Would YOU stick to higher speed limits?
Discussion
Lets say we had higher speed limits in the UK. A little like Italy has introduced.
Motorway: 110mph
Dual: 90mph
National Speed Limit: 80mph
20s, 30s, 40s and 50s unchanged.
Lets say that strict rules were applied to the start and finish of lower speed limits.
Lets say these were rigourously enforced in urban areas with only a 10% leeway for clock error. Even for 20mph "Home Zones".
Would YOU stick to such limits?
Motorway: 110mph
Dual: 90mph
National Speed Limit: 80mph
20s, 30s, 40s and 50s unchanged.
Lets say that strict rules were applied to the start and finish of lower speed limits.
Lets say these were rigourously enforced in urban areas with only a 10% leeway for clock error. Even for 20mph "Home Zones".
Would YOU stick to such limits?
Yep I would, however I personally think 110 is too high considering the number of numpties we have on the roads. If set at 110 it would have to be in combination with some further testing for people before motorway driving, things like lane discipline and use of indicators and mirrors before making lane changes.
I think certain sections of motorway could be derestricted, though areas round junctions should still be limited. The law could be changed to stop people using excessive speed in poor conditions, but still allow people with the correct vehicle and training to travel at which ever speed they see fit. You could have a special driving test/MOT that tests both the driver and their vehicle to make sure they are able to maintain higher speeds safely. Then program the motorway speed cameras to read number plates and if your car has the special license then you won't get a ticket 
Let's break this down.
Fact: The purpose of a speed limit is to force people to drive at, or below a fixed speed in a given area.
Fact: Speed limits only work if people are willing to abide by them.
Here's the problem: the vast majority of people are not willing to abide by these arbitrary limits. This is proven by the huge number of violations recorded by speed cameras and related technology. The reasons for this vary but can include the belief that limits are antiquated and not based on modern car (i.e. tire/brake/suspension) technology or the belief that competent drivers are best suited to determine appropriate speeds in a given situation.
So, does it matter that the vast majority of people ignore or are openly contemptuous of speed limit?
I suggest that it does not.
Fact: Speed alone (excessive or otherwise) is only the casual factor in 5-7% of injury/fatality accidents.
Fact: Forcing a driver to maintain an unreasonably low speed invariably reduces that driver's level of attention to driving which increases the liklihood of accident. In areas where speed limits are increased or eliminated altogether, accident rates go down (q.v. Germany, Montana).
A reasonable interpretation of these facts is that it is a bad idea for the government to try to play nanny or co-pilot. The best thing the government can do is keep unsafe drivers off the roads and let the rest get on with doing that they do anyway - drive safely.
Here's a plan:
Step 1. Get rid of speed limits except in certain areas like residential streets and areas near schools and anywhere else that unaccompanied children tend to congregate. The primary purpose of these limits is not to force people to drive under them but to allow the courts to more harshly punish those who cause injuries or death while exceeding them.
Step 2. Increase legal penalties for those involved in accidents which cause injury. Anyone caught driving while intoxicated should lose their license. Intoxicated drivers who kill others should be charged with and convicted of murder. Drivers repeatedly involved in accidents should lose their driving licenses.
Step 3. Legally require *all* government revenue generated as a result of car ownership (VAT on car purchases, tax on fuels, registration fees, congestion charges, etc) to be spend on maintaining roads. Any excess to be returned to the public via a reduction in fuel taxes.
Step 4. To reduce road congestion, all commercial vehicles banned from public roads between 6am and 6pm. In addition, a tax of 50p/kilo for any freight shipped point-to-point exclusively by lorry. Let's put this stuff on trains, people. It isn't like England hasn't got a train system. While we're banning things, lets ban all road construction between 5am and 8pm. Let the road crews work the night shift.
Fact: The purpose of a speed limit is to force people to drive at, or below a fixed speed in a given area.
Fact: Speed limits only work if people are willing to abide by them.
Here's the problem: the vast majority of people are not willing to abide by these arbitrary limits. This is proven by the huge number of violations recorded by speed cameras and related technology. The reasons for this vary but can include the belief that limits are antiquated and not based on modern car (i.e. tire/brake/suspension) technology or the belief that competent drivers are best suited to determine appropriate speeds in a given situation.
So, does it matter that the vast majority of people ignore or are openly contemptuous of speed limit?
I suggest that it does not.
Fact: Speed alone (excessive or otherwise) is only the casual factor in 5-7% of injury/fatality accidents.
Fact: Forcing a driver to maintain an unreasonably low speed invariably reduces that driver's level of attention to driving which increases the liklihood of accident. In areas where speed limits are increased or eliminated altogether, accident rates go down (q.v. Germany, Montana).
A reasonable interpretation of these facts is that it is a bad idea for the government to try to play nanny or co-pilot. The best thing the government can do is keep unsafe drivers off the roads and let the rest get on with doing that they do anyway - drive safely.
Here's a plan:
Step 1. Get rid of speed limits except in certain areas like residential streets and areas near schools and anywhere else that unaccompanied children tend to congregate. The primary purpose of these limits is not to force people to drive under them but to allow the courts to more harshly punish those who cause injuries or death while exceeding them.
Step 2. Increase legal penalties for those involved in accidents which cause injury. Anyone caught driving while intoxicated should lose their license. Intoxicated drivers who kill others should be charged with and convicted of murder. Drivers repeatedly involved in accidents should lose their driving licenses.
Step 3. Legally require *all* government revenue generated as a result of car ownership (VAT on car purchases, tax on fuels, registration fees, congestion charges, etc) to be spend on maintaining roads. Any excess to be returned to the public via a reduction in fuel taxes.
Step 4. To reduce road congestion, all commercial vehicles banned from public roads between 6am and 6pm. In addition, a tax of 50p/kilo for any freight shipped point-to-point exclusively by lorry. Let's put this stuff on trains, people. It isn't like England hasn't got a train system. While we're banning things, lets ban all road construction between 5am and 8pm. Let the road crews work the night shift.
I aplogise for picking on you, AJLintern, as I have never met you, but you are an example of some of the correspondents that have graced the letters pages of the motoring press for years.
I really don't care what the speed limit is, although the higher the better, but it is there to let people have some clue about the speed of the traffic around them. If you attempt a two tier system, a "them and us (better drivers)", it is a recipe for disaster.
Mr "gotaspeciallicencecosireckonideserveit" doing 120 mph meets Mr "haven'tgotacluedon'tlikedrivinglookatthatcloudiseastendersreallifedrama" doing 50 mph. Well done. They're both as dead as doornails, but one had a special permit to do it, so it's OK.
We all like to drive fast, and we all reckon that we're good drivers. Hopefully we can also recognise the time and place for fast driving. The speed limit, however, still makes us aware that we are taking a chance, even if it's with our licences. Special permits would remove that small Darwinian factor that keeps some of us alive.
>> Edited by Mad Jock on Thursday 20th February 12:33
I really don't care what the speed limit is, although the higher the better, but it is there to let people have some clue about the speed of the traffic around them. If you attempt a two tier system, a "them and us (better drivers)", it is a recipe for disaster.
Mr "gotaspeciallicencecosireckonideserveit" doing 120 mph meets Mr "haven'tgotacluedon'tlikedrivinglookatthatcloudiseastendersreallifedrama" doing 50 mph. Well done. They're both as dead as doornails, but one had a special permit to do it, so it's OK.
We all like to drive fast, and we all reckon that we're good drivers. Hopefully we can also recognise the time and place for fast driving. The speed limit, however, still makes us aware that we are taking a chance, even if it's with our licences. Special permits would remove that small Darwinian factor that keeps some of us alive.
>> Edited by Mad Jock on Thursday 20th February 12:33
I think Don's suggested limits are too high. That said I agree that more of us would keep to the limits if they were set more reasonably. 70 on a motorway is way too slow. I would say more like a 90 - 100 mph limit on motorways, 80 mph on dual carriageways and 70 for NSL.
Not much chance of persuading the bean counters on this though!
Not much chance of persuading the bean counters on this though!
At first I thought they were too high, but thats only true coming from the mindset that you have to drive at the limit.
That's broken thinking anyway. Just as you shouldn't drive past a school at 30, or around a blind country road at 60, you shouldn't necessarily drive on a motorway at the limit.
Still you'd get a load of 17 year olds in heaps trying to go at 110 when the car patently couldn't handle it unless people re-evaluate their thinking. Hell you get that now with people driving heaps good for 50mph at 70.
I guess shit cars could be limited in the same way as lorries etc are.
May I point out a disadvantage of higher limits on roads? (flame retardant jacket on).
The carrying capacity of the road will go down with higher speed limits. Cars going faster need more space between them. Its OK in Germany from my own experience. But the UK's motorways, in some places, struggle to carry the traffic now without bunching up. Ever been stuck in a jam when there is no apparent cause - but you happen to be in a 'shock wave', sometimes moving, sometimes still.
Of course on an empty clear motorway - it would be fine most of the time. I think the only way of coping with this would to have variable speedlimits - a little like they have on the M25. 50mph on there means more cars in less space equals better vehicle movement. No point in having a 100 mph limit if everything ends up moving slower than ever. All IMHO of course.
The carrying capacity of the road will go down with higher speed limits. Cars going faster need more space between them. Its OK in Germany from my own experience. But the UK's motorways, in some places, struggle to carry the traffic now without bunching up. Ever been stuck in a jam when there is no apparent cause - but you happen to be in a 'shock wave', sometimes moving, sometimes still.
Of course on an empty clear motorway - it would be fine most of the time. I think the only way of coping with this would to have variable speedlimits - a little like they have on the M25. 50mph on there means more cars in less space equals better vehicle movement. No point in having a 100 mph limit if everything ends up moving slower than ever. All IMHO of course.
A huge amount of congestion is caused by sh!t driving -eg, pulling in slowly at the beginnning of a slip road, rather than using the 1/4 mile of acceleration lane to get up to pace then joining, which makes traffic on the slip and the main road bunch up. Driving too close causes "shockwave" jams. Rubber necking accidents on the other side of the road. Etc etc.
The speed that traffic travels at doesn't contribute to the congestino in quite the same way - in heavily trafficked roads, the actual speed depends more on how badly the worst drivers are driving, rather than on the speed limit.
Yes I'd stay comfortably within these limits.
The speed that traffic travels at doesn't contribute to the congestino in quite the same way - in heavily trafficked roads, the actual speed depends more on how badly the worst drivers are driving, rather than on the speed limit.
Yes I'd stay comfortably within these limits.
And by the same token, raising the speed limits on a motorway to say 100 mph - would widen the differential between the speed of traffic joining from a slip road merging with 100 mph traffic. So every one would need a much faster car. Or, traffice would leave lane 1 and move over into lane 2 to allow slower traffic in. So then you have too many cars travelling at 100mph in lane 2 - about 20ft apart. Sorry it would never work. You have to work to the lowest common denominator - numpties and lorries. I'd hate to see Eddie Stobart's shifting along doing a ton fully laden. Big mess when that bugger jack knifes.
I would only stick to a limit if I thought it was sensible. Taking rules as guidelines is wise, following them all like a robot is not. That's why I think traffic cops instead of speed cameras, like it used to be, allows for more discretion. (I know it's not ideal - favouritism etc.)
Variable limits on motorways are a bad idea - they cause the "wave" effect further back (couldn't the road planners figure that out before the idea was introduced?).
Why not spend some of the excess billions taken from the motorist on better driver education - lane discipline on motorways for example...electronic signs like "move over when the inside lane is clear!"
(Hey the government could spend some of the excess billions on public transport, instead of introducing a new "congestion" scheme with a whole new system and administration costs, and not spending on public transport...but that's another subject.)
Variable limits on motorways are a bad idea - they cause the "wave" effect further back (couldn't the road planners figure that out before the idea was introduced?).
Why not spend some of the excess billions taken from the motorist on better driver education - lane discipline on motorways for example...electronic signs like "move over when the inside lane is clear!"
(Hey the government could spend some of the excess billions on public transport, instead of introducing a new "congestion" scheme with a whole new system and administration costs, and not spending on public transport...but that's another subject.)
No.
I don't accept the need for blanket limits on non-urban routes.
Very infrequently, even 70 is way too fast on a m-way. More often than not, traffic flows comfortably at around 100 making even much higher rates of progress viable much of the rest of the time.
Speeding is a manufactured evil by lentlista with an agenda for compulsory sandal wearing and tree buggery. As Sly says in Rambo IV, "Fcuk 'em!"
All IMHO, of course.
I don't accept the need for blanket limits on non-urban routes.
Very infrequently, even 70 is way too fast on a m-way. More often than not, traffic flows comfortably at around 100 making even much higher rates of progress viable much of the rest of the time.
Speeding is a manufactured evil by lentlista with an agenda for compulsory sandal wearing and tree buggery. As Sly says in Rambo IV, "Fcuk 'em!"
All IMHO, of course.
TUS 373 said: May I point out a disadvantage of higher limits on roads? (flame retardant jacket on).
The carrying capacity of the road will go down with higher speed limits. Cars going faster need more space between them. Its OK in Germany from my own experience. But the UK's motorways, in some places, struggle to carry the traffic now without bunching up. Ever been stuck in a jam when there is no apparent cause - but you happen to be in a 'shock wave', sometimes moving, sometimes still.
Of course on an empty clear motorway - it would be fine most of the time. I think the only way of coping with this would to have variable speedlimits - a little like they have on the M25. 50mph on there means more cars in less space equals better vehicle movement. No point in having a 100 mph limit if everything ends up moving slower than ever. All IMHO of course.
I'm not sure you're right about that. Cars travelling faster will need more space between them but they'll be travelling faster so they'll spend less time on the motorway.
There, that should at least balance things out.
Plus, higher speeds in the "fast lane" should do wonders to encourage lane discipline and keep slower traffic where it belongs.
Not my theory. I remember seeing A BBC Horizon programme about it a couple of years ago where they computer modelled motorway traffic flow to see 'what happen if...'. This included revealing how shock waves develop when someone brakes - as this has a knock on effect for everyone who is following touch their brakes if they are too close. In a perfect world, everyone would travel a safe distance apart, maintain a constant speed and travel at 100 mph. But in reality it will never work - call it chaos theory, Brownian motion or whatever - but it won't.
With respect to congestion and carrying capacity - take this an example. If you ever tried to drive through Birmingham on the M6 without hitting a jam, it is because you are travelling off peak. At rush hour times - it will not make traffic move any faster by telling everyone to go 30 mph more than the speed limit will it? QED.
Carry capacity of a motorway would be expressed in vehicles per hour per mile of motorway. Even in a perfect mathematiclly modelled environment - if cars need more space between them when travelling at a higher speed - then yes a car will go at 100 mph - but on the other hand you cannot fit them all into the same space - so those on the motorway will be going fast - the rest of the vehicles will be at the back of huge que waiting to get on the blinkin' motorway. It would never work - believe me!
>> Edited by TUS 373 on Thursday 20th February 17:27
With respect to congestion and carrying capacity - take this an example. If you ever tried to drive through Birmingham on the M6 without hitting a jam, it is because you are travelling off peak. At rush hour times - it will not make traffic move any faster by telling everyone to go 30 mph more than the speed limit will it? QED.
Carry capacity of a motorway would be expressed in vehicles per hour per mile of motorway. Even in a perfect mathematiclly modelled environment - if cars need more space between them when travelling at a higher speed - then yes a car will go at 100 mph - but on the other hand you cannot fit them all into the same space - so those on the motorway will be going fast - the rest of the vehicles will be at the back of huge que waiting to get on the blinkin' motorway. It would never work - believe me!
>> Edited by TUS 373 on Thursday 20th February 17:27
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff