60mph Speed Limit on Motorways, your thoughts?
- Thread starter SJStuart
- Start date
You said "I don't care in the in slightest" without following that up with any rationale. That's not an "opinion" that's a dismissive statement.
I wouldn't go into someone's thread where they were showing something they'd made or were talking about something they've done and post "I don't care in the slightest" with nothing to convey context... it's plain rude.
If that wasn't your intent, fair enough, and we can leave it at that... but I'm not going to retract my response because, as I say, I fairly interpreted your initial statement as attempting to bait a pointless argument (derailing the thread in so doing).
As I said before, it's not personal, it's pragmatic.
Conversation is just that; provocation is another.
On the speed limit thing; no I'm not a fan of lowering the limits.
On the whole the motorways move traffic along at a good lick, only in the suburbs do they become ensnarled, and there the sheer volume of traffic limits the speed.
To be honest I think a raise to 80 on open motorways would not be unreasonable. I have often driven on completely empty three lane motorways and thought as I tootled along at 70 that this was beyond stupid. The road's good, the conditions are fair, I'm wide awake, the car's sound, what am I doing toddling along at 70 on an empty road for the next 50miles or so ?
I hope the lower limit suggestion never comes to fruition.
Mary
On the speed limit thing; no I'm not a fan of lowering the limits.
On the whole the motorways move traffic along at a good lick, only in the suburbs do they become ensnarled, and there the sheer volume of traffic limits the speed.
To be honest I think a raise to 80 on open motorways would not be unreasonable. I have often driven on completely empty three lane motorways and thought as I tootled along at 70 that this was beyond stupid. The road's good, the conditions are fair, I'm wide awake, the car's sound, what am I doing toddling along at 70 on an empty road for the next 50miles or so ?
I hope the lower limit suggestion never comes to fruition.
Mary
It does not worry me.
I hate motorway driving and I hate the way other road users drive stupidly fast on them (a 70 limit seems to be ignored) and idiots driving badly at high speed has been the reason for multiple vehicle accidents that have caused 25% of the trips I have taken on motorways in the past 12 months to have included stationary waits of up to 1 hour while the emergency services have sorted out and cleared the accident.
If lowering the speed limit makes the motorway safer by reducing the speed that people actually drive at, and therefor reduces the amount of time that people spend going nowhere on the motorway - in effect speeding up journey times - then all to the good. If it saves even just one life - then even better. If people get fined and banned for breaking the speed limit then the governments debts may get paid off faster and irresponsible drivers removed from the road, reducing accidents and speeding up the flow of traffic.
If it puts more goods on the railway - excellent!
If it stops un-needed journeys - good!
If it makes manufacturers think of making safer rather than faster cars - good.
If it has no effect on safety then at least making all the new signs will keep a sign maker employed for a while...
I hate motorway driving and I hate the way other road users drive stupidly fast on them (a 70 limit seems to be ignored) and idiots driving badly at high speed has been the reason for multiple vehicle accidents that have caused 25% of the trips I have taken on motorways in the past 12 months to have included stationary waits of up to 1 hour while the emergency services have sorted out and cleared the accident.
If lowering the speed limit makes the motorway safer by reducing the speed that people actually drive at, and therefor reduces the amount of time that people spend going nowhere on the motorway - in effect speeding up journey times - then all to the good. If it saves even just one life - then even better. If people get fined and banned for breaking the speed limit then the governments debts may get paid off faster and irresponsible drivers removed from the road, reducing accidents and speeding up the flow of traffic.
If it puts more goods on the railway - excellent!
If it stops un-needed journeys - good!
If it makes manufacturers think of making safer rather than faster cars - good.
If it has no effect on safety then at least making all the new signs will keep a sign maker employed for a while...
Appears to have been a simple misunderstanding... I know I'm not going to take it personally (what happens online, stays online as far as I'm concerned) and I hope Ozzy can see how others could misinterpret his initial post in the way I apparently have. 'Nuff said, I reckon.
Likewise... and especially on the toll roads at stupid-o-clock in the morning. Nothing traveling in either direction, 6 empty lanes (3 of which are accessible to me), no hazards between junctions... why must I sit at 70? Also, who else but myself would be at risk in those circumstances other than myself anyway?
During peak hours, limits can make sense... but then those who are going to cause accidents will disobey the limits even when their application is logical anyway. Outside of those peak times, when the roads are largely empty (I've traveled the entire M1 southbound from its junction with the M60 outside Manchester and just north of Derby where it becomes the A1, and encountered no traffic headed in my direction at all sometimes) these limits in good conditions just seem silly.
Last edited:
I agree with you Mary.
I'm desperately trying to not blow my top and rant on about a nanny state and imposed EU directives passed off as "Green" measures when we all know its another stealth tax! I do a lot of Motorway driving and I know that stretch of road very well (years of driving coaches up and down the M1) and I can see no benefit from reducing the speed to 60mph other than imposing fines on motorists.
If they are going to go down that route then they have to raise the limits on the long stretches between junctions to allow for progress. It works in Europe so why not here? OK maybe the state of our roads doesn't allow for unrestricted speeds but on a 3 lane motorway you can easily allow for 80mph.
That's all I'm going to say as I can feel my tension rising already.
I'm desperately trying to not blow my top and rant on about a nanny state and imposed EU directives passed off as "Green" measures when we all know its another stealth tax! I do a lot of Motorway driving and I know that stretch of road very well (years of driving coaches up and down the M1) and I can see no benefit from reducing the speed to 60mph other than imposing fines on motorists.
If they are going to go down that route then they have to raise the limits on the long stretches between junctions to allow for progress. It works in Europe so why not here? OK maybe the state of our roads doesn't allow for unrestricted speeds but on a 3 lane motorway you can easily allow for 80mph.
That's all I'm going to say as I can feel my tension rising already.
There's demonstrable proof that there are more accidents on 60mph stretches of road - per equivalent mile and equivalent volume of traffic - than there are on 70mph roads, studies of which have shown are related mostly to fatigue from spending more time operating a vehicle.
Now imagine that on the entirety of the UK's motorway network, with 3 lanes, sometimes complex junctions, "crowd-stress" from large numbers of other drivers also experiencing fatigue from spending longer behind the wheel... more accidents and more road rage ahead, that's for sure!
I just want to also point out that I'm no "speed freak". There are roads I travel regularly where they've set the speed to national when it really should be reduced to 50 (or even 40 in some places)... and I complain about those just as much as roads where the limits are set too low.
Basically, I complain whenever I'm on a road where the limit doesn't properly reflect the level of hazard said road represents.
Fact: the more time you spend behind the wheel, the more fatigued you will become
Fact: the more fatigued you become, the more likely you are to have an accident (the more likely that an accident will involve other road users, and the more likely that an accident is to be serious and/or fatal)
Fact: lower speed limits will not only make travel times longer with the same volume of traffic, but will cause the volume of traffic using a stretch of road at any one time to increase significantly.
Fact: higher traffic volume means greater delays, greater fatigue for drivers, and more accidents.
Fact: higher traffic volume combined with lower speed limits thus longer travel times means more pollution.
A simple examination of the facts utterly destroys any environmental and safety excuses the government makes. The only remaining reason is revenue from speed trapping... which is precisely why they're doing this.
Now imagine that on the entirety of the UK's motorway network, with 3 lanes, sometimes complex junctions, "crowd-stress" from large numbers of other drivers also experiencing fatigue from spending longer behind the wheel... more accidents and more road rage ahead, that's for sure!
I just want to also point out that I'm no "speed freak". There are roads I travel regularly where they've set the speed to national when it really should be reduced to 50 (or even 40 in some places)... and I complain about those just as much as roads where the limits are set too low.
Basically, I complain whenever I'm on a road where the limit doesn't properly reflect the level of hazard said road represents.
Fact: the more time you spend behind the wheel, the more fatigued you will become
Fact: the more fatigued you become, the more likely you are to have an accident (the more likely that an accident will involve other road users, and the more likely that an accident is to be serious and/or fatal)
Fact: lower speed limits will not only make travel times longer with the same volume of traffic, but will cause the volume of traffic using a stretch of road at any one time to increase significantly.
Fact: higher traffic volume means greater delays, greater fatigue for drivers, and more accidents.
Fact: higher traffic volume combined with lower speed limits thus longer travel times means more pollution.
A simple examination of the facts utterly destroys any environmental and safety excuses the government makes. The only remaining reason is revenue from speed trapping... which is precisely why they're doing this.
have you tried breathing exercises to calm yourself down?!!!
i hear what youre saying, but assuming you were driving at 70mph the reduction to 60mph factoring in the 10% speedo error thing means you can drive at 66mph which is only a loss of 4mph.
now if you were driving at 77mph then its more noticeable!
also i was told that if you changed lanes average speed cameras lose track of you.
i hear what youre saying, but assuming you were driving at 70mph the reduction to 60mph factoring in the 10% speedo error thing means you can drive at 66mph which is only a loss of 4mph.
now if you were driving at 77mph then its more noticeable!
also i was told that if you changed lanes average speed cameras lose track of you.
I'm a motorcyclist so average speed cameras don't directly affect me... though of course I could never publicly advocate attempting to violate speed limits (even when they're absurdly unbefitting the conditions of the road)
The 10% speedo thing doesn't work out, though, because if your speedo were high by 10% (so instead of 70 as indicated, you were doing 77) then the relative drop in your actual speed when indicated at 60mph (actual 66) is 11mph... so in fact in that scenario you'd be losing 1mph more.
If your speedo were low by 10%, you'd be actually doing 63mph in a 70 zone with your gauge reading 70, and 54mph when it changes down to 60mph with your gauge reading 60... still losing 16mph.
every way you turn they've got you eh?!
well as an alternative - and this really worked for me - buy a 4x4 and then you'll be happy to toddle along at relaxed speeds just due to the improved mpg! the number of times i saw myself going for the breaks when i saw a speed trap only to find i was under the limit was amazing!
well as an alternative - and this really worked for me - buy a 4x4 and then you'll be happy to toddle along at relaxed speeds just due to the improved mpg! the number of times i saw myself going for the breaks when i saw a speed trap only to find i was under the limit was amazing!
resnikov
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Thought it was an urban myth about the avg speed cameras and changing lanes.
Also the problem with reducing the speed limits is you will get the numptys who drive in the middle or outside line at the speed limit -10 mph still doing this, thus slowing the traffic down even more.
If you cannot drive or do not feel safe driving at the speed limit then you should not be driving and are a danger to all other road users.
Also the problem with reducing the speed limits is you will get the numptys who drive in the middle or outside line at the speed limit -10 mph still doing this, thus slowing the traffic down even more.
If you cannot drive or do not feel safe driving at the speed limit then you should not be driving and are a danger to all other road users.
Only ever had one ticket, and that was because they covered the 30mph signs with the boughs of trees, then hid behind a bush on a down-hill slope at the apex of a bend, sniping people with the gatcam just as they were having to accelerate through the bend on what we all rightfully believed was a national speed limit country road.
What's worse: they got away with it, and claimed penalties from 67 people before me on that same day! Lowestoft Police really do rake it in by illegally hiding those gat cams!
EDIT: Pointer for anyone entering their jurisdiction - they deploy more cops with handheld gatcams to illegally hide on sections of road where they can't legally use a gatcam on Bank Holidays, when they can screw money out of the highest number of non-locals. Be aware of that!
Last edited:
I find the same thing with a clapped out Pug van!
Motorway speed limits tend to be aspirational for me rather than something to slow down for! Life is spent in the slow lane and I only get into the outside lane on 2 lane motorways...
So far I have never had a speed ticket (or any ticket) and I started driving/riding a motorcycle 40 years ago...
dunno - it was an ex policeman that told me. never felt like risking it though!!
they need a laser tag system for cars - costs a tenner to "shoot" someone and if enough people "shoot" an individual they get an independent assessment of their driving skills. its the way of the future!
I had a similar idea but a rep system +1 or -1 and you can only shoot the same vehicle once. It could count towards your insurance premium.
It is a myth. Speed equals the distance traveled divided by the difference in time between Point A and Point B. They identify your vehicle using reg plate recognition, so no matter which lane you're in... they got you.
That said, I don't actually know anyone who's been ticked from an average speed check zone.
resnikov
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECS_(speed_camera) wiki says no
I like that idea, can i have mine to look like twin .50 cal? :AR15firin:AR15firin
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-410539/Drivers-avoid-speeding-tickets--changing-lanes.html
[h=1]Drivers can avoid speeding tickets...by changing lanes[/h]A massive flaw in a new generation of speed cameras means motorists can avoid fines and points on their licence simply by changing lanes.
The Home Office admitted last night that drivers can avoid being caught the by hi-tech 'SPECS' cameras which calculate a car's average speed over a long distance.
The astonishing loophole means that millions of speeding drivers around Britain could escape a £60 fine and three points on their licence.
The hidden blind-spot - revealed today by the Daily Mail - raises questions about the supposedly foolproof hi-tech camera system which is increasingly used on Britain's roads.
Ah... reading the article shows that it's a legal loophole (that the driver must be in the same lane on both camera's footage) rather than a technological one.
The whole system of average speed cameras is flawed anyway, as traffic joining between cameras on a slipway can often require vehicles in the left-hand lane to speed up to accommodate them (depending on the actions of the drivers around them). If you're usually averaging spot-on the limit, then these moments of necessary acceleration will put you over the top, thus a ticket despite the legal precedent of "necessity" (or "mitigating circumstances" as it's defined on the notice)
That's the joy of cruise control. I set it at 50 in the average areas, and 90 the rest of the time. Works for me.
