Motorway speed limit
Discussion
Could any police officers here explain why we have a 70mph m-way speed limit please?
I have seen three officers using speed guns on the M5 this week and wondered what the threshold is for prosicution? Is it 10% plus 2 = 79mph? Is it deemed to be dangerous to exceed this speed?
The head of the Somerset safety camera partnership stated on a live BBC interview this week, 'even if we did hide our cameras, the law is the law and you're breaking the law if you exceed any speed limit'.
If this is the case why are the 99% of drivers who exceed the limit when they deem it safe to do so not being prosicuted? Should we not have a system in place in all vehicles that will track your speed and issue points and a fine every time the law is broken?
After all, the law is the law and we drivers are not above it.
In a matter of months after this system was introduced , 99% of drivers will be banned.
Im not sure if the economy would collapse.
Im not sure if their would be a vote of no confidence in the government.
It would bring the whole 'speed kills' issue to a head though and perhaps would help us get some common sense policing on roads when the new conservative government took over.
Personally i would like to see an advisory national speed limit in place, say 90mph on m-ways (excluding roadworks obviously). The offence of speeding on a m-way would no longer exist and all speed detection equipment would be banned (excluding road works and police in-car monitoring equipment). I believe the effects on road safety would be positive as police would not have the cushy job of pointing guns at those travelling at speed safely anymore. Instead they would have to concentate efforts on reducing dangerous driving and actually do something about tailgating, dangerous manoeuvers, drunk/drug driving, excess speed in poor weather conditions etc etc.
Comments welcome! Cheers.
I have seen three officers using speed guns on the M5 this week and wondered what the threshold is for prosicution? Is it 10% plus 2 = 79mph? Is it deemed to be dangerous to exceed this speed?
The head of the Somerset safety camera partnership stated on a live BBC interview this week, 'even if we did hide our cameras, the law is the law and you're breaking the law if you exceed any speed limit'.
If this is the case why are the 99% of drivers who exceed the limit when they deem it safe to do so not being prosicuted? Should we not have a system in place in all vehicles that will track your speed and issue points and a fine every time the law is broken?
After all, the law is the law and we drivers are not above it.
In a matter of months after this system was introduced , 99% of drivers will be banned.
Im not sure if the economy would collapse.
Im not sure if their would be a vote of no confidence in the government.
It would bring the whole 'speed kills' issue to a head though and perhaps would help us get some common sense policing on roads when the new conservative government took over.
Personally i would like to see an advisory national speed limit in place, say 90mph on m-ways (excluding roadworks obviously). The offence of speeding on a m-way would no longer exist and all speed detection equipment would be banned (excluding road works and police in-car monitoring equipment). I believe the effects on road safety would be positive as police would not have the cushy job of pointing guns at those travelling at speed safely anymore. Instead they would have to concentate efforts on reducing dangerous driving and actually do something about tailgating, dangerous manoeuvers, drunk/drug driving, excess speed in poor weather conditions etc etc.
Comments welcome! Cheers.
I don't reckon speeding should be an offense at all. If your driving is dangerous, whether due to excess speed or not, that should be what you're charged with. After all, you don't see people charged with driving too close to the car in front, or arguing with backseat passengers, or eating a Mars bar, do you? But for some reason or other speed has been singled out in law and the posted limits have been made absolutely black and white.
In this imaginary world there is still a place for a speed limit telling you the maximum speed that is considered safe under typical conditions, and if you exceeded the limit you would be liable for dangerous driving unless it could be shown to be safe under those circumstances. Is this reasonable? Is it ever going to happen?
In this imaginary world there is still a place for a speed limit telling you the maximum speed that is considered safe under typical conditions, and if you exceeded the limit you would be liable for dangerous driving unless it could be shown to be safe under those circumstances. Is this reasonable? Is it ever going to happen?
Plod have been everywhere on the M5 south of Bristol down to Exeter this week , i have been up and down a few times and sit at around 80-90 and didnt get stopped , even had an unmarked follow me for a few miles , only found outy when a rover 75 went flying past and he lit up like a christmas tree
deeps said:
Could any police officers here explain why we have a 70mph m-way speed limit please?
Because,
1) There were a couple of major pile-ups on notorways in fog one winter, away back in the 60s, and the government wanted to be seen to be 'doing something'.
2) The minister of transport at the time, Barbara Castle, did not have a driving licence.
D-Angle said:
Bit of a thread hijack here, but is it true that the Shelby Cobra was responsible for the British national speed limit being introduced after someone tore up the M1 at some velocity in one?
No, that one's a myth (AC, as opposed to Shelby, Cobra) At the time of the introduction of the limit (a response to the rising cost of oil, as well as a supposed safety measure) there was much blame placed at the door of 'Gentleman' Jack Sears, AC's then development driver, having undertaken a 185mph run in the AC Cobra Coupe in '63. However, from an interview in ‘Cars for the Connoisseur’:
Jack Sears said:
Of course all the publicity was good for AC but when the compulsory 70 mph speed limit was introduced in 1967 by the then Minister of Transport, Barbara Castle – a non-driver! I took a lot of flak for being responsible. Indeed at the time there were those who felt that sort of speed on a public highway was irresponsible behaviour and I had to live with this for some time. I am glad to say that I was eventually exonerated when, towards the end of her life, Lady Castle was interviewed by Tony Martin* and asked whether the story concerning his uncle’s car had any effect on her decision to impose the speed limit three years later. She remembered all the publicity but claimed that the speed limit was already under review long before - so I was vindicated!
*Tony Martin is the nephew of Derek Hurlock, the proprietor of AC in the early 60s
To highlight the speed limit farce even more on the motorway, I could, for instance drive a 1960 Morris Minor at 70 mph on the motorway in gale force winds in the pouring rain and be perfectly legal.
I could do the same trip at 4.00 a.m in the morning on a well lit and deserted stretch of motorway in a new Porsche GT3 (Fat chance!)at 75mph and be nicked!
Whats dangerous?
I could do the same trip at 4.00 a.m in the morning on a well lit and deserted stretch of motorway in a new Porsche GT3 (Fat chance!)at 75mph and be nicked!
Whats dangerous?
I've felt that a variable limit would be good. It's blatently safe to travel over 70mph on a quiet M'way on a sunny day in june.
It's also NOT safe to drive at 70mph on a busy M'way in a blizzard in December.
Lets adjust the speed limit in relation to trafic conditions and weather. It could all be done automagically by a computer. And it'd put those matrix signs to good use. (you know the ones that say FOG in the middle of a sunny day in June).
It's also NOT safe to drive at 70mph on a busy M'way in a blizzard in December.
Lets adjust the speed limit in relation to trafic conditions and weather. It could all be done automagically by a computer. And it'd put those matrix signs to good use. (you know the ones that say FOG in the middle of a sunny day in June).
Ach Munter Liebchen!
They would just bang on about dust on the road, greasy surface and melting tarmac to reduce speeds on a sunny day in June!
This is what they apparently said to our rep on that course in Lan-CASH-ire, when he was being "awkward"
The muesli munchers will always find some mushy brained logic!
They would just bang on about dust on the road, greasy surface and melting tarmac to reduce speeds on a sunny day in June!
This is what they apparently said to our rep on that course in Lan-CASH-ire, when he was being "awkward"
The muesli munchers will always find some mushy brained logic!
I agree with all of the above, but the simple fact is that if you have a crash, you are more likely to die, the faster you are going when you have the crash. There can be many many reasons for the crash in the first place but if the police could get everyone to drive around at 15mph there would still be lots of accidents –people falling asleep probably- but very few people would die. Speed is the easy option for police to enforce. But they are not addressing what I think is the biggest problem – bad driving, in all its forms. We have to sit 1 driving test and then that’s it for the next 30 to 40 years of driving, most people have NO additional driver training in their driving life other than what they needed to pass their initial test.
Commercial Pilots are tested every SIX MONTHS during their career, developing their skill and keeping up with new techniques and technology.
I think all drivers should be tested periodically say every 5 years so they can be refreshed as to how to drive safely, I think the benefits would be staggering, as the overall skill and awareness level of the driving population of our country would increase hugely. Comments please !!
>> Edited by headlights on Monday 29th March 18:27
Commercial Pilots are tested every SIX MONTHS during their career, developing their skill and keeping up with new techniques and technology.
I think all drivers should be tested periodically say every 5 years so they can be refreshed as to how to drive safely, I think the benefits would be staggering, as the overall skill and awareness level of the driving population of our country would increase hugely. Comments please !!
>> Edited by headlights on Monday 29th March 18:27
headlights said:
I think all drivers should be tested periodically say every 5 years so they can be refreshed as to how to drive safely, I think the benefits would be staggering, as the overall skill and awareness level of the driving population of our country would increase hugely. Comments please !!
I agree, and i've been saying that for ages! ok so it'll cost be a few quid every 5/10 years. But it should in theory save on the insurance as there'll be less unfit drivers out there, and create a few examiner jobs!
Davel said:
What we really need is BiB with discretion and sensible speed limits, bearing in mind today's vehicles and road conditions!
They don't raise revenue though... all that method does is increase costs in "public services", you don't have to feed or pay a camera.
Ultimately having BiB back on the street and a reduction in Scamera tactics would indeed boost public support in the Police and to an extent in the Government too.
Unfortunately the Government long since stopped looking after the interests of the general working british public, and frankly couldn't give a shit about us... The sooner people realise this and we get a revolution underway then we will see some change... it won't happen before though.
And forget these litte concessions that the conservatives are mooting.. we "might" review the motorway speeds to 80 MPH, and we may look into the decisions behind camera deployment.. this is all just electioneering and they know as well as the Labour lot how much money they can get their grubby mits onto from the motoring public, and wouldn't want to spoil it.
Matt.
Andygo.... you are quite right re: Morris Minor. I inherited my Grandfathers. Crossplys, drum brakes!! My Elise would stop in a shorter distance from 120mph that that would at 70mph.
There are distinctions to be drawn re: what speed you will be "done" at. Marked traffic cars (in my Force) normally only ticket at 90. Any less and the driver is usually driving like an arse, e.g. too close. An unmarked car, is not likely to pull anything much below the ton.
As for vans/cameras, ACPO guideline is 10% +2. They will usually stick to this.
There are distinctions to be drawn re: what speed you will be "done" at. Marked traffic cars (in my Force) normally only ticket at 90. Any less and the driver is usually driving like an arse, e.g. too close. An unmarked car, is not likely to pull anything much below the ton.
As for vans/cameras, ACPO guideline is 10% +2. They will usually stick to this.
xxplod said:
Andygo.... you are quite right re: Morris Minor. I inherited my Grandfathers. Crossplys, drum brakes!! My Elise would stop in a shorter distance from 120mph that that would at 70mph.
There are distinctions to be drawn re: what speed you will be "done" at. Marked traffic cars (in my Force) normally only ticket at 90. Any less and the driver is usually driving like an arse, e.g. too close. An unmarked car, is not likely to pull anything much below the ton.
As for vans/cameras, ACPO guideline is 10% +2. They will usually stick to this.
xxplod Liebchen (Which Force are you? Cos We will apply for transfers!
) Andy - like myself knows Lan-CASH-ire (which I have to drive through on way to work further "south". He knows as well as I do that thier "interpretation" of the rules is no less than a farce!
10% + 2 does not exist there! Accidents and death rates are increasing. No trafpols - you see! Only scams and means of raising revenue.
They want the bums on the Speed Seats - Liebchen. All the reps in the company have attended this course at "sin" of 1-5mph above 30mph! All go
and 
at mention of trip to LanCASHire! Especially as one minor blip will mean undeserved points on their licences - and they are all quite good drivers. They do not frighten me - and I do not think they would frighten my great granny either (but then again - we are from racin' driver stock anyway - and she is used to hurtling around tracks on track days!! They are more than a bit draconian on other speeds too - but this has not reduced the accident rate - which appears to have increased!
Know exactly what you mean about Moggies (Have soft top, and the others in this mad bunch of wildcats own the hard top and estate versions!) Once said in a post somewhere - Moggie (and our other "real" cars) is per HC (TEXTBOOK) and big cat Jags just STOP - nice and smooth and easy!
As for which force, the premier one, Hampshire :divingforcover:
Don't get me wrong, what I've said is based on broad experience and speaking to a lot of Trafpol. NB - I'm not a gobbler myself. You could be unlucky and get a ticket for a bit less depending on the Officer, but by and large doling them out for less than 85 is considered a bit not on.
The vans are more stringent because they are deployed at Casualty Reduction Sites. Seriously, they don't sit on empty M-ways, they do tackle the roads that have the fatals on.
Our Chief is quite supportive of Trafpol. Hampshire has very few cameras, relative to a lot of forces. We don't have any Community Support Officers either.
Don't get me wrong, what I've said is based on broad experience and speaking to a lot of Trafpol. NB - I'm not a gobbler myself. You could be unlucky and get a ticket for a bit less depending on the Officer, but by and large doling them out for less than 85 is considered a bit not on.
The vans are more stringent because they are deployed at Casualty Reduction Sites. Seriously, they don't sit on empty M-ways, they do tackle the roads that have the fatals on.
Our Chief is quite supportive of Trafpol. Hampshire has very few cameras, relative to a lot of forces. We don't have any Community Support Officers either.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff