60mph Speed Limit on Motorways, your thoughts?

tiger stacker

Native
Dec 30, 2009
1,178
41
Glasgow
Standard these days, 35 is the 10% +2mph, so under this no problem, over this and it's £60 + 3 points and the consequences of at least another £300 over three years on your insurance premiums (rises again when/if you get another 3 points in the same time period) The course is usually half a day and costs £80. You only get to go on one course in any three year period, caught again and it's £60 + 3 points.

As pointed out 30mph was the limit, "if" I had needed to stop because of a pedestrian it was highly probable they would have been either dead or maimed as I would possibly hit them at too high a speed...

New young driver got done doing 31 on a slip road for the A90, Kirkaldy sheriff was fair with a fine and 3 points. I never got offered any course, go straight to fine payment with six points to boot :buttkick:

I noticed the A1(M) change speed limits heading north, being very careful, I stuck to the left hand lane under 60 till reached home. Cant say i noticed any saving on fuel though.
 

wingstoo

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
May 12, 2005
2,274
40
South Marches
Speed According to the Department for Transport, driving at 70mph uses up to 9% more fuel than at 60mph and up to 15% more than at 50mph. 80mph can use up to 25% more than at 70mph.

I guess it just needs looking for the info...
 

Headshed

Forager
Nov 17, 2011
172
0
Warwick
The problem with The Department for Transport testing for fuel savings, is it is exactly that, testing on test tracks not the real world. I work for a well known car manufacturer think disco, defender etc & we can produce some good results in 'test conditions'. But when you look at the fleet data logs for fuel consumption in the real world the differences are intriguing, unless you are comparing 80mph to say 50mph. For example on roads near us that were 60mph the vehicle would be in 5th at approx 2500 rpm when driving at 48mph it is in 4th and 2750 rpm, higher rpm, higher emissions and higher consumption. There are similar results for motorways to. The problem with data and stat's is that in many cases it can be interpreted in different ways. Unfortunately policy is set by Europe and politicians / civil servants, who will put a spin on it.
 

wingstoo

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
May 12, 2005
2,274
40
South Marches
If you go fast you burn fuel, if you drive faster you use more fuel (General rule)

Therefore for your given vehicle at a given speed if you increase that speed you will burn more fuel...Correct?

If you burn more fuel do you create more or less pollution?
 

Toddy

Mod
Mod
Jan 21, 2005
39,133
4,810
S. Lanarkshire
Ehm no. My fuel economy is far, far better at a constant 70mph than it is at 30. It's still better at 40, or 50 too.

I've driven thousands of miles where my fuel costs were scrutinised for work. I shan't tell you where the best results were; you've already thrown the emotional blackmail in our faces.

The longer someone drives the tireder they become. If I drive 250 miles at 50 miles an hour that takes me five hours. If I drive those same 250 miles at 70 miles an hour it takes me just over three and a half hours.
I'm a blooming sight less tired and uncomfortable at 70mph on long hauls than I am at 50mph.
Tiredness makes for poor reaction times, it also doesn't help those who fall asleep at the wheel.

Toddy
 

Andy BB

Full Member
Apr 19, 2010
3,290
3
Hampshire
Sorry, but I just don't buy the "If it saves just one life" argument/moral blackmail.

If anyone really believed that, then limit speeds to 5mph, and fatal accidents will drop by 95%.

But of course that would just be stupid, even if logically impeccable....

Remember that the 70mph limit initially was introduced as a result of a fuel crisis, and not to save lives.
 

ReamviThantos

Native
Jun 13, 2010
1,309
0
Bury St. Edmunds
What I'd like to know is why a bloke in Liverpool can still be allowed to drive with 0ver forty points on his license. Rather makes a complete mockery of the whole argument for safety.
 

789987

Settler
Aug 8, 2010
554
0
here
this forum takes things really seriously.

theres all sort of factors to consider. would you rather have a 30 y.o. in a top of the range porsche doing 80 towards you or an 80 y.o. doing 70 in a 20 year old volvo? reaction times, vehicles breaking abilities. as long as its not anything too crazy, i personally dont believe that a 20% increase on the limit is going to make too huge a difference in the majority of cases on a daily basis
 

789987

Settler
Aug 8, 2010
554
0
here
What I'd like to know is why a bloke in Liverpool can still be allowed to drive with 0ver forty points on his license. Rather makes a complete mockery of the whole argument for safety.

brucie1.jpg


points mean prizes?
 

Robmc

Nomad
Sep 14, 2013
254
0
St Neots Cambs
It's immaterial really. If they want to do it they will. But if this is to fit in with the EU to lower emissions, are we going to see the same on the autobahns?
 

Joonsy

Native
Jul 24, 2008
1,483
3
UK
I always drive at 60mph on the motorway. In the middle lane. I thought it was already the law...:)

they changed that as well, fixed penalties for middle lane hogging https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-penalties-to-tackle-tailgating-and-middle-lane-hogging its supposed to be illegal to raise revenue by fines but we all know its been happening for years, the authorities break laws themselves in making new laws by kidding us its for our own good and not just to raise money. I for one ain't fooled.
 

wingstoo

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
May 12, 2005
2,274
40
South Marches
Ehm no. My fuel economy is far, far better at a constant 70mph than it is at 30. It's still better at 40, or 50 too.

I've driven thousands of miles where my fuel costs were scrutinised for work. I shan't tell you where the best results were; you've already thrown the emotional blackmail in our faces.

The longer someone drives the tireder they become. If I drive 250 miles at 50 miles an hour that takes me five hours. If I drive those same 250 miles at 70 miles an hour it takes me just over three and a half hours.
I'm a blooming sight less tired and uncomfortable at 70mph on long hauls than I am at 50mph.
Tiredness makes for poor reaction times, it also doesn't help those who fall asleep at the wheel.

Toddy

Mary, if you drive for five hours then it is you who is wrong, you should be stopping every two hours to take a break, I do, especially on trips to Cumbria or pretty much anything over two hours, In England they put big signs on the motorways advising "Tiredness kills, Take a break" just before a service are, I wonder why they do that...Maybe to increase sales of coffee...,:confused:

On long journeys I leave early to make sure I don't have to speed, and allow time for numerous breaks to have a brew and stretch my legs, I learnt a good lesson when I fell asleep at the wheel and wrote my motor off...And that was only on a 30 mile 1 hour drive from Gloucester to home on a Saturday... Nearly killed myself, my wife and my unborn daughter...All because I didn't get to the side of the road for a break.

When I drove to Scotland last year we drove to Cumbria then took an over night break in Carlisle before starting fresh the next day...

By the way I didn't say cruising at 70mph, I said "at a given speed if you increase that speed you will burn more fuel" I use cruise control loads, and get good mpg, I take cruise of and I am up and down on the throttle more...It uses more fuel.

If you think that is emotional blackmail maybe you have yet to bury a child... I have, and whatever the cause it is something that lives with me every day and will do until I either die or lose my mind.

Personally I really don't care if there are fools on the road driving at high speeds, after all I have done it myself in the past, if you want to go kill yourselves go ahead, but try to make sure those who don't want to be involved in your death wish be involved. I have lost a few people over the years due to motoring incidents, I don't want to add to that list or become another on the list myself due to someone else's wish to get somewhere a few minutes quicker.
 

santaman2000

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Jan 15, 2011
16,909
1,120
68
Florida
If you go fast you burn fuel, if you drive faster you use more fuel (General rule)

Therefore for your given vehicle at a given speed if you increase that speed you will burn more fuel...Correct?

If you burn more fuel do you create more or less pollution?

True up to a point. You get the best milage at the speed your particular car's geared for. Generally, most cars are geared for their best milage at or around the legal speed limit.
 

wingstoo

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
May 12, 2005
2,274
40
South Marches
True up to a point. You get the best milage at the speed your particular car's geared for. Generally, most cars are geared for their best milage at or around the legal speed limit.

Yep, pretty much what I said... If you are going at "X" speed and get "Y" mileage per gallon, if you accelerate from that speed to a higher one then it burns more fuel...

It really isn't rocket science, the higher RPM required to increase speed causes you to burn more fuel...
 

santaman2000

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Jan 15, 2011
16,909
1,120
68
Florida
I'm not sure on this one. Personally I don't enjoy driving but many do. Is 60mph so bad? Many family cars will do 100mph + so do the government insist on engine governors to restrict the top speed to 60 or rely on the self control of the driver? Is it still 55 in the USA?

You can cover a lot of miles in a few hours at 60mph so upon reflection I have no issue with the restriction.

No. It was raised in most states a while back. To be honest, there was never a national speed limit (each individual state sets there own) However in the 1970s the federal government pressured all the states (by threatening to with-hold highway funds) into lowering their speed limits to 55. At least one western state refused outright IIRC and maintained their own highways without benefit of federal funding. Another complied but in a very obscure manner; any speed between 55 and 70 was cause for a ticket, but not for speeding. Rather the driver would have been ticketed for "waste of energy" and fined $5 with no points deducted.
 

santaman2000

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Jan 15, 2011
16,909
1,120
68
Florida
No. It was raised in most states a while back. To be honest, there was never a national speed limit (each individual state sets there own) However in the 1970s the federal government pressured all the states (by threatening to with-hold highway funds) into lowering their speed limits to 55. At least one western state refused outright IIRC and maintained their own highways without benefit of federal funding. Another complied but in a very obscure manner; any speed between 55 and 70 was cause for a ticket, but not for speeding. Rather the driver would have been ticketed for "waste of energy" and fined $5 with no points deducted.

If the UK is being forced to lower the speed limit to comply with EU regulations, then something like the latter idea might be an option.
 

woodstock

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Apr 7, 2007
3,568
68
68
off grid somewhere else
There was talk last year about installing software in cars that can monitor your driving trends, this was supposedly to make drivers drive more responsibly and lower their insurance premiums, the 60 limit I think is the start of the private motorways with unregulated speed limits.
 

wingstoo

Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
May 12, 2005
2,274
40
South Marches
I often wonder why people who drive (all of us, me included at times) feel that it is ok to break the law, often on a daily basis, it might only be a little bit, but we tend to get very indignant when caught get fined and have to pay a penalty...

Now if someone does a little bit of shoplifting every day for a year or something similar we all get up in arms about it if they go to court and get a slap on the wrist punishment...

Both things are breaking the law.

If they lower the speed limit by statute, we by law all have to stick with it or suffer the consequences if we get caught, it isn't because we are a police state, it is because the police are doing their job, simple as that.

I know what I am trying to say, but no doubt it will be turned over by someone... C'est la vie.
 

John Fenna

Lifetime Member & Maker
Oct 7, 2006
23,306
3,089
67
Pembrokeshire
The strange thing is... this country is a "democracy" and therefor the "government" is doing the "will of the people" so it is the general public that is, in effect, making all the running.
Going against the rulings of the government is therefor going against the will of the people - ie you are being a selfish, inconsiderate, anti-social hoodlum.
If you don't like the way that the incumbent government is handling things you have the right to vote them out and vote in folk who will do what you do want to see happen.
If you break the laws set in place by the will of he people then you deserve the punishment that the will of the people has determined is appropriate.
I hope this is not seen as "politics" - I am just trying to illuminate the system....
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE