80 mph on motorways good idea or not

[anywebsite]

Some fools on here advocate no limit. Many years ago when I was stationed in West Germany and less wise than I am now I had a very fast (At the time) sports car. I've lost count of the number of times I had fools in Beetles etc doing 60/70 mph pull out in front of me whilst doing 110mph+ down the autobahn even though I had headlights on. The roads were also a lot less crowded back in the 1970's. Remember, you may be the safest driver on the planet but it only takes one fool to not look in their mirror!

 

We could just ban all the fools from the road, then we wouldn't need limits, there'd be much less traffic, everybody could drive fast (if they're not banned for being a fool), less accidents, children's lives would be saved, etc.

 

Modern Beetles can do 100+

[DT Ralge]

We could just ban all the fools from the road, then we wouldn't need limits, there'd be much less traffic, everybody could drive fast (if they're not banned for being a fool), less accidents, children's lives would be saved, etc.

 

Modern Beetles can do 100+

 

Good idea but how does anyone spot/define the "fool".

What would qualify anyone as a foolish driver?

To err is human, someone wrote. So what errors, failings in a driver would you forgive?

Speeding, being drunk or stoned, pulling out on someone because it's a sunny day and who needs to pay attention at the steering wheel when it's sunny? ...

Or is it the case that crashes aren't generally single-event mishaps - they generally involve a meeting or convergence of factors from 2 or more directions, a violation, an error, a lapse of concentration. It's a bit like the opening sequences of Casualty, a rep, a family get ready for school and work and the window cleaner who doesn't strap his ladders on well enough because he's had a row with his girlfriend and is late and cheesed off. Who is going to cop it?

Who is the fool, who dies or gets injured is the script-writer's craft. Is it entirely down to luck that each of these characters in the script survives the story-line or is it pre-ordained by one of them having "fool" tattooed on their forehead?

[Cyclone]

Maybe everyone could be defined fool until they take an advanced driving test and prove otherwise. Maybe there could be different levels of test allowing you to go up to certain speeds, or like motorbikes only own cars of certain engine sizes for some length of time (or until trained to use them, which is the an enhancement of the way the motorbike license works).

 

There's nothing magic about the speed limits we have now, but enhanced training would reduce the risk of allowing traffic to travel faster in certain situations.

[DT Ralge]

Maybe everyone could be defined fool until they take an advanced driving test and prove otherwise. Maybe there could be different levels of test allowing you to go up to certain speeds, or like motorbikes only own cars of certain engine sizes for some length of time (or until trained to use them, which is the an enhancement of the way the motorbike license works).

 

There's nothing magic about the speed limits we have now, but enhanced training would reduce the risk of allowing traffic to travel faster in certain situations.

 

We agree (perhaps not surprisingly) but passing a test is no guarantee of continuing to drive at that standard.

[anywebsite]

Maybe everyone could be defined fool until they take an advanced driving test and prove otherwise. Maybe there could be different levels of test allowing you to go up to certain speeds, or like motorbikes only own cars of certain engine sizes for some length of time (or until trained to use them, which is the an enhancement of the way the motorbike license works).

 

There's nothing magic about the speed limits we have now, but enhanced training would reduce the risk of allowing traffic to travel faster in certain situations.

 

Different speed limits for different drivers would be unenforceable & create more danger. Speed doesn't kill, rapid deceleration does & it's more likely when vehicles are travelling at different speeds on the same section of road at the same time. If somebody isn't capable of driving on a motorway at 80mph then they certainly shouldn't be allowed on more dangerous roads (motorways are the safest roads we have).

 

I think there should be tests every 10 years too, more frequently for over 50s, maybe annual tests for over 70s.

 

It's not all about testing either, different driving offences should be enforced too, as well as just speeding. Lots of more dangerous things happen on the roads. I was talking more about getting the dangerous drivers off the road when they do something dangerous rather than improving the driving test.

[DT Ralge]

Different speed limits for different drivers would be unenforceable & create more danger. Speed doesn't kill, rapid deceleration does & it's more likely when vehicles are travelling at different speeds on the same roads.

 

I think there should be tests every 10 years too, more frequently for over 50s, maybe annual tests for over 70s.

 

It's not all about testing either, different driving offences should be enforced too, as well as just speeding. Lots of more dangerous things happen on the roads.

 

But will you be volunteering for a refresher session in preparation for the test or is it everyone else that needs a refresher?

Plenty of driving offences other than speeding attract the Police's attention but they are a bit thin on the ground, as we know.

[rickycun]

yes i think it would be a good idea

[wiseroni]

Driving tests for over 70's are usually advocated by those well below 70. Insurance companies are not stupid. They know that people over 70 don't go out a great deal at night, commute to work in the rush hour or are keen to see if they can get from A to B faster than last time. That's why their insurance is lower. I'm not quite 70 but my 2.0 litre Mondeo Ghia costs £160 a year fully comp to insure. Why? because I'm safe, have had a car since I was 17 and driven on every continent (Antartica excepted). The number of drivers over 70 who dawdle along as some would say instead of the maximum permitted speed limit is far less than those well below 70 who think the highway is a combat zone! They also drive steadier because it causes less wear and tear and is more economical, thus saving them money! YOU CAN ALWAYS TELL A BAD DRIVER BY THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE BRAKE LIGHTS COME ON WHEN YOU ARE FOLLOWING THEM.Also many younger drivers don't know what those orange things on the corners of their vehicle are for, park in daft positions on bends and opposite junctions and often wear lead boots to drive in.

[Cyclone]

Different speed limits for different drivers would be unenforceable & create more danger.

They manage to enforce the rules for bikes...

Speed doesn't kill, rapid deceleration does & it's more likely when vehicles are travelling at different speeds on the same section of road at the same time. If somebody isn't capable of driving on a motorway at 80mph then they certainly shouldn't be allowed on more dangerous roads (motorways are the safest roads we have).

 

I think there should be tests every 10 years too, more frequently for over 50s, maybe annual tests for over 70s.

 

It's not all about testing either, different driving offences should be enforced too, as well as just speeding. Lots of more dangerous things happen on the roads. I was talking more about getting the dangerous drivers off the road when they do something dangerous rather than improving the driving test.

A focus on overall driving ability instead of just speed would probably please a lot of people.