Sunday drivers. Try driving on the M40 at weekday commute times and you'll feel as though you've stopped if you travel at an indicated 70mph. Totally valid point about (lack of) lane discipline though.Charles Morgan said:
The problem is that 70 mph is already "stretching" the ability of many existing cars and drivers beyond reasonable limits. 
While the performance of many modern cars has improved in recent years in terms of handling and safety its doubtful the abilities of the average driver have? 
Ahh, the "people will just break the new limit by the same amount" argument. Which may or may not be true, of course.No it wouldn't because all the people travelling at 80mph under a 70mph limit now would be travelling at 90 mph under a 80mph limit.
While the performance of many modern cars has improved in recent years in terms of handling and safety its doubtful the abilities of the average driver have?
Ahh, the "people will just break the new limit by the same amount" argument. Which may or may not be true, of course.
What puzzles me somewhat is that UK drivers are apparently completely unsafe at speeds above 70mph (112kph) and therefore must be compelled to drive no faster than that, yet our continental cousins - driving the same vehicles - are deemed to be acceptably safe at speeds of up to 130kph (France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, etc) or 120kph (Belgium, Spain, Netherlands, etc). Perhaps its something in the water?
A few weeks ago I spent two weeks working in Richmond, VA and commuted twixt my hotel and place of work on the I64 and I95 which have the same speed limit for trucks as they do cars.
A few weeks ago I spent two weeks working in Richmond, VA and commuted twixt my hotel and place of work on the I64 and I95 which have the same speed limit for trucks as they do cars.
Putting to one side the "but what if a 40-tonne truck crashes at that speed" argument for a moment, it was a revelation just how much better the (very heavy at commute time) traffic flows when pretty much everything is travelling at 75mph rather than cars at 75mph and trucks at 55mph. The combination of no differential speed limits and being able to legally overtake on the right means many less lane change manouvres, much less braking and acceleration, and overall makes a massive difference to the flow of traffic and hence capacity of the road.
Maybe it's time to challenge the "it couldn't possibly be done here, there'd be carnage" school of thought
Yep I agree, all traffic traveling at same speed would increase throughput of any road and reduce the number of accidents. Many accidents are caused on motorways by vehicles traveling at different speeds which causes traffic to continually accelerate and brake. Also the possibilty of one sleepy driver ploughing into the back of another is vastly reduced or even eliminated.
However many lorries would be unsafe traveling at 80mph due primarily to the law of physics, they would have to be wider, lower and have more braked axles. They would also need an increased engine size in many cases, again not a 'green' thing to do in this day and age
The only other real option to reduce accidents is to reduce the speed differential ie slowing the fastest moving traffic down as opposed to increasing the speed of the slowest. This also has the benefit of meeting many other objectives such as reduced co2 emissions etc as I mentioned in a previous post.
Unpopular I know, however it would not slow the throughput of an busy motorway (as cars could travel closer together), so essentially the government would not have to build any more roads. It would only take you longer to get anywhere on roads that you can currently travel at the max speed on, ie motorways at night/ early morning.
I think one way of improving safety and throughput on a motorway is to encourage hgvs and any other vehicle forced to travel at a lower speed off the motorway in normal working hours. Easiest way to do this is to cut the VED on artics for example in half. Ie instead of charging nearly £2k for a tax disc charge say £800 in return for nighttime use only. This would not work for every lorry, but some such as those going to distribution hubs that work 24hrs a day may well benefit. It would also be very easy to remotely Police to through retrospective analysis of "tacos" that is currently done as spot checks to see if any driver has driven longer than their allotted hours. Impose a very heavy fine if a cut rate VED lorry has been found to be working in normal hours through this technique. This then would be more or less self policing, like driving more than your allotted hours now is
Every lorry off a motorway in busy times would create a space for an extra 3-4 cars, this would then lessen the urgency for certain roads to be widened or some new roads built using public money
The figures published here [ evidently a pro raised speed limits site ] perhaps shows the effects of "acceptable" speeds elsewhere? perhaps they are simply prepared to tolerate higher casualty levels.What puzzles me somewhat is that UK drivers are apparently completely unsafe at speeds above 70mph (112kph) and therefore must be compelled to drive no faster than that, yet our continental cousins - driving the same vehicles - are deemed to be acceptably safe at speeds of up to 130kph (France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, etc) or 120kph (Belgium, Spain, Netherlands, etc). Perhaps its something in the water?
It's already happening, and has been happening since 2005 when the Highways Agency plumped for the use of rigid concrete safety barriers for motorway central reserves where annual average daily traffic (AADT) exceeds 25,000 vehicles a day. Whenever existing steel barriers meet the end of their 20-year life, concrete barrier replacements are being phased in. They're also installed as part of road improvement schemes such as motorway widening.
