80 mph on motorways good idea or not

[Jim Graham]

I have a mother already.

I would like to make a journey at whatever speed I see fit. Absolutley none of anyone elses business if the truth be told...

and the never ending stream of 'restrictions' to my life are becoming somewhat tiresome.

I'd love to someone to explain to me why 100/135 mph is dangerous?

 

 

There is nothing dangerous about doing 135mph. I used to live in Germany and could commute to work at 130mph on an empty autobahn (that's as fast as my car would go). It only becomes dangerous when some myopic twit who hasn't had his eyes tested in years doesn't see you in his rear view mirror and pulls out in front of you doing 70mph less than you. Not only is it dangerous to you and him but to anyone within a half mile radius of the impact.

 

Yes, there are unrestricted sections on German autobahns but they also have some horrendous accidents. And some of them drive at ludicrous speeds. You would think at 130mph there wouldn't be much overtaking you ................. but there is. At that speed a Porsche passed me like I was standing still. Unfortunately he lost it on the next bend and took out two other cars as well. Now there's one of those little crosses at the side of the road. He deserved it but the other drivers and passengers didn't.

[DT Ralge]

I have a mother already.

I would like to make a journey at whatever speed I see fit. Absolutley none of anyone elses business if the truth be told...

and the never ending stream of 'restrictions' to my life are becoming somewhat tiresome.

I'd love to someone to explain to me why 100/135 mph is dangerous?

 

Unless you always drive on empty motorways, how about a massively variable closing speed of anything between 20 and 79mph that might cause a few surprises?

How about the 73% of motorway deaths that happen on the 45% of the unlimited stretches of Autobahns in Germany.

How about working within laws that benefit the majority as opposed to allowing individuals to decide for themselves what goes in an arrogantly selfish if not anarchic way?

 

Feel free to move to Germany or get a high-speed train.

[syne]

Unless you always drive on empty motorways, how about a massively variable closing speed of anything between 20 and 79mph that might cause a few surprises?

How about the 73% of motorway deaths that happen on the 45% of the unlimited stretches of Autobahns in Germany.

How about working within laws that benefit the majority as opposed to allowing individuals to decide for themselves what goes in an arrogantly selfish if not anarchic way?

 

Feel free to move to Germany or get a high-speed train.

 

Not sure that the neighbours would want a 10 ton engine taking all the parking spaces up on my street, plus I hear there a bugger to do a 3 point turn in.

Why would I move to germany? I was born round here..

Why does a motorway have to be empty?

If I were to pull out on someone doing 70 and they were doing 100+ I'd be an idiot for not checking properly what I was doing(same for 10/20 20/50 40/70 ect)

 

closing speed, you say it like people would never brake. the closing speed within the 'law' already has a variable of 70 mph

closing speed is variable and has to be judged, and the actions of others taken into consideration. you don't just pass someone at 100mph without considering a lot of things before you get anywhere near them. they don't just 'appear out of nowhere to be dealt with when the time comes.

 

As for anarchy and selfishness and arrogance.. those traits are not worth mentioning.

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting going round ponds square at 80 or that 'high' speed should ever be taken lightly.

But to dismiss it as dangerous/therefore banned because there are a lot of people who don't want to change the status quo, or because humans die in high speed impacts is just a way of retarding peoples education.

 

Its obvious that people will and do get hurt/die, but the logic and arguments used against it make no sense as humans get hurt/die by everything from the most mundane to the extravagant. Were not precious little snowflakes were are common as muck but with a sense of self importance that is misapplied.

 

We make automobiles that go 200mph+ these aren't wild stallions with minds of their own, they are machines that are controlled by normal humans they don't need special powers to do it.

A child of ten could probably control one quite safely given the right kind of training.

But we are treated as wards of the state in most cases so we give the bare minimum of education needed and let people loose with a ton weight that does 150mph and 'let them pick it up as they go along', the 'law' says

70 is the safe limit even though we all know it is neither safe nor the limit.

[DT Ralge]

Not sure that the neighbours would want a 10 ton engine taking all the parking spaces up on my street, plus I hear there a bugger to do a 3 point turn in.

Why would I move to germany? I was born round here..

Why does a motorway have to be empty?

If I were to pull out on someone doing 70 and they were doing 100+ I'd be an idiot for not checking properly what I was doing(same for 10/20 20/50 40/70 ect)

 

closing speed, you say it like people would never brake. the closing speed within the 'law' already has a variable of 70 mph

closing speed is variable and has to be judged, and the actions of others taken into consideration. you don't just pass someone at 100mph without considering a lot of things before you get anywhere near them. they don't just 'appear out of nowhere to be dealt with when the time comes.

 

As for anarchy and selfishness and arrogance.. those traits are not worth mentioning.

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting going round ponds square at 80 or that 'high' speed should ever be taken lightly.

But to dismiss it as dangerous/therefore banned because there are a lot of people who don't want to change the status quo, or because humans die in high speed impacts is just a way of retarding peoples education.

 

Its obvious that people will and do get hurt/die, but the logic and arguments used against it make no sense as humans get hurt/die by everything from the most mundane to the extravagant. Were not precious little snowflakes were are common as muck but with a sense of self importance that is misapplied.

 

We make automobiles that go 200mph+ these aren't wild stallions with minds of their own, they are machines that are controlled by normal humans they don't need special powers to do it.

A child of ten could probably control one quite safely given the right kind of training.

But we are treated as wards of the state in most cases so we give the bare minimum of education needed and let people loose with a ton weight that does 150mph and 'let them pick it up as they go along', the 'law' says

70 is the safe limit even though we all know it is neither safe nor the limit.

 

You have back-tracked a little from your "why shouldn't i be allowed to drive at 100/135 mph" question.

Then you get into driver training and quite rightly point out that very few drivers have had any professional motorway tuition and have been left to pick it up as they go. It's a good job that motorways are the safest roads statistically and that the driving environment is quite forgiving.

Whilst driving tuition is done on the cheap (driving is not seen as an important life skill to be invested in) and whilst there is no need to do anything more than pass a test of minimum competence that doesn't take in motorways, new drivers will be left to sink or swim.

What I don't quite get is that you seem to be attacking the status quo from opposing angles. You seem to suggest there's a nanny state at play in setting (unrealistically low) speed limits at the same time as blaming the state's lack of imposition of rigorous enough training and education. You may have a point, though - only thing is, we are lumbered with a driving population (as with any other attribute and skill) with a wide variation in the level of skill at the steering wheel. So there's your answer: you aren't allowed to drive at your preferred high speeds because there's too many drivers and too many occasions when they wouldn't handle your speed very well, however good you are, with or without additional training for them (or you).

[syne]

You hav<snip>hem (or you).

 

yes I often hold opposing views on subjects as very little in life is straightforward.

 

I'm not allowed to 'drive' at 70+

but I can make a journey at what ever speed I choose.

(legal technicality)

 

But the answer remains it isn't anymore so dangerous going 80 or 150, the 'potential' is there granted but its there at almost every moment in life.

Rules shouldn't be made with the lowest/lowly common denominator at the heart of them.

and if they are then lowest denominator should be raised, for the good of all.

 

back on topic. 80mph is commonplace the law as it stands is not fit for purpose and should be changed.

imo it should be more complex, prehaps 70 on lh lane 80 middle and 90 on the outer, lorries not allowed onto outer,

and greater education released on the importance of speeding up before you start to overtake and the importance of moving back across once lane is clear.

I also think a lot of people treat motorways as a place where concentration is allowed to be lowered as the whole system is simple and 'childish' in design (due ironically to the speeds involved) so much so that a lot of drivers seem to be on 'auto pilot' most of the time.

[HeadingNorth]

But the answer remains it isn't anymore so dangerous going 80 or 150

 

That is palpably false, just because of the laws of physics. A car moving at 150mph is almost four times as dangerous as a car moving at 80mph, even if its stopping distance and the driver's reactions are not affected by the speed being almost doubled - which, of course, they are. (Incidentally, what is the stopping distance at 150mph? Does anyone know offhand?)

[syne]

the stopping distance is looooong + the measurement is irrelevant really,

as there are so many factors involved are you just braking? are you turning? are you surprised/? is it controlled?, weight, grip, brakes quality/type etc etc the anticipation/preparednes of having to is more important.

 

An advance driver once said to me

' you should never go faster than the distance you can see is safe to stop in'

 

something that is easy to do on motorways but almost impossible on a/b/minors.

[DT Ralge]

the stopping distance is looooong + the measurement is irrelevant really,

as there are so many factors involved are you just braking? are you turning? are you surprised/? is it controlled?, weight, grip, brakes quality/type etc etc the anticipation/preparednes of having to is more important.

 

An advance driver once said to me

' you should never go faster than the distance you can see is safe to stop in'

 

something that is easy to do on motorways but almost impossible on a/b/minors.

 

"always being able to stop safely in the distance you can see to be clear on your side of the road" is the first rule (of many "first" rules) of driving, Advanced or not.

That you suggest this rule ("almost impossible") goes out of the window on minor A or B roads is scary - remind me never to sit as a passenger with you on such roads! To make it possible, you simply have to slow down if you can't see (relate your speed to what you can see) - you surely know that!

The fact that these may have a NSL attached to them doesn't mean that you have to drive at that speed. (Another "first" rule = "the limit is a maximum, not a target"). That you, apparently, and others are prepared to ditch these "first" rules and, I assume, cross your fingers and hope for the best ends up with rural roads contributing to as many as 60% of all road deaths.

[DT Ralge]

That is palpably false, just because of the laws of physics. A car moving at 150mph is almost four times as dangerous as a car moving at 80mph, even if its stopping distance and the driver's reactions are not affected by the speed being almost doubled - which, of course, they are. (Incidentally, what is the stopping distance at 150mph? Does anyone know offhand?)

 

Stopping distances are affected by so many factors that they are not broadly helpful. For one thing, can anyone accurately gauge 73 or 96 metres? So, if there was a table that went up to 150mph would it be useable?

One video I have is helpful in that it measures the impact speed generated by additional 10 mph's up to 100mph from driving at 70, braking hard and stopping.

So driving at 70, the driver brakes at a known point (satellite positioning and speed recording) to a stop. Road and weather surfaces excellent, zero driver reaction time, so perfect conditions.

Driving the same car at 80, 90, 100 and braking hard from this at a known point, the potential speed on impact generated by the additional speed is recorded as 38, 56 and 71 mph. Factor in driver reaction time and not so perfect road and weather conditions and the figures can only get worse. Lord knows what the equivalent potential impact speed would be from 150mph.

I am not saying "speed kills" - impact kills I.e. rapid acceleration or deceleration. Ignorance and low ability levels play a role in death, as does lack of respect for speed. I know I bang on about it but nobody should forget the 73% of m/w deaths that happen on Germany's 45% of unlimited m/w stretches, even with their better, more comprehensive driver training.

[Cyclone]

imo it should be more complex, prehaps 70 on lh lane 80 middle and 90 on the outer, lorries not allowed onto outer,

 

Now that's a truly terrible idea. It contradicts the basic rule that you stay to the left most lane, it creates a danger in changing lane and it wouldn't achieve anything positive.

A better option IMO would be variable limits like the M25 that go up as well as down. 50 is appropriate when the traffic is very heavy or when it's raining hard, but at 0400 on a summer Sunday morning maybe the limit should go up to 100 for the few drivers out at that time.