[Archived] 80 mph motorway speed limit

[Stuart]

Anyone up for going round this buoy again?

http://news.sky.com/home/article/16079815

This piece basically vindicates what some people have been saying for some time. The existing 70mph speed limit just isn't appropriate and only serves to provide money into local and national coffers.

Granted there is an argument for lowering speeds in built-up and residential areas but an 80mph motorway makes complete sense to me.

The link provides the following statement:

"The current 70mph national speed limit was set in 1965, since when advances in vehicle technology and design have contributed to more than a 75% drop in the number of people killed on British roads."

So the thread question is, is an 80mph speed limit safe?

[colin]

An interesting link there.

The Transport Secretary (is it Philip Hammond?)says

"...the benefit of bringing millions of ordinary motorists, who are otherwise law abiding, back on the right side of the law....."

Should the same principle be applied to shoplifters because then "otherwise law abiding ordinary shoplifters" will be back on the right side of the law?

Similary the article has The Secretary Of State saying

Principally this is about the huge time savings that would be available by improving journey times, hundreds of millions of pounds worth a year of time savings.

Really? Imagine that there is a motorway linking Blackburn to Bristol which the AA planner tells me is 195 miles. At 70mph all the way this will take 2.78 hours. At 80 mph this will take 2.33 hours. A less than impressive 21 minutes less. How on earth this translates into "hundreds of millions of pounds worth a year of time savings" is beyond me. You just need to stop for a wee and a lovely motorway service station meal lasting more than 21 minutes for all that "millions of ponds worths" benefit to be completely worthless.

The existing 70mph speed limit just isn't appropriate and only serves to provide money into local and national coffers.

Perhaps you need to clarify how this happens,and why it isn't "appropriate." Most motorways are managed by The Highways Agency rather than Local Highway Authorities and any speeding fines are therefore not re-directed to Local Authorities. There are very few safety cameras on motorways apart from the ones where there are repairs & the cameras are there to protect the safety of the maintaince people.

Sorry to be contrary. I'm not being personal. I'm just pointing out a few things.

Cheers

Colin

[Hughesy]

80mph is much better, however IF they do it then they need to tighten laws on if your caught above that speed. Its already something like 10% + 3mph on fast roads. At 80 people will be pushing 95mph before getting caught!

[I_saw_Batty_score]

Needs to be like the continent where the speed limit is lower when its raining and conditions are bad. 80 is fine when its dry and clear but not in rain or fog.

[jim mk2]

Philip Hammond's plan is a sop to the Tory right who do not think there should be any speed limits and of course flies in the face of evidence that increased speeds lead to more accidents, more pollution and more waste of fuel.

A maximum of 70mph or 80mph is also irrelevant - what is more important to me is that the maximum is enforced. I cannot remember the last time I saw a police car on the motorway.

I would support a rise to perhaps 75mph if it were accompanied by average speed cameras on all motorways and dual carriageways to keep in check all the company car cowboys and others who are going to use the raised limit as an excuse to drive at 90mph plus.

[ABBEY]

How do you know what 75 feels like jim ? You never broke the limit. I'd make it 100 mph. Hughsey that 10% is for calibration and speedo differences, they can't alter that really.

[Tom]

What does it matter to you Abbey you can't go over 60 in your van or moped anyway can you

[den]

"The current 70mph national speed limit was set in 1965, since when advances in vehicle technology and design have contributed to more than a 75% drop in the number of people killed on British roads."

So the thread question is, is an 80mph speed limit safe?

For the bit in bold, it's a misleading stat. If it's known exactly how many lives technology has saved, then tell us. Have seat belts, drink driving laws, better roads etc not contributed significantly to this? Let's not forget that thinking distances haven't changed.

The answer to the second line is simple. 80 mph is more dangerous than 70 mph.

[Mattyblue]

Philip Hammond's plan is a sop to the Tory right who do not think there should be any speed limits and of course flies in the face of evidence that increased speeds lead to more accidents, more pollution and more waste of fuel.

A maximum of 70mph or 80mph is also irrelevant - what is more important to me is that the maximum is enforced. I cannot remember the last time I saw a police car on the motorway.

I would support a rise to perhaps 75mph if it were accompanied by average speed cameras on all motorways and dual carriageways to keep in check all the company car cowboys and others who are going to use the raised limit as an excuse to drive at 90mph plus.

A rise to 75mph would also be a 'sop to the Tory right', would it not? You moving to the right like most as they get older, james?

[Anti-Dingle-Brigade]

Most people drive at around 75 now I would say, could that translate as people starting to drive at 85 if it was raised to 80? Because people always assume the speed limit is always a bit 'lower than it actually is/needs to be'.

[den]

Most people drive at around 75 now I would say, could that translate as people starting to drive at 85 if it was raised to 80? Because people always assume the speed limit is always a bit 'lower than it actually is/needs to be'.

I would say 70-80 is quite easily the norm.

Make that 80-90 now for sure.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

Welcomed,the German autobahn illustrates how high speed driving can be safe.That said,nothing is totally safe when human error is a possible factor.

The answer to the second line is simple. 80 mph is more dangerous than 70 mph.

If you crash at either 70 or 80 mph Den I would guestimate you would,if lucky come,survive with the same serious injuries in a motor vehicle.

If you are directly hit by a car driven at either 70 or 80 mph I have no doubt you would be dead at either speed.

[Grabbi Graeme]

For a lot of people who drive betwwen 70 - 80 mph already, all this will mean is that they wont have to hit the brakes when they see a police car, you always get the idiots who want to use the 80 mph limit to push it further.

If the limit does rise then anyone who flouts it excessivley need to be punished with high fines and and lengthy bans.

[Stuart]

Should the same principle be applied to shoplifters because then "otherwise law abiding ordinary shoplifters" will be back on the right side of the law?

I had a little smile at that line, Colin. I'd liken it more to decriminalising the consumption of certain drugs. That way police, rather than nitpicking (Jim) over a couple of joints, sorry, mph in order to get a 'conviction' on the books, can spend their time doing something more worthwhile...

...like catching shoplifters, whose contribution to "wastage" inflates the price of high street purchases.

I should point put with some sardony that I'm against the legalisation of many 'recreational drugs', by the way. I just think it's a more apt simile.

The fact that the regulators can just 'decide' to increase the speed limit now, makes a complete money of every 71-80mph speeding conviction of the last 10 years, possibly longer.

EDIT: meant to type 'mockery' but I like the Freudianism of 'money' so I'll leave it!

[colin]

Hi Jissty

My comment was to highlight the quote of Phillip Hammond that "...the benefit of bringing millions of ordinary motorists, who are otherwise law abiding, back on the right side of the law....."

That does seem bizarre: that a law could be repealed just so that people who break it are law abiding. Taking it to a rather extreme, perhaps all laws should be repealed so that everyone will be "law abiding."

You said "The fact that the regulators can just 'decide' to increase the speed limit now, makes a complete money of every 71-80mph speeding conviction of the last 10 years, possibly longer."

Not really. The current law is that the speed limit on a motorway is 70mph. If the speed limit law is changed sometime in the future then that law will the apply from that date. Laws are not backdate-able. And it won't be "regulators" who change the law. It will be Parliament.

Cheers

Colin

[Stuart]

You said "The fact that the regulators can just 'decide' to increase the speed limit now, makes a complete money of every 71-80mph speeding conviction of the last 10 years, possibly longer."

Not really. The current law is that the speed limit on a motorway is 70mph. If the speed limit law is changed sometime in the future then that law will the apply from that date. Laws are not backdate-able. And it won't be "regulators" who change the law. It will be Parliament.

Cheers

Colin

I said "makes a mockery of them" not that they should be quashed. I fully understand laws are not "backdate-able". I'm talking about the official reason for the law in the first place, safety.

Cars have not become that much safer in the last 10 years or so to mean that 75mph was "offence-worthy" (I.e. unsafe) a couple of years ago and is now "legal-worthy" (safe).

If it's safe now it was safe a couple of years ago, if you follow my logic, and the only reason therefore to have 70mph (apart from the political and bureaucratic timescales to un-red the tape and change an out of date law) is a line in the sand to enable this issue of fines.

[pg]

Funny. When I saw the threat title I thought to myself "They're going to lower the speed limit"?!?!

Then I remembered what the 'actual' limit was. 90% of the time I drove on the motorways I'd drive at 80-90 mph. I almost never drove during peak times so I rarely had traffic issues. Of course if conditions were bad I'd slow down. I particularly remember one downpour driving to Cornwall I was driving at about 40 mph.

Please don't become like an Australian nanny state and rigidly enforce ridiculous speed limits. It's the 21st century, not the 1970's and English drivers are (on the whole) skillfull and sensible enough to easily drive at 80-90 mph with modern cars on well designed motorways without major accidents occurring.

[ABBEY]

They do pg already , I bet most people on here have been done for speeding.

[den]

It's the 21st century, not the 1970's and English drivers are (on the whole) skillfull and sensible enough to easily drive at 80-90 mph with modern cars on well designed motorways without major accidents occurring.

Major accidents occur with the current speed limit pg. If English drivers were sensible enough, they wouldn't be breaking the speed limit in the first place. There are bound to be more accidents when the speed limit is raised. As the speed limit is raised, stopping distances become longer, hence likely to be more accidents. Is it necessary to raise the limit - that's the question.

[ABBEY]

Get it up to 100.

[pg]

I'm somewhat bemused by this. I was told by friends when arriving in England that 'you can normally do 90 mph on the motorways, conditions permitting. Go over that and you'll get pulled over'. Now admittedly my local motorway (M40) had a reputation for being 'a bit of a racetrack' according to Lee Grooby...but I sped all the time whilst I was driving in England and I never got a ticket. But I would only 'speed' on motorways and dual-lane A-roads. Around town and in villages..and on winding B and C roads I always respected the limit. As you should IMO because old A, B and C roads are 'full of surprises' such as sharp 2nd-gear corners, pheasants, tractors, bike riders, badgers, gypsy vans etc etc. Let alone the dangers of children and pedestrians when touring around towns and villages.

I don't see why the official limit needs to be raised when it was never enforced on the motorway anyway. Perhaps things have changed since I left. Perhaps the government wants to raise more revenue.

Quite often you can't speed anyway due to traffic congestion and weather conditions, however I question what % of road accidents on the UK

1) occur on Motorways to begin with

2) occur outside of 'peak periods' where excessive speed (i.e. over 90 mph) was the main cause of the accident.

I would imagine that the majority of accidents on busy motorways (e.g. M25, the M6 through Birmingham..that one around Manchester) occur at speeds < 80 mph and are caused primarily due to traffic congestion.

The Motorways have been designed by traffic engineers for speeds up to 100 mph.

God forbid they start enforcing the 70 mph speed limit on a 3-lane Motorway. One of life's great pleasures was getting up early in the morning and blasting down the M40 at 90 mph.

[colin]

I said "makes a mockery of them" not that they should be quashed. I fully understand laws are not "backdate-able". I'm talking about the official reason for the law in the first place, safety.

Cars have not become that much safer in the last 10 years or so to mean that 75mph was "offence-worthy" (I.e. unsafe) a couple of years ago and is now "legal-worthy" (safe).

If it's safe now it was safe a couple of years ago, if you follow my logic, and the only reason therefore to have 70mph (apart from the political and bureaucratic timescales to un-red the tape and change an out of date law) is a line in the sand to enable this issue of fines.

Jisty,

I fully agree with your comments, maybe apart from the "safe" aspect. It's been noted above that human reactions have not been sharpened and honed over the past few years.

However let's not lose sight of the reason for the proposal was for economic reasons (btw the link in your original post has been a bit distracted. Not your fault at all.) I'll still stand by my original post on 29th September that the saving of 20 minutes from a trip from Blackburn to Bristol is debatable from an economic viewpoint. Certainly there is a body of opinion that every road death has its costs.

have a look here

That may be a counter-arguement to the 20 minutes saved.

Cheers

Colin

[Baz]

I think that there should be more variability in the speed limits on m-ways. 70mph on a bright summer sunday morning with no-one else on the road is a lot different to rush-hour traffic on a dark, wet and windy winter evening.

I was once told that in France, the limit is dropped in rain, that in Germany the autobahns speed is only restricted through junctions, and I dont see why we couldnt employ some of that intelligence to speed limit reviews over here?

[thenodrog]

Didn't know where to post this so here'll do.

Rum do this coach crash in the Midlands. I haven't access to the facts per sae but...

1. The coach driver is arrested for dangerous driving even though the lorry ran into the back of him.

2. He was carrying a party of 'fruit pickers' to Worcester. Odd thing is that it's March and there wont be any fruit to pick for months.

[Stuart]

Have to say, Gord, I found this case bizarre.

From what I read, the coach driver broke down in the first lane, in dense fog and a witness reported he had his hazard warning lights on. If that's true, looking at the pictures of the aftermath, surely the lorry driver was going too fast for the conditions?

I could envisage the bus driver being culpable if his vehicle wasn't roadworthy but dangerous driving?

Really don't understand that one.