mandatory speed limiters to be fitted from 2022?
Discussion
sociopath said:
bigothunter said:
robinessex said:
NMNeil said:
But you have omitted the reason for the speed limits in the first place. They are to keep other road users safe, they are not for the benefit of drivers who believe that they are special and have some sort of inherent right to endanger everyone else.
Good drivers DON'T choose an speed inapropriate for the status of the road they're on. If the traffic on a motorway is busy, then I'll settle for going with the flow. If it happens to be very light traffic, then I'd welcome the opportunity to progress more rapidly.
Leave blind obedience to those who are mentally impaired...
Poor show
sociopath said:
bigothunter said:
robinessex said:
NMNeil said:
But you have omitted the reason for the speed limits in the first place. They are to keep other road users safe, they are not for the benefit of drivers who believe that they are special and have some sort of inherent right to endanger everyone else.
Good drivers DON'T choose an speed inapropriate for the status of the road they're on. If the traffic on a motorway is busy, then I'll settle for going with the flow. If it happens to be very light traffic, then I'd welcome the opportunity to progress more rapidly.Leave blind obedience to those who are mentally impaired...
bigothunter said:
sociopath said:
bigothunter said:
robinessex said:
NMNeil said:
But you have omitted the reason for the speed limits in the first place. They are to keep other road users safe, they are not for the benefit of drivers who believe that they are special and have some sort of inherent right to endanger everyone else.
Good drivers DON'T choose an speed inapropriate for the status of the road they're on. If the traffic on a motorway is busy, then I'll settle for going with the flow. If it happens to be very light traffic, then I'd welcome the opportunity to progress more rapidly.Leave blind obedience to those who are mentally impaired...
Poor show
Poor show
robinessex said:
sociopath said:
bigothunter said:
robinessex said:
NMNeil said:
But you have omitted the reason for the speed limits in the first place. They are to keep other road users safe, they are not for the benefit of drivers who believe that they are special and have some sort of inherent right to endanger everyone else.
Good drivers DON'T choose an speed inapropriate for the status of the road they're on. If the traffic on a motorway is busy, then I'll settle for going with the flow. If it happens to be very light traffic, then I'd welcome the opportunity to progress more rapidly.Leave blind obedience to those who are mentally impaired...
I assume he looks for bigots as he's got the moron tag well and truly cornered
sociopath said:
bigothunter said:
sociopath said:
bigothunter said:
robinessex said:
NMNeil said:
But you have omitted the reason for the speed limits in the first place. They are to keep other road users safe, they are not for the benefit of drivers who believe that they are special and have some sort of inherent right to endanger everyone else.
Good drivers DON'T choose an speed inapropriate for the status of the road they're on. If the traffic on a motorway is busy, then I'll settle for going with the flow. If it happens to be very light traffic, then I'd welcome the opportunity to progress more rapidly.Leave blind obedience to those who are mentally impaired...
Poor show
Poor show
sociopath said:
bigothunter said:
sociopath said:
bigothunter said:
robinessex said:
NMNeil said:
But you have omitted the reason for the speed limits in the first place. They are to keep other road users safe, they are not for the benefit of drivers who believe that they are special and have some sort of inherent right to endanger everyone else.
Good drivers DON'T choose an speed inapropriate for the status of the road they're on. If the traffic on a motorway is busy, then I'll settle for going with the flow. If it happens to be very light traffic, then I'd welcome the opportunity to progress more rapidly.Leave blind obedience to those who are mentally impaired...
Poor show
Poor show
sociopath said:
As per all my comments I was referring to bigot hunter.
I assume he looks for bigots as he's got the moron tag well and truly cornered
As I said before:I assume he looks for bigots as he's got the moron tag well and truly cornered
bigothunter said:
Sir, your comments reveal your weakness. You are incapable of logical debate preferring to make rude comments instead.
Poor show
Poor show
bigothunter said:
Kawasicki said:
robinessex said:
robinessex said:
For all of those 'you're going to die' if you go over 20mph and speed kills advocates. This show it doesn't. Pay close attention to lane discipline, nothing like that in the UK.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GTuUOX_ccc
Even better. +300mphhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GTuUOX_ccc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pg1hhW5qhM
I would happily settle for UK motorway limit of 100 mph. Paradoxically 100 mph capability was part of the motorway design brief back in 1959. Now we can't even adopt the European standard 80 mph without Brake and others crying 'inhumane'. Actually 100 km/h (62 mph) is gaining momentum in mainland Europe. I'm sure UK can go one 'better' by reducing motorways to 60 mph. There are plenty of excuses why such a low speed is essential.
All rather sad and pathetic
FiF said:
Looking back to when the M62 was first built, a section had been completed but was not yet open to traffic. A traffic unit was sent out by WYP to check the route from their side. Came back slightly chastened and questioned whether everything was right with one section. Turned out certain curves had been built with a rather unexpected design speed. It wasn't 100mph, not even close.
Any idea of that M62 curve design speed? And the lateral g limit assumed?Today, we seem to design for lateral acceleration of around 2 m/s^2 (0.2g) despite modern cars' much higher capability (in all conditions except snow and ice).
Obviously lower limits could be imposed on any 'tight' motorway bends, like 50 limits on M5 near Wolverhampton.
bigothunter said:
FiF said:
Looking back to when the M62 was first built, a section had been completed but was not yet open to traffic. A traffic unit was sent out by WYP to check the route from their side. Came back slightly chastened and questioned whether everything was right with one section. Turned out certain curves had been built with a rather unexpected design speed. It wasn't 100mph, not even close.
Any idea of that M62 curve design speed? And the lateral g limit assumed?Today, we seem to design for lateral acceleration of around 2 m/s^2 (0.2g) despite modern cars' much higher capability (in all conditions except snow and ice).
Obviously lower limits could be imposed on any 'tight' motorway bends, like 50 limits on M5 near Wolverhampton.
but certainly had a moment. 
Also undetermined relatively newly laid surface effect. Sorry for recalling only the bare bones of it. Getting old, lot of water under the bridge since then.FiF said:
Sorry it's so long ago I can't remember the details. There was a suspicion that the guys were really tanking it, but certainly had a moment. Also undetermined relatively newly laid surface effect. Sorry for recalling only the bare bones of it. Getting old, lot of water under the bridge since then.
Just a moment of light relief as this thread has a tendency to get 'heavy' (but never your posts but certainly had a moment. Also undetermined relatively newly laid surface effect. Sorry for recalling only the bare bones of it. Getting old, lot of water under the bridge since then.
)A chap on PH reckoned he could get through those 50 limited bends on M5 at 100mph, late at night. Given my design observation of 0.2g at 50mph, 100mph produces 0.8g even possibly 1.0g. As reference using track focussed tyres, we record a maximum of 1.2g on race circuits.
He would have to get the entry line right and not encounter any bumps or wet patches. Getting very close to the limit and messy if it goes wrong. Beyond that, it's bloody dangerous. There are some total nutters out there
Those curves on the M5! Before I retired on one of my required check test demo drives to keep the advanced classification I got a right b
king from the training school examiner for going round them >50. Quiet dry Sunday morning, no traffic about at all. Had pegged it back a bit from 70 as a concession, still felt like standing still.
king from the training school examiner for going round them >50. Quiet dry Sunday morning, no traffic about at all. Had pegged it back a bit from 70 as a concession, still felt like standing still.Ardennes92 said:
Don’t think we have speed limits to protect people; most have been introduced as fuel saving or air quality
"We all know that this matter was brought to a head by that terrifying series of multiple crashes last November on the motorways. There were three accidents involving 65 vehicles, five were killed and 30 injured. I say categorically that everybody in that situation was prepared to try any experiment that might contribute to avoiding a recurrence of that kind of horror on our roads.My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser), who was then Minister, would have been under fierce attack from the House if he had not examined every possibility of preventing that kind of terrifying accident from recurring. Then the voices of all who have a right to be consulted on this issue were overwhelmingly in favour of this experiment. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary met the Lancashire and Staffordshire police on 8th November, three days after the accidents when the country was still reeling with the horror of those multiple crashes. They were strongly of the view that excessive speed was responsible for those accidents and in favour of an experimental speed limit on motorways."
A speech by Barbara Castle in 1966, when introducing the 70mph limit on the M1.
NMNeil said:
Ardennes92 said:
Don’t think we have speed limits to protect people; most have been introduced as fuel saving or air quality
"We all know that this matter was brought to a head by that terrifying series of multiple crashes last November on the motorways. There were three accidents involving 65 vehicles, five were killed and 30 injured. I say categorically that everybody in that situation was prepared to try any experiment that might contribute to avoiding a recurrence of that kind of horror on our roads.My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser), who was then Minister, would have been under fierce attack from the House if he had not examined every possibility of preventing that kind of terrifying accident from recurring. Then the voices of all who have a right to be consulted on this issue were overwhelmingly in favour of this experiment. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary met the Lancashire and Staffordshire police on 8th November, three days after the accidents when the country was still reeling with the horror of those multiple crashes. They were strongly of the view that excessive speed was responsible for those accidents and in favour of an experimental speed limit on motorways."
A speech by Barbara Castle in 1966, when introducing the 70mph limit on the M1.
What was the weather doing at the time of those crashes being referenced?
NMNeil said:
Ardennes92 said:
Don’t think we have speed limits to protect people; most have been introduced as fuel saving or air quality
"We all know that this matter was brought to a head by that terrifying series of multiple crashes last November on the motorways. There were three accidents involving 65 vehicles, five were killed and 30 injured. I say categorically that everybody in that situation was prepared to try any experiment that might contribute to avoiding a recurrence of that kind of horror on our roads.My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser), who was then Minister, would have been under fierce attack from the House if he had not examined every possibility of preventing that kind of terrifying accident from recurring. Then the voices of all who have a right to be consulted on this issue were overwhelmingly in favour of this experiment. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary met the Lancashire and Staffordshire police on 8th November, three days after the accidents when the country was still reeling with the horror of those multiple crashes. They were strongly of the view that excessive speed was responsible for those accidents and in favour of an experimental speed limit on motorways."
A speech by Barbara Castle in 1966, when introducing the 70mph limit on the M1.
So 70mph limit was imposed in all conditions including fog or clear days. It was just an illogical and cynical arse-covering exercise, almost 60 years ago
bigothunter said:
NMNeil said:
Ardennes92 said:
Don’t think we have speed limits to protect people; most have been introduced as fuel saving or air quality
"We all know that this matter was brought to a head by that terrifying series of multiple crashes last November on the motorways. There were three accidents involving 65 vehicles, five were killed and 30 injured. I say categorically that everybody in that situation was prepared to try any experiment that might contribute to avoiding a recurrence of that kind of horror on our roads.My right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser), who was then Minister, would have been under fierce attack from the House if he had not examined every possibility of preventing that kind of terrifying accident from recurring. Then the voices of all who have a right to be consulted on this issue were overwhelmingly in favour of this experiment. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary met the Lancashire and Staffordshire police on 8th November, three days after the accidents when the country was still reeling with the horror of those multiple crashes. They were strongly of the view that excessive speed was responsible for those accidents and in favour of an experimental speed limit on motorways."
A speech by Barbara Castle in 1966, when introducing the 70mph limit on the M1.
So 70mph limit was imposed in all conditions including fog or clear days. It was just an illogical and cynical arse-covering exercise, almost 60 years ago
"It might have been within the law, but when Tony Martin, nephew of AC co-owner Derek Hurlock, happened to mention the feat in a lunchtime discussion in a Fleet Street bar, eavesdropping scribes knew they had a story. The topic filled many column inches in the nationals"
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motorsport/day-...
NMNeil said:
It may have been the final straw.
"It might have been within the law, but when Tony Martin, nephew of AC co-owner Derek Hurlock, happened to mention the feat in a lunchtime discussion in a Fleet Street bar, eavesdropping scribes knew they had a story. The topic filled many column inches in the nationals"
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motorsport/day-...
Jack Sears was a toff. A rich, privileged, Tory-voting b"It might have been within the law, but when Tony Martin, nephew of AC co-owner Derek Hurlock, happened to mention the feat in a lunchtime discussion in a Fleet Street bar, eavesdropping scribes knew they had a story. The topic filled many column inches in the nationals"
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motorsport/day-...
d. He invoked wrath of the Labour Party and deserves to carry the 70 limit blame for eternity. Even today, Jack turns in his grave in perpetual anguish for his sins...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff