• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

80mph speed limits, Pah

Changing the system so that the punishments do not have a default points penalty and merely a financial cost makes more sense.

Keep points available and optional for the less safe behaviour when conditions are unfavourable. That way those that can afford a big fine are also those more likely to have a suitable car and it will always be a legally wise option to travel slowly.
 
I believe Russia has a more "laisez faire" policy as far as driving offences are concerned. It would appear that over there that if you drive a big/powerful enough car- are rich- and well connected politically - or a criminal ---you can drive how you like. Its motoring freedom Jim----- but not as we know it.
 
I can't actually see any argument really getting anywhere, there are far too many crying 'it'll be carnage', 'think of the children' and other such ill-informed nonsense whenever something gets suggested that they don't like.



This seems to annoy everybody (except perhaps those that do it - presumably they don't mind it when they get a taste of their own medicine?). Personally I'm not convinced that there is anything wrong with undertaking - it works very well in other countries. Though admittedly in most countries drivers probably are much more observant of their surroundings than most UK drivers.

If a sporty Corsa can travel at over 130 mph...does that mean all Corsas are inherently safe up to that speed. And what do you mean safe? Safe to travel at speed? Or safe in the event of an accident at that speed.

I also suspect that a modern Corsa fresh off the line, will be a far safer vehicle than your W202. I also suspect that you w202 is better engineered than the current w204...doesn't make it safer than the new car. Are German cars still the best engineered?
 
Last edited:
I believe Russia has a more "laisez faire" policy as far as driving offences are concerned. It would appear that over there that if you drive a big/powerful enough car- are rich- and well connected politically - or a criminal ---you can drive how you like. Its motoring freedom Jim----- but not as we know it.

There's another thread on driving in Russia: http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/gene...never-go-driving-russia.html?highlight=russia

Let's keep this one on-topic - about whether a 100mph NSL in the UK is sustainable.
 
Short answer...no.

At 70 the average is probably 80. If the limit is 100...many will travel at above 110.

Longer answer (by five letters): depends.

When I travel between London and Oxford it can usually be achieved at 100mph for at least a third of the distance, sometimes as much as half. Even at that speed, you will often be overtaken by those with only a passing interest in keeping their licences...
 
If a sporty Corsa can travel at over 130 mph...does that mean all Corsas are inherently safe up to that speed. And what do you mean safe? Safe to travel at speed? Or safe in the event of an accident at that speed.

I also suspect that a modern Corsa fresh off the line, will be a far safer vehicle than your W202. I also suspect that you w202 is better engineered than the current w204...doesn't make it safer than the new car. Are German cars still the best engineered?


I don't think that generally any car is safe to travel at it's maximum speed (I'm referring to the speed that the chassis/suspension is designed for, if the engine in that particular car doesn't take it to those speeds it doesn't mean the car isn't designed for it), but it's safe limit is somewhere under it. Take a car designed to achieve 180, it will be safer at 100 than a car designed for 120. That's both in a crash and travelling at that speed.

German cars, Mercedes more so, have been the best engineered for decades, and while other manufacturers are catching up there is still a gap. They are designed to handle safely at higher speeds than most cars can even achieve.
I'm not saying they are the only cars capable of being driven safely at speed, but certainly within about the last 20 years I think all their cars can handle any speed that could be implemented on the motorway system (in the right conditions obviously). They are a good example of a safe car for speed, Corsa's/Micra's/Fiesta's/Peugeots etc generally being the other end of the scale.
 
I don't think that generally any car is safe to travel at it's maximum speed (I'm referring to the speed that the chassis/suspension is designed for, if the engine in that particular car doesn't take it to those speeds it doesn't mean the car isn't designed for it), but it's safe limit is somewhere under it. Take a car designed to achieve 180, it will be safer at 100 than a car designed for 120. That's both in a crash and travelling at that speed.

German cars, Mercedes more so, have been the best engineered for decades, and while other manufacturers are catching up there is still a gap. They are designed to handle safely at higher speeds than most cars can even achieve.
I'm not saying they are the only cars capable of being driven safely at speed, but certainly within about the last 20 years I think all their cars can handle any speed that could be implemented on the motorway system (in the right conditions obviously). They are a good example of a safe car for speed, Corsa's/Micra's/Fiesta's/Peugeots etc generally being the other end of the scale.

The general consensus is that German cars, particularly MB are not what they used to be. Many on here and elsewhere believe that the W124 was the last great engineering exercise from MB...and that the subsequent E classes are but a pale reflection of that car.

The Euro Ncap rates the present Corsa as 5 star. The present C class is also 5 star. This does suggest the Corsa would be better than a W202, or W210. Edit...w202 is a 2 star.
 
Last edited:
Not so sure....

A defective tyre that would blow out at 70mph will not make it to 100 mph.

A defective tyre that can sustain 70mph might not blow out but the extra heat generated at 100mph might cause the defect to blow out the tyre.

Ergo, 70mph is a safer speed and less people will be affected by blowouts due to defects.
 
What's more 'dangerous' out of these two;

Driving 30mph under the NSL on a motorway.

Or

Driving 30mph over the NSL on a motorway.

It'd be interesting to hear people's views.
 
A defective tyre that would blow out at 70mph will not make it to 100 mph.

A defective tyre that can sustain 70mph might not blow out but the extra heat generated at 100mph might cause the defect to blow out the tyre.

Ergo, 70mph is a safer speed and less people will be affected by blowouts due to defects.

Which is why you should check you tyres before every journey. Having had a blow out at 100mph on the M1 in w204 I can honestly say that if you allow the vehicle to coast, do not make sudden movements and only use the brakes once below 20mph on the hard shoulder there was little drama. Blowouts kill idiots. They do not kill experienced, competent drivers.
 
What's more 'dangerous' out of these two;

Driving 30mph under the NSL on a motorway.

Or

Driving 30mph over the NSL on a motorway.

It'd be interesting to hear people's views.

Both might be considered as dangerous. But the results of an accident concerning one car travelling at 70 and the other at 100...might be greater than if they were 70 and 40 respectively.

It will produce great debate...but we wont know the real answer.
 
To add to this... the most amusing aspect of the blowout was watching Leicestershire plod nearly burn his fingers after he rolled up 10 mins after the incident and tried to help me take the wheel off despite my protests that it was too hot to touch.... :)
 
What's more 'dangerous' out of these two;

Driving 30mph under the NSL on a motorway.

Or

Driving 30mph over the NSL on a motorway.

It'd be interesting to hear people's views.

Impossible to say definitively - the prevailing conditions would determine which was the more hazardous.
 
Both might be considered as dangerous. But the results of an accident concerning one car travelling at 70 and the other at 100...might be greater than if they were 70 and 40 respectively.

It will produce great debate...but we wont know the real answer.

I would say under the speed limit was more likely to cause an accident as a higher percentage of traffic will have to avoid / take action due to the slow moving obstruction.
 
I would say under the speed limit was more likely to cause an accident as a higher percentage of traffic will have to avoid / take action due to the slow moving obstruction.

I would agree if the vehicle doing 40 was in any lane except the most far left. But what about the severity of the accident?
 
I would agree if the vehicle doing 40 was in any lane except the most far left. But what about the severity of the accident?


largely depends on concentration... the drive at 100mph is more likely to be paying attention than the gimmer doing 40 in a Yaris/Jazz/Maestro :) You can't defy the laws of physics.... does many you wonder... equally it is difficult to quantify - a C63 travelling at 100 would reach 70 or 50 mph faster than a 10yr old shopping hatch on ditch finders would get from 70 to 50 I suspect.

Reaction times, braking efficiency / application can be more of a factor that actual speed. My dad did a lot of work with TRRL in the 70's / 80's and a lot of their speed research is suppressed by the likes of Brake! even now.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom