Fast driving on public roads

[SnailyBoy]

Yes and probably.

 

It's obviously more complicated than that but I'd like to give you a head start for your apoplectic reply.

 

So you're travelling at 100mph in a flow of traffic doing the same speed, give or take a couple of MPH.

 

What sort of distance would you need between you and the car in front to cover yourself should the traffic came to a sudden stop?

 

Obviously you may have ceramic brakes, but then again you've got to hope that the guy behind also has them, and so on.

[alchresearch]

100 in the outside lane, 80 in the rest, HGV's and learners limited to 70. How's that?

 

A HGV at 70mph? Have a look at the damage a HGV can cause when limited to 56 mph:

 

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/shocking-footage-shows-moment-lorry-10535522

[Cyclone]

Some struggle to manage to reach 56 on a slight incline. So imagine the amount of over taking that would be going on at 56, 58, 60, 62. As each slightly more powerful HGV tried to maintain it's speed.

A limited speed that most can maintain helps to reduce congestion caused by slow vehicles all overtaking each other with small differentials in speed.

 

Learners of course are not allowed on the motorway at all.

 

---------- Post added 26-02-2016 at 09:56 ----------

 

So you're travelling at 100mph in a flow of traffic doing the same speed, give or take a couple of MPH.

 

What sort of distance would you need between you and the car in front to cover yourself should the traffic came to a sudden stop?

 

Obviously you may have ceramic brakes, but then again you've got to hope that the guy behind also has them, and so on.

 

It's not the full stopping distance for that speed, that's for sure.

 

I'd prefer variable limits. There are times on the motorway (fewer and fewer these days) when you can drive for several miles without even seeing another vehicle. Doing so at 100mph would be just as safe as at 70. (Or for the pedantic, the small increase in risk is acceptable to me).

[Eric Arthur]

The concept of a speed limit seems to be whooshing over a few heads.

 

I'd prefer variable limits.

 

Me also.

[Eater Sundae]

The concept of a speed limit seems to be whooshing over a few heads.

 

 

 

Me also.

 

And me. I just hope they are used sensibly to reduce congestion and to help manage incidents, and not as a default control just to slow traffic even though there's not a real reason.

 

Something I've not thought about before. I presume that a lower speed limit (or lane closure) is put on the gantries manually when there is an accident or breakdown in one or more of the lanes. What about congestion? Is it still a manual decision to reduce the speed limit, or are the cameras used to automatically monitor and record the number of vehicles using the road and use an algorithm to determine when to lower and raise the speed limits? Does anyone know?

[Cyclone]

To be clear, I meant limits that vary UP as well as down.

 

No idea whether it's automated or not, probably should be though.

[Eater Sundae]

To be clear, I meant limits that vary UP as well as down.

 

No idea whether it's automated or not, probably should be though.

 

In effect, we are talking about motorways at present, as far as variable speeds are concerned (the only other areas where I've heard mention of variable speeds is in the case of 20 limits outside schools at particular times of day). I don't know of any other trunk type roads with variable speed limits (but there may be some for all I know).

 

In the case of motorways, I agree that it should be up as well. Maybe 80 would be acceptable. I'm not in favour of the German system of some "no limit" areas, mainly because it is likely to attract too many people with more money than sense who would feel the need to use it as a test facility (instead of using their money to take part in track days).

 

I don't know how much of a lobby there is in favour of increasing beyond the current 70, but I doubt it would ever happen. It would need a clear cost/benefit analysis and I cannot imagine that any measurable "cost" in terms of an increase in deaths or serious injury would ever be seen as acceptable.

 

Changes seem to be one way only.

[RonJeremy]

In effect, we are talking about motorways at present, as far as variable speeds are concerned (the only other areas where I've heard mention of variable speeds is in the case of 20 limits outside schools at particular times of day). I don't know of any other trunk type roads with variable speed limits (but there may be some for all I know).

 

In the case of motorways, I agree that it should be up as well. Maybe 80 would be acceptable. I'm not in favour of the German system of some "no limit" areas, mainly because it is likely to attract too many people with more money than sense who would feel the need to use it as a test facility (instead of using their money to take part in track days).

 

I don't know how much of a lobby there is in favour of increasing beyond the current 70, but I doubt it would ever happen. It would need a clear cost/benefit analysis and I cannot imagine that any measurable "cost" in terms of an increase in deaths or serious injury would ever be seen as acceptable.

 

Changes seem to be one way only.

 

They thought about increasing it to 80, but it was generally accepted that most people who can drive and regularly use the motorways were doing 85 anyway, without any interference from the police for speed alone. Obviously if they were driving stupidly, carelessly, recklessly or sitting in a lane being a numpty, holding up the traffic unnecessarily they would be spoken to at the least.

I don't see a need for change.

 

 

The reason the 70 limit was brought in IIRC was following one of the oil shocks in the 70's to reduce fuel consumption. It wasnt about some sort of "think of the children" safety stuff.

[Justin Smith]

The BBC are saying today that over 4000 people were caught driving at more than 100 mph on public roads.

 

I don't think that is that especially fast these days, but I'm not sure how many people can drive quickly safely either.

 

---------- Post added 25-02-2016 at 08:31 ----------

 

I forgot to add a poll. I will try to do it again. Sorry.

 

I thought it was "only" 2000 caught doing over 100mph, in a whole year.

I say only because it just proves they aren`t very good at catching speeding motorists if only 2000 were caught in a whole year. It`s common to see drivers doing that sort of speed.

 

I don`t know whether anyone heard the article on Radio 5 yesterday morning about speeding. I couldn`t help laughing. A guy on there "ANDY" was saying he "only ever does high speeds when there`s no other cars on the road". He then admitted he got stopped (but not prosecuted, incredibly) by the police when he was doing 110mph. But if he got stopped by a Police car he was not the only car on the road was he ? He didn`t seem to realise he was contradicting himself, plus admitting he couldn`t have been concentrating as well as these speeders seem to think they do, getting stopped by a police car........

[Eater Sundae]

They thought about increasing it to 80, but it was generally accepted that most people who can drive and regularly use the motorways were doing 85 anyway, without any interference from the police for speed alone. Obviously if they were driving stupidly, carelessly, recklessly or sitting in a lane being a numpty, holding up the traffic unnecessarily they would be spoken to at the least.

I don't see a need for change.

 

 

The reason the 70 limit was brought in IIRC was following one of the oil shocks in the 70's to reduce fuel consumption. It wasnt about some sort of "think of the children" safety stuff.

 

I thought it was earlier than that, by Barbara Castle in the Wilson government, in the 60s, and it was as a safety measure. The oil crisis speed reduction in the 70s was just a temporary measure, before reverting back to 70 for the basic NSL