Steady or Varying Speed on Motorways
Discussion
I tend to drive at a given speed at or around the speed limit(depends on traffic conditions) and use all lanes. Naturally, being able to judge and plan manouvres in a safe way helps me to keep at a steady pace and prevents me "slowing" the spirited drivers or "cutting in".
My current style means, I find myself overtaking the same vehicles on numerous occassions, on a long motorway run.
Sanity question - is it normal in this day and age to travel at a steady speed or do most people find themselves constantly varying their speed.
My current style means, I find myself overtaking the same vehicles on numerous occassions, on a long motorway run.
Sanity question - is it normal in this day and age to travel at a steady speed or do most people find themselves constantly varying their speed.
Questions about motorway driving are always tainted by the 70mph speed limit. We can dispense of that by noting that in heavy traffic speeds are generally around 80mph, and in good conditions and light traffic cruising speed can often approach 100mph.
There's no reason why 100mph isn't safe on the motorway, conditions permitting. The only problem is that it's illegal.
As I see it your speed should always be variable, subject to constant review in relation to conditions, traffic, weather, junctions and overtaking manouvers. Even road surface has a big effect. That said, motorways are designed for progress, so traveling at speed isn't a problem.
It worries me when you see people stuck absolutely on the speed limit. For starters 70mph is often too slow on the motorway, especially in lane 3. Furthermore I wonder how much attention they are paying to the road ahead or if they think they are safe because they are under the limit. 70mph can be way too fast. Likewise, if you've set your self to keep 85mph constantly, then how much attention are you paying to keeping your speed constant, and is this leading you into hazards too quickly?
So varying your speed is the only sensible, reactive way to drive on congested motorways IMO.
There's no reason why 100mph isn't safe on the motorway, conditions permitting. The only problem is that it's illegal.
As I see it your speed should always be variable, subject to constant review in relation to conditions, traffic, weather, junctions and overtaking manouvers. Even road surface has a big effect. That said, motorways are designed for progress, so traveling at speed isn't a problem.
It worries me when you see people stuck absolutely on the speed limit. For starters 70mph is often too slow on the motorway, especially in lane 3. Furthermore I wonder how much attention they are paying to the road ahead or if they think they are safe because they are under the limit. 70mph can be way too fast. Likewise, if you've set your self to keep 85mph constantly, then how much attention are you paying to keeping your speed constant, and is this leading you into hazards too quickly?
So varying your speed is the only sensible, reactive way to drive on congested motorways IMO.
Unless the motorway traffic is extremely light it probably isn't possible to maintain a steady speed for very long, and even then I find it difficult without the aid of a cruise control system. It seems natural to me to let the speed vary according to how you feel about the conditions. I tend not to bother too much about what the speedometer reading shows, unless there are cameras or police cars around. As a result my speed varies quite a lot, but so long as it relates reasonably to other traffic I'm not overly concerned.
Happy New Year each,
Dave.
Happy New Year each,
Dave.
If the traffic is ilght enough that you can cruise at constant speed without any particular effort to get past people, cruise control makes for a much easier drive. But with CC engaged you lose the ability to tweak your closing speeds to negotiate a way past other vehicles, which makes it a pita.
I tend to choose my target cruising speed and try to stay near it. Of course it is modified for all kinds of events and conditions. I have a theory without much to back it up about a certain type of speed varying behaviour. This where people modify their speed to match the car in front. At the worst this produces unobservant middle lane cruisers who only look as far as the car in front, at best it tends to bunch cars up which I dont like.
Having just come back from driving the autoroutes of France, I am struck as always how well the French drive motorways and how badly the english do it.
Graham
PS of course that doesnt include the NL drivers who tailgate as badly as they queue for the ski-lifts! Nothing against the Dutch of course, just dont like their seemingly agressive driving and non-ordered queue behaviour!!
Having just come back from driving the autoroutes of France, I am struck as always how well the French drive motorways and how badly the english do it.
Graham
PS of course that doesnt include the NL drivers who tailgate as badly as they queue for the ski-lifts! Nothing against the Dutch of course, just dont like their seemingly agressive driving and non-ordered queue behaviour!!
IMHO – I agree that a variable speed is best. And that, again IMHO is about 3 – 5 mph faster than anyone else ahead of you…
This may seem rather contentious, but I’m convinced it’s safest way to proceed; just get along a bit quicker than the general traffic flow means you are constantly alert, constantly aware of speeds (if not strictly the mph), mirrors and flow issues, stops this awful business of always having to watch other people’s speeds on the basis that you simply are going to by and out of their way.
Best new year wishes all round.
This may seem rather contentious, but I’m convinced it’s safest way to proceed; just get along a bit quicker than the general traffic flow means you are constantly alert, constantly aware of speeds (if not strictly the mph), mirrors and flow issues, stops this awful business of always having to watch other people’s speeds on the basis that you simply are going to by and out of their way.
Best new year wishes all round.
GreenV8S said:
If the traffic is ilght enough that you can cruise at constant speed without any particular effort to get past people, cruise control makes for a much easier drive. But with CC engaged you lose the ability to tweak your closing speeds to negotiate a way past other vehicles, which makes it a pita.
With the CC on my car I can use the accelerator to increase my speed and when I release the accelerator the CC takes the car back to the set speed. If I brake or tap the 'disengage' button the car slows down - pressing the 'engage' button will take the car back to the set speed.
Do all CC's work like this?
Philbes said:
Do all CC's work like this?
Yes, except the latest and still very expensive distance sensing systems which additionally slow you below your set speed if doing so is necessary to maintain a safe following distance behind slower traffic.
I select my speed in relation to the speed limit, with a preferred cruising speed and a maximum I am prepared to go up to for overtaking, and I try only to vary it as necessary to maintain good separation from other traffic. I use CC whenever possible. Without CC, my speed seems to drift by up to 2 mph either side of my target. I am irritated by drivers who vary their speed more widely and as a result for example slow down below my speed after overtaking me.
Philbes said:
GreenV8S said:
If the traffic is ilght enough that you can cruise at constant speed without any particular effort to get past people, cruise control makes for a much easier drive. But with CC engaged you lose the ability to tweak your closing speeds to negotiate a way past other vehicles, which makes it a pita.
With the CC on my car I can use the accelerator to increase my speed and when I release the accelerator the CC takes the car back to the set speed. If I brake or tap the 'disengage' button the car slows down - pressing the 'engage' button will take the car back to the set speed.
Do all CC's work like this?
Yes (well in my case anyway), though a gentle tap on the clutch (or brake for that matter) will disengage the cruise on mine (Astra).
You soon learn to tap the clutch instead of easing off the gas, thereby allowing you to lose speed easily when approaching slower traffic.
Edited by alphadog on Tuesday 2nd January 19:17
Coming back down the M5 last week in torrential downpour, I watched the inside lane hardly being used and the fast lane being clogged up. Each car was bumper to bumper in very poor viz, mostly due to spray, all of which were doing ~ 60 mph. Legal, but not safe. I was in the overtaking lane, cruising past all of them with a decent view of the road ahead, perhaps 8 seconds after the car ahead of me.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, braking distances are more important than speed.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, braking distances are more important than speed.
wadgebeast said:
Coming back down the M5 last week in torrential downpour, I watched the inside lane hardly being used and the fast lane being clogged up. Each car was bumper to bumper in very poor viz, mostly due to spray, all of which were doing ~ 60 mph. Legal, but not safe. I was in the overtaking lane, cruising past all of them with a decent view of the road ahead, perhaps 8 seconds after the car ahead of me.
What is the difference between fast lane and overtakiing lane?
I only know left middle and right, and use them in accordance with the highway code.
To my knowledge there is no such thing as an overtaking lane or a fast lane.
It is this common misconception that leads to people driving in the wrong lane bacuse in their mind they are in the "fast" lane, or the "overtaking" lane.....
wadgebeast said:
As has been pointed out repeatedly, braking distances are more important than speed.
Correctamundo, but very hard to set scamera's for....
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff