. I'd happily accept more risk for myself but that doesn't mean that others would be happy to share the roads with me and my risk taking. Even if it doesn't match my personal desires I have to accept that it's not unreasonable that a government sets out & clearly defines a compromise when there are conflicting desires between all those who are essentially stakeholders.

[TeeRev]

I've been looking at this thread and reading the various points of view being expressed with interest as I am doing my Speed Awareness Course on Tuesday.
I shall report back here with details of my offence and my thoughts on the experience afterwards.

[Spanglepants]

Let us know, as i did, if you get the " everywhere you see a speed camera blood has been split " bks

TeeRev said:

I've been looking at this thread and reading the various points of view being expressed with interest as I am doing my Speed Awareness Course on Tuesday.
I shall report back here with details of my offence and my thoughts on the experience afterwards.

[King Herald]

TeeRev said:

I've been looking at this thread and reading the various points of view being expressed with interest as I am doing my Speed Awareness Course on Tuesday.
I shall report back here with details of my offence and my thoughts on the experience afterwards.

I assume all the courses will be much of a muchness, so towards the end, when the instructor is building up for the grand finale of 'And so, children, now you can clearly see there is absolutely NO reason for you to ever speed again', see if you can a get him to accept that many people do indeed drive above the speed limit simply because they LIKE driving fast.

You could mention that race drivers/riders don't race at crazy speeds simply for the trophy, or the pay check.

Be forewarned, he will probably ask you if you had fun the day you were caught for speeding, or some similarly condescending, supercilious bks, exactly as we have also heard from a couple of our PH members.

[King Herald]

Today I went out on my bike and after a cruise around the country at the speed limit, I eventually re-visited the scene of the crime, A522 Lower Tean Road, near Cheadle.

I followed the same route I had before, and found the road is a built up area, single lane road, houses both sides, street lights every 100 metres or so, so obviously going to be a 30. My bad, I should have known, and in the future I WILL be able to ascertain this without even seeing speed signs.

But it is a FORTY zone. Two miles of the above road is clearly signed as a 40 mph zone, with repeaters every so many yards.

Until 300 yards before where I achieved fame and fortune, then there are two 30 signs, one each side of the road. Well, I assume there is one on the left because it is covered in leaves and branches. The one on the right is clear, IF you are looking for if, and IF you happen to be looking up at just that moment as you pass it!

IF, as the course instructor impressed upon us so diligently, they are all about safety, saving lives etc. and not revenue, they would make bloody sure these signs were glaringly obvious to anybody passing along that road.

I should have taken some photos while I was there today, just for the hell of it.

Your average motorist might well see the signs, but you'd only have to be looking in your mirror, or down at your speed for a second, or checking out the numerous potential hazards along the road side, and the road surface, and it would be so easy to miss that sign, seeing as they have already established repeatedly that it is a 40 mph built up urban road with street lights....

[Pica-Pica]

"Clinging to an arbitrary number (70mph), the history of how that number came to be and the lack of any actual rationale for why it's that number and not one more or one less, is irrational. Thinking that I can drive down a road in the UK at 70mph in my car, get to France and go 81mph and then to Germany and do 143mph in the same car (because that's what the motor is capable of) and that somehow 70mph is "correct" for the UK, is confusing to me. Hence: questions."

The 70mph motorway speed limit cam about because AC Cobras were being tested at 100+mph on Motorways (despite news articles that claiming that was not the prime cause).

[Patrick Bateman]

dcb said:

Ron99 said:

At 90mph you'll be getting much worse mpg than at 70mph

Depends on the car. Anything with an engine of over two litres, it won't IME make much difference.

For example, my current BMW 325, cruising at anything up to 120 mph, but averaging 90 mph,
gets about 2 mpg worse than sitting at 80mph.

Various other cars similar results. Thrash a small engined car and you will get poor fuel economy.

IME, I'd disagree.

There's a noticeable difference at 60 vs 70, let alone 70 vs. 90.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

I don't see people arguing 70 is safe & 71 isn't.
It's merely a line drawn in the sand. If we are to have limits the line has to be drawn somewhere & enforcement has to come with it.
It's also hard to argue that the UK 's policies are inferior to France, Germany et al when our fatality figures (per mile, per vehicle, per head of population) etc are superior. If that's to be the measure.

Personally I'd prefer (for purely selfish reasons) to be able to choose my own speed in urban areas, rural areas, dual carriageways & motorways. After all if I could choose a safe speed for circumstances on motorways & rural roads I wouldn't suddenly loose that ability just because it's now an urban area.
At the same time I can understand why the authorities wouldn't want me to be able to choose my speed without an upper limit, as I'd undeniably be prepared to present more risk to the populace than if they restrict my choices in relation to speed. I'd happily accept more risk for myself but that doesn't mean that others would be happy to share the roads with me and my risk taking. Even if it doesn't match my personal desires I have to accept that it's not unreasonable that a government sets out & clearly defines a compromise when there are conflicting desires between all those who are essentially stakeholders.

The problem today, some 50 odd years since standardised country wide speed limits were applied, is that those limits are now so in-appropriate in a large number of cases, is that, breaking them has become completely normal.

We have a ridiculous 70mph limit on our motorways. And yet a modern car at 70mph requires precisely no skill, no attention and little of anything in fact, from the driver. people drive at a speed THEY feel comfortable with, based on skill, experience, observation and mostly habit (ie: i drove down this road at 40 last week and didn't crash, so i'll do the same thing today).

Day in day out, they exceed the 70mph limit, because in a modern car it's laughably slow. So day in, day out we get used to breaking the limit. And guess what, exceeding the limits becomes normal, standard, and so we do it everywhere. Now for the vast majority of the time, this doesn't actually matter. The is no kid hiding behind that parked car, so doing 40 in a 30 past it doesn't matter. But occasionally, it DOES matter. More skilled, trained drivers use observation to set their speed based on the situation. They may well be doing 40 in that 30, but upon seeing the parked car, and possibly the two little shoes just visible under it, will only pass it at 10mph. But most drivers aren't skilled, trained or even looking where they are going. they'll pass the car at 40, hit and kill the kid who steps up "unexpectedly" from behind it. And sure as eggs is egss, a knee jerk reaction will see that road speed limit reduced to 20. Which even more drivers will ignore as it's way too slow under normal conditions. And the circle repeats............

[Patrick Bateman]

On outdated figures, did anyone see the stopping distances study 'BRAKE' were involved with saying the thinking time/distance should be doubled compared to what the highway code is?

If you're going to look at that then it's only fair to look at the actual braking distance too as what's the braking performance of the average car now compared to when the figures were created?

[vonhosen]

Max_Torque said:

vonhosen said:

I don't see people arguing 70 is safe & 71 isn't.
It's merely a line drawn in the sand. If we are to have limits the line has to be drawn somewhere & enforcement has to come with it.
It's also hard to argue that the UK 's policies are inferior to France, Germany et al when our fatality figures (per mile, per vehicle, per head of population) etc are superior. If that's to be the measure.

Personally I'd prefer (for purely selfish reasons) to be able to choose my own speed in urban areas, rural areas, dual carriageways & motorways. After all if I could choose a safe speed for circumstances on motorways & rural roads I wouldn't suddenly loose that ability just because it's now an urban area.
At the same time I can understand why the authorities wouldn't want me to be able to choose my speed without an upper limit, as I'd undeniably be prepared to present more risk to the populace than if they restrict my choices in relation to speed. I'd happily accept more risk for myself but that doesn't mean that others would be happy to share the roads with me and my risk taking. Even if it doesn't match my personal desires I have to accept that it's not unreasonable that a government sets out & clearly defines a compromise when there are conflicting desires between all those who are essentially stakeholders.

The problem today, some 50 odd years since standardised country wide speed limits were applied, is that those limits are now so in-appropriate in a large number of cases, is that, breaking them has become completely normal.

We have a ridiculous 70mph limit on our motorways. And yet a modern car at 70mph requires precisely no skill, no attention and little of anything in fact, from the driver. people drive at a speed THEY feel comfortable with, based on skill, experience, observation and mostly habit (ie: i drove down this road at 40 last week and didn't crash, so i'll do the same thing today).

Day in day out, they exceed the 70mph limit, because in a modern car it's laughably slow. So day in, day out we get used to breaking the limit. And guess what, exceeding the limits becomes normal, standard, and so we do it everywhere. Now for the vast majority of the time, this doesn't actually matter. The is no kid hiding behind that parked car, so doing 40 in a 30 past it doesn't matter. But occasionally, it DOES matter. More skilled, trained drivers use observation to set their speed based on the situation. They may well be doing 40 in that 30, but upon seeing the parked car, and possibly the two little shoes just visible under it, will only pass it at 10mph. But most drivers aren't skilled, trained or even looking where they are going. they'll pass the car at 40, hit and kill the kid who steps up "unexpectedly" from behind it. And sure as eggs is egss, a knee jerk reaction will see that road speed limit reduced to 20. Which even more drivers will ignore as it's way too slow under normal conditions. And the circle repeats............

The limit being 80 on the motorway in the UK (for instance) wouldn't make jack difference to my journey time (if we are going to be observing the limit), because any difference gained between 80 & 70 is wiped out by the amount of time I have to spend way below 70 due to conditions ahead. It'll only start to make a difference if we can get close to averaging 70.
So getting out of bed to fight for an increase to an 80 limit is a waste of time IMHO. Particularly as the authorities don't currently apply a zero tolerance enforcement policy on the 70 limit. You can almost do 80 before they start intervening now.

To suggest that driving at 70 on a motorway requires no effort is a fallacy. Set the cruise control at 70, don't change lanes & close your eyes. See what happens.

People don't just drive at speeds they feel comfortable at either. A lot of times I'd feel comfortable doing 170mph on the motorway, but I don't do it because of the potential consequences to my licence/liberty, I factor what the limit is as part of my choice of speed. I happily do 170 in Germany when I visit though (again not where the limit prohibits it though)


Also limits today are set with more considerations in mind than they were in yester-year. So how potentially safe & cosseting a modern car is at 70 isn't the only consideration. The authorities now consider elements such as pollution (inc noise) & traffic management issues etc from higher speeds.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 30th July 12:51

[Johnnytheboy]

mickmcpaddy said:

So if the only possible answer to speeding is "to get there quicker" then it follows that the only explanation to driving slower is "to make the journey longer than needed".

So all the pensioners actively want to get to the garden centre 10 minutes later than they could do, and all these years I thought they were just being tts.

You'd think that the elderly wold want to spend their remaining time more efficiently.

[vonhosen]

King Herald said:

Your average motorist might well see the signs, but you'd only have to be looking in your mirror, or down at your speed for a second, or checking out the numerous potential hazards along the road side, and the road surface, and it would be so easy to miss that sign, seeing as they have already established repeatedly that it is a 40 mph built up urban road with street lights....

Not if you are using your eyes properly. Your vision should be scanning from your horizon to you (inc laterally) & behind on a repeat cycle. So your vision scans should cover the location of the sign multiple times before you get to it, rather than just once. You could possibly miss the detail on one of those scans but not in the three, four or more visits you should be doing.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

Max_Torque said:

vonhosen said:

I don't see people arguing 70 is safe & 71 isn't.
It's merely a line drawn in the sand. If we are to have limits the line has to be drawn somewhere & enforcement has to come with it.
It's also hard to argue that the UK 's policies are inferior to France, Germany et al when our fatality figures (per mile, per vehicle, per head of population) etc are superior. If that's to be the measure.

Personally I'd prefer (for purely selfish reasons) to be able to choose my own speed in urban areas, rural areas, dual carriageways & motorways. After all if I could choose a safe speed for circumstances on motorways & rural roads I wouldn't suddenly loose that ability just because it's now an urban area.
At the same time I can understand why the authorities wouldn't want me to be able to choose my speed without an upper limit, as I'd undeniably be prepared to present more risk to the populace than if they restrict my choices in relation to speed. I'd happily accept more risk for myself but that doesn't mean that others would be happy to share the roads with me and my risk taking. Even if it doesn't match my personal desires I have to accept that it's not unreasonable that a government sets out & clearly defines a compromise when there are conflicting desires between all those who are essentially stakeholders.

The problem today, some 50 odd years since standardised country wide speed limits were applied, is that those limits are now so in-appropriate in a large number of cases, is that, breaking them has become completely normal.

We have a ridiculous 70mph limit on our motorways. And yet a modern car at 70mph requires precisely no skill, no attention and little of anything in fact, from the driver. people drive at a speed THEY feel comfortable with, based on skill, experience, observation and mostly habit (ie: i drove down this road at 40 last week and didn't crash, so i'll do the same thing today).

Day in day out, they exceed the 70mph limit, because in a modern car it's laughably slow. So day in, day out we get used to breaking the limit. And guess what, exceeding the limits becomes normal, standard, and so we do it everywhere. Now for the vast majority of the time, this doesn't actually matter. The is no kid hiding behind that parked car, so doing 40 in a 30 past it doesn't matter. But occasionally, it DOES matter. More skilled, trained drivers use observation to set their speed based on the situation. They may well be doing 40 in that 30, but upon seeing the parked car, and possibly the two little shoes just visible under it, will only pass it at 10mph. But most drivers aren't skilled, trained or even looking where they are going. they'll pass the car at 40, hit and kill the kid who steps up "unexpectedly" from behind it. And sure as eggs is egss, a knee jerk reaction will see that road speed limit reduced to 20. Which even more drivers will ignore as it's way too slow under normal conditions. And the circle repeats............

The limit being 80 on the motorway in the UK (for instance) wouldn't make jack difference to my journey time (if we are going to be observing the limit), because any difference gained between 80 & 70 is wiped out by the amount of time I have to spend way below 70 due to conditions ahead. It'll only start to make a difference if we can get close to averaging 70.
So getting out of bed to fight for an increase to an 80 limit is a waste of time IMHO. Particularly as the authorities don't currently apply a zero tolerance enforcement policy on the 70 limit. You can almost do 80 before they start intervening now.

To suggest that driving at 70 on a motorway requires no effort is a fallacy. Set the cruise control at 70, don't change lanes & close your eyes. See what happens.

People don't just drive at speeds they feel comfortable at either. A lot of times I'd feel comfortable doing 170mph on the motorway, but I don't do it because of the potential consequences to my licence/liberty, I factor what the limit is as part of my choice of speed. I happily do 170 in Germany when I visit though (again not where the limit prohibits it though)


Also limits today are set with more considerations in mind than they were in yester-year. So how potentially safe & cosseting a modern car is at 70 isn't the only consideration. The authorities now consider elements such as pollution (inc noise) & traffic management issues etc from higher speeds.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 30th July 12:51

you've completely missed my point!

it's not about being able to travel faster, get somewhere in less time, or anything like that.

It's about the normalisation of law breaking



iF we get used to ignoring those little red and white signs for 99.99% of the time, how do we let drivers know that there is a hazard ahead, when it REALLY matters.

[vonhosen]

As I said, the speed limit isn't only about the hazards, so the little red sign isn't only indicative of the hazards you may see. They aren't set with only that in mind so a driver can't use limits on that basis alone, that's not their purpose.
The speed we are permitted to travel at is not one that we can choose on a basis that we feel comfortable at it with regard to what we are seeing with our eyes (unless that speed just happens to be below the limit).
We are only permitted (& indeed are expected) to choose a safe speed for the circumstances within the clearly defined & outlined parameters, that is up to the upper limit, not beyond it.
In that sense it is an artificial barrier & by it's nature is conservatively set. So in other words yes it may an awful lot of time appear safe to go quite a bit faster than it, but as that's not what it's about in isolation, it doesn't mean you can.

You can't use it as an indicator of how fast you can likely go either, only as a dictat as to the speed you aren't permitted to exceed.

Minor law breaking is a part of everyday driving (even if you exclude speeding altogether), indeed minor law breaking is a part of our everyday existence. It's part of human nature & existence, because we aren't selfless, perfect or automatons. We often choose primacy over what suits us best in the moment (small scale considerations) as opposed to what is best long term from a societal viewpoint (large scale considerations).

The law is there in an attempt to encourage/influence our choices around what the state sets as an ideal that it wants. It doesn't set itself an expectation though that it will be able to dictate absolutely what choices we'll all end up making, otherwise enforcement & courts wouldn't be necessary in that Utopian world, only the dictat as to what you should do.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 30th July 14:14

[thesmurfs]

I did 127mph and just got a fine. Not my proudest moment but roads were practically empty.

[anonymous-user]

vonhosen said:

The speed we are permitted to travel at is not one that we can choose on a basis that we feel comfortable at it with regard to what we are seeing with our eyes (unless that speed just happens to be below the limit).

And why not? In the real world drivers drive at a speed they are comfortable with. If we ignore PH and our powerfully built directors making progress everywhere, most drivers (and by most i mean something like 99.9% of them, ie the vast majority) use there own senses combined with the arbitrary legal limit to make a speed decision. That bloke in front of you, in the focus, he's doing 47mph because he feels comfortable at that speed. he's driven this road 189 times so far this year and not crashed, nothings ever been in the way, no children have stepped out, nothing, zip. So he's doing 7mph over the limit. Because that is normality to him. They are not speeding for fun, to get there any quicker or any other reason, they are speeding because that is what they are used too.


Remember, an accident is a rare occurrence, even on our crowded roads. For most of the thousands of hours the typical driver spents behind the wheel, precisely nothing happens. It's called regression to the norm, and most studies on risk point to it as being the single biggest driving force behind accidents occurring, and that makes sense when you consider that accidents are the exception and not the norm. Every single day in the UK, i'd guess that something like 100 million people pass a parked car, at over the limit. And guess what, nothing happens! The only way to make people obey speed limits is to make those limits sensible and appropriate.


Take an empty UK motorway at 9pm on a bright summers evening. In a modern car, that is probably capable of doing 150mph (and often more) at what speed due to think the risk becomes untenable? It's almost certainly not linear with speed, and it probably has a bathtub shape, with a minimum risk at, yup, around the 85th percentile of people speeds (most studies have suggested this value)

So, given a modern car, a typical driver, how fast do you think, without a limit people would drive? I'm going to suggest that in fact, it's not very much faster than they do now, because they already drive by their own senses and not by a small dumb metal sign that has an arbitrary and extremely out-of-date number on it.....

[vonhosen]

Max_Torque said:

vonhosen said:

The speed we are permitted to travel at is not one that we can choose on a basis that we feel comfortable at it with regard to what we are seeing with our eyes (unless that speed just happens to be below the limit).

And why not? In the real world drivers drive at a speed they are comfortable with. If we ignore PH and our powerfully built directors making progress everywhere, most drivers (and by most i mean something like 99.9% of them, ie the vast majority) use there own senses combined with the arbitrary legal limit to make a speed decision. That bloke in front of you, in the focus, he's doing 47mph because he feels comfortable at that speed. he's driven this road 189 times so far this year and not crashed, nothings ever been in the way, no children have stepped out, nothing, zip. So he's doing 7mph over the limit. Because that is normality to him. They are not speeding for fun, to get there any quicker or any other reason, they are speeding because that is what they are used too.

Because, like I've said a couple of times, what speed it is safe to travel at is not the only consideration in the setting of limits.
You're not making a good argument either by suggesting that because 189 times 47mph was safe, so it will be fine to do 47mph today on that basis. You don't drive a road on how it's been previously, you drive for what it is now. It's that sort of complacency that leads to mistakes in the first place.

Max_Torque said:

Remember, an accident is a rare occurrence, even on our crowded roads. For most of the thousands of hours the typical driver spents behind the wheel, precisely nothing happens. It's called regression to the norm, and most studies on risk point to it as being the single biggest driving force behind accidents occurring, and that makes sense when you consider that accidents are the exception and not the norm. Every single day in the UK, i'd guess that something like 100 million people pass a parked car, at over the limit. And guess what, nothing happens! The only way to make people obey speed limits is to make those limits sensible and appropriate.

The vast majority of driver's mistakes don't get punished with a collision (& that's part of the problem with not learning from them). Because it doesn't have a negative outcome time & time again, even though it's a mistake, it subconsciously starts to re-enforce that it's actually fine behaviour when it's not because it's still in reality a mistake. Then when they don't get lucky & they do have the collision, they can't accept they are to blame because they've been committing to that behaviour for years & not had a collision previously. Therefore they think it must be someone else's fault or they were just unlucky.
No, it's the case they were lucky on the times previously & came to rely on that luck in their driving. They weren't unlucky this time, it just played out this time how it had the potential to play out every time previously. They had just been lucky that their ups previously didn't end in a collision, not unlucky that this one did.

Max_Torque said:

Take an empty UK motorway at 9pm on a bright summers evening. In a modern car, that is probably capable of doing 150mph (and often more) at what speed due to think the risk becomes untenable? It's almost certainly not linear with speed, and it probably has a bathtub shape, with a minimum risk at, yup, around the 85th percentile of people speeds (most studies have suggested this value)

Again, the limit isn't telling you what's safe & it's not meant to. It exists for other purposes too (hence the 85th percentile not being the standard now).

By design any limit should be below what is safe for the vast majority of the time (particularly when conditions are ideal) or there'd be no point being a limit. I mean if you put the limit as 500mph withe today's vehicle's what's the point of it?

At what speed do I think the risk becomes untenable?
It's not really relevant how I view it because I don't view risk from speed how the majority of the population (or government) do. Where there were no limits I'd be going fast enough (where I considered safe to) that I'd probably be going quite a way past the 85th percentile.
The governments control mechanism of speed limits, their current enforcement policies & the current penalty levels mean that I am a lot more conservative with my speed choices than I would otherwise be. I won't be alone in that.

As I said previously I can completely understand why the government don't want to a) give me free reign and b) have on the statutes a blunt tool to make dealing with it easy for them & hard on me should I chance my arm by a sizeable amount.

Max_Torque said:

So, given a modern car, a typical driver, how fast do you think, without a limit people would drive? I'm going to suggest that in fact, it's not very much faster than they do now, because they already drive by their own senses and not by a small dumb metal sign that has an arbitrary and extremely out-of-date number on it.....

I suggest they don't.
Because my senses & experience of driving at very high speeds on public roads tell me it's often possible to (with relative safety) do more than double the limit & I include some 30mph limits in that. I don't in the main merely because of the threat to my licence/liberty should I do that. I'd venture that limits play a part in most driver's speed selection (i.e. many of those who speed on motorways choose their margin over the limit with a consideration of what is likely to happen to them if caught, such as choosing 95mph where they think it is safe to go quite a bit quicker so as to avoid a potential ban for one offence if caught, or 77mph in the belief that they won't get a SAC let alone FPN if detected for that speed.

I know my speeds would rise by considerable margins if the limits went.
We'll only know the truth of what would happen in the UK if the government actually did remove them. Until then it's conjecture on anyone's part how much people would change their speeds in the UK.
But we know that's not going to happen don't we.

[Johnnytheboy]

Nothing but love for you Von, but you don't half have a habit of sending any old thread off in the same direction...

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

vonhosen said:

The presenter at the OP's class was however deluded that some people don't speed for any other reason than fun.
He'd have been just as deluded pretending some people don't torture animals or bully kids for fun.

That's a very interesting choice of activities to associate with low-level speeding.