Increase Speed Limits - Online Petition

[219]

Some statistics _____ see Excell spreadsheet VEHO211 Licensed cars by years since first registration, Great Britain, annually from 1994 and back to 1970m quite revealing. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/veh02-licensed-cars#table-veh0207 While there has of course been a great expansion in the road system during this time it was also accompanied by a diminution in the railway network thanks to one Dr Beeching losing some 6,000 miles of rail network in the 60's.
Personally I would like to see a far less punitive approach taken towards the motorist in terms of adherence to speed limits whatever they are. While the " enforcers" have doppler shift radar guns, average speed cameras and Gatsos in their panoply of "armaments" the poor motorist is often left with a speedo costing £5 and their wits to avoid breaking the law. The result being that despite their best intentions motorists often find themselves falling foul of the law. Time car manufacturers were forced by legislation to incorporate technology into their cars to help their owners to be law abiding citizens. With satellite navigation and cruise control the technology already exists such that no one should be a law breaker if they don't want to be.

ps while this may seem restrictive at first glance its widespread adoption with features such as inter vehicle distance radar devices and lane monitoring might be the way to increase vehicle average speeds safely in the future-- but the key is universality and infrastructure it can't just in a small number of high end vehicles as it is at present.

Even the most basic TomTom can be set to give audible/visible warning of limits being exceeded , depending , of course , on the accuracy of its database . This can help drivers to focus more on the road and less on watching a needle on a dial .

 

[MoAMG]

What an astonishing set of counterarguments making this case. A mixture of cherry picked quotes, facts and figures, self-serving, selective, a farrago of distortions, misrepresentations, misinterpretations and misquotations.

I will attempt to address some of your most animated concerns below:

The limits are fine as they are now, as long as we keep the same low level of speed enforcement by the Police and cameras that we currently have.

I usually drive at the speed that feels right to me rather than rigidly sticking to the official speed limits.

The chances of being caught speeding are currently very low, but if speed limits were to increase, then I expect the level of enforcement to increase at the same time.

Valid point, albeit I believe the government simply do not have the resources to increase enforcement any further. So I believe this argument will have no bearing on this petition.

I have been driving for 40 years,the limits are now learnt.I believe there are too
many vehicles on the road today to even contemplate increasing the speed limit.

And this is where the issue truly lies. We as a nation are afraid of change. Even if this change is for the better.

Actually there has been studies on this. Most Collision Investigators have the books containing this research so you could contact your nearest traffic police collision unit.

As an aside, you have defeated your own argument by saying "We all know, virtually everyone exceeds the speed limit. It's just one of those facts of life." By extension, no matter how high the limit is set, there would always be a significant number who would exceed it because we are all driving gods…in our own minds.

Then those people should not have a licence. But if we were to set a realistic speed limit on our roads, I do not see why anyone would want to speed. Ask yourself this, why is the government so reluctant to revise this legislation? Perhaps it is their little money maker on the side?

I've no objection to a raise in speed limits, however, I do object to sloppily presented petitions.

BTW I only own 1 oilburner alongside 2 petrol cars, a petrol lawnmower and a petrol chainsaw.

I have a day job. If you wish to invest more time on this topic, be my guest. I, on the other hand, will not carry out the government's job on their behalf. If our government wasn't so incompetent, we would not be in this situation in the first place. To think that a 'trial' law from the 60s is something that we are obliged to abide by in 2015, is quite simply beyond me.

What an absolute load of rubbish. As Dryce has already told you. Its BASIC physics, really really really basic. Did I mention that it was basic?

I also have a Bsc (Bronze swimming certificate)

By the way, have you seen those new fangled flying machines? That'll never catch on.

I am happy to concede the argument on emissions as, admittedly, I am no expert in the field; however, it would not be the first EU legislation that the UK does not adopt. Take the EU Money Laundering directives as a prime example...

Giantvanman also drives Petrol and diesel Mb's btw

There is absolutely no need for sarcasm.

With respect, I fear you have drawn some wrong conclusions.

To cover this fully would take a lot of space and would bore the pants of most so here is a summary of my thoughts and such:-

The advances in vehicle safety take no account whatsoever in something that has not changed at all over the years, namely reaction time. This is made up of seeing a problem, identifying it as a problem, deciding to take action and taking that action. In other words, reaction time has not decreased in parallel with vehicle advance, it has stayed the same.
This wrong correlation or thinking is not helped when morons like the TG crew do such things like that braking test whilst in Australia. In case you missed it, it was a braking test and not a reaction test because the position in space and time when the brakes would be applied was known and marked by a start line and bollards, just like every accident is! They were pr1cks for doing that antic on national TV.

In planning a road, the Traffic Management people expect that the majority of drivers will exceed the posted limit by about 10mph on average. That is why many roads seem to have an unrealistically low limit.

Every person has a degree of risk they are willing to accept and the level varies from person to person and from day to day or more accurately, by mood/feelings/emotions. What this means is that, as cars became gradually safer, some unconsciously seek to meet their inbuilt risk level and start to drive faster or more closely or corner harder etc etc.

This is called the Risk Compensating Factor and it is relevant in combination with the above paragraphs/ speed limits and vehicle safety. People don't stick to limits for many reasons…there has been lots of rationale spouted over the years about why an individual should not be so tightly constrained BUT this makes no sense for this reason; this thinking takes no account of the less able drivers on the road or all the other carriageway users from pedestrian downwards.
In other words, do we really think everyone is capable and if they are not, will they will exercise restraint from speeding in the new higher limit? Why would they when they don't do it now?


There is a great deal more to the science behind all of this which is worth investigating if you want informed decision making. Safer cars have lead to fewer deaths on the road in THIS country so why negate that net gain by increasing the velocity with which they travel which in turn will neutralise the gains made?

OP, have you even looked at the casualty figures in Germany and compared them with ours? As I said at the beginning, I respectfully suggest that you have reached some misguided and short-sighted conclusions.

This is well constructed response. However, have you given any thought to what our speed limit should be? If 70, why?

On the contrary, your departing statement is largely flawed. Driving standards around the world are not solely dependent on speed limits. Their are so many other variables involved here; weather, quality of MOT (equivalent), driving test standards, road surface quality, etc.

No , it's just that most of us have difficulty in tolerating arrogance and nonsensical bluster borne out of ignorance and an inability to comprehend what everyone else is saying .

You are talking AT people instead of talking WITH them .

No, this was never intentional. I do not accept your assertions here. However, you need to appreciate that being hounded from all angles is not my favorite past-time.

No , they don't .

Please establish facts before blustering assumptions .

Ok, here are some facts for your kind consideration:

1. 500,000 speeding convictions were dished out last year alone
2. The Alliance of British Drivers (ABD) have stated that speed limits across the UK have been reduced to such a level that most drivers will "inevitably" get caught speeding as people are starting to lose respect for the unrealistic limits
3. Official police data obtained by an FOI request reveals that speeding offences last year increased by 43% compared with 2010
4. A third of those offenders go on to reoffend and are convicted again

The laws of physics haven't changed , so the points made remain relevant .

If no increase is agreed - so be it .

I agree. This is not a decision for us to make. I am merely bringing this matter to the government/media's attention.

I've just driven about 100 miles home from Galashiels on A roads , through villages with 30 mph limits , up the M74 then along the M8 ( 70 limits in places and 50's at points ) through Glasgow city centre , and down the A737 to my home at all times keeping to the limits .

Out of the hundreds , if not thousands , of other vehicles I encountered on my journey , only a handful were speeding , and a good many were driving below the limits .

I drove around 50 miles around the M25 over the bank holiday weekend and everyone I encountered was speeding.

Your point is interesting though, as I too have noticed that people who live in rural areas (the further you are from London, the better), tend to follow speed limits more religiously than people who live around the first 100 miles of the M1.

What you claimed to be a fact , is quite clearly false .

Fact is , the vast majority of motorists are compliant with speed limits and only a tiny minority speed : I drive around within the posted limits and find that the vast majority of other road users are doing the same - this applies in equal measure to urban roads , country roads and motorways .

Could you please state your source?

The limiting factor remains not the vehicles but 'the nut behind the steering wheel' and , sadly , the performance of the Mk I Homo Sapien has not improved noticeably since the automobile was first introduced 100+ years ago .

Speed limits are based on various factors - the presence of hazards and the capabilities of the poorest drivers being taken into consideration , in many cases the 85 percentile rule ( the speed adopted by 85% of road users ) being used as a starting point for determination of a safe speed .

Sadly , all too many drivers daily prove themselves incapable of driving safely at the existing limits for there to be any chance of seeing an increase .

I disagree, as humans, I'd like to think that we have evolved drastically in the past 100+ years.

I think you will note that most accidents are caused by dangerous driving as opposed to "speeding" alone and, in my honest opinion, people who drive like idiots, should have the wit withdrawn from them and their licences stripped away.

So, why after all your posts on the subject are you not campaigning or championing for a lower speed limit than 70? Seventy, for some strange logic is treated as some sort of magic number from the 60's no less. I'm wondering is most of the resistance due many drivers being conditioned to seventy and don't want change, thus less need to apply themselves to driving.

Just looking at the limit from a practical aspect. Since there's variable speed limits why not have them vary in a larger range. What's wrong with doing 80, 90, 100 or even more with little or no traffic? The answer is nothing from a safety aspect.
Just take the M6 Toll, it's a joke to inflict 70 on motorists. It's joke too to do the same in the middle of the night or in light traffic conditions on most motorways. It's both regressive and oppressive compounded by the sheer amount of cameras and lack of policing.

And the funny thing about the beloved '70' by some is even the government was/is mulling over increasing the limit.

I agree - This is probably one of the most unbiased posts so far.

I lost the will to read all the Posts in this Thread but for what it is worth I believe most blanket speed limits could and should be raised by, say, 50%. I believe m'ways are currently less safe than they need be because of lane blocking my motorists travelling too slowly for a large proportion of those using the m'ways. Cruising speed on the M40 tends to be, for a large number of motorists, between 85mph-95mph. I believe that it is unsafe and soporific for all vehicles to be travelling at the same speed.

Having lifted blanket limits by 50% specific local areas should then be considered on merit and circumstances where much lower speeds might well be appropriate with a much greater expectation of adherence with motorists believing in the good sense for such a reduced limit for the least possible distance.

I agree with the OP that most motorists break the speed limit every journey they take......you may take the view that this is not a fact but anecdotal observation suggests to me that there is a very high probability that it is a fact.

It is also a truism that enormous amounts of revenue are raised from motorists caught exceeding the speed limits and from my observations an awful lot more not raised from motorists not caught when exceeding the speed limits. I conclude from this that the vast majority of motorists do not believe that the blanket speed limits are appropriate or necessary.

If society does not believe in something through its practise then it should not be so.......speed limits should be raised to a level in which society believes.

I also do not agree with the generalisation that driving standards are poor in the UK.......yes of course we can all recall the appalling incidents and there is always room for improvement.......but in my judgement we can and do rely on our fellow motorists to do the right thing at the right time which allows us to continue our journeys without undue incident.

I calculate that I have driven about 1.25million miles to date so none of the foregoing is based on a small sample of observation.

Absolute speed in itself is neither the problem nor the solution. Operator error is always the cause of any incident which may well include inappropriate speed for the conditions whatever they may be.

Mic

I agree - This is probably one of the most unbiased posts so far.

 

[whitenemesis]

Aren't pedestrians road users along with cyclists , horse riders , cattle drovers , and of course , the drivers/passengers of motorised vehicles . Oh , and those pedestrians might have been drivers or passengers moments earlier , even if some change from 'Mr Walker' to 'Mr Wheeler' !

Speed limits rightly should take account of the hazards and circumstances of every piece of road , and are no more or less valid for who they are intended to protect .

The general trend , as roads get busier and traffic density increases , is towards lower limits , not the other way round .

And I whole-heartedly support the 20mph limit in built-up areas, for the very reason it has been brought in. It's all about targeted limits, reasonable and supportable.


Speeding is a victimless crime and unreasonably harshly penalised.

Causing an accident through excessive speed is different and should be dealt with as strongly as possibe.

 

[Dryce]

He is still active over on Pistonheads and has either just got his licence back or is about to sit his extended driving test .

Based on his posts in talkphotography he's back on the roads and out taking photographs in the highlands (and being attacked by midges).

you just don't see the speeding that used to go on years ago and speeders are very much the exception . Even on my occasional forays south of the border , having travelled the M6 to Wales , all of the A1/M1 on multiple occasions , even out with the roadworks , driving at an indicated 70 , I find that only a few are passing me , with me passing many more people than are passing me ( and , no , that isn't driving marked vehicles . ) .

I would concur.

Compared with the 80s through to the mid-90s limits are generally much better observed now.

 

[MoAMG]

A 50% increase in the 70 limit would result in a 105 limit!!

:bannana:

 

[219]

I understand the point and you can be unlucky but totally disagree. You buy car with it's a array of safety features, intelligent cruise, satnav, five star NCAP rating etc, etc, not to mention with a minimum of 150 and heading north of 500 BHP (in context to this forum), it's driver who has to take responsibility. In a nutshell there's enough legislation, honestly how hard is it for somebody with average intelligence to drive reasonably well, it's not difficult at all especially on a motorway. Up the limits and up the policing. Job done.

And if anybody is really serious about road safety, why not call for a total ban on mobile phone operation while a car is in motion rather than being consumed with speed limits....

I agree that there are many other things besides speed limits which influence road safety ; I also agree that some drivers in some vehicles can be perfectly safe at high speeds under certain circumstances ....

.... problem is , you can't have one set of rules for a privileged few , and another set for the others .

 

[Dryce]

And I whole-heartedly support the 20mph limit in built-up areas, for the very reason it has been brought in. It's all about targeted limits, reasonable and supportable.

I totally disagree. The 20 limit is a sort of modern fashion statement.

I'd simply enforce the existing 30 limits more rigorously.

 

[whitenemesis]

I totally disagree. The 20 limit is a sort of modern fashion statement.

I'd simply enforce the existing 30 limits more rigorously.

A vehicle, travelling at 30mph, colliding with a human will inflict far greater injury than if it were travelling at 20mph?

 

[cb1965]

I have just had a ball reading this. This is just about the worst forum you could have posted something like this on as it is populated by a significant number of holier than thous who know better than everyone else. Anyway thanks for the laugh and sadly I doubt common sense will ever be allowed to prevail as regards raising our stupidly antiquated speed limits on motorways due to the very same sort of people in positions of power.... oh and then there's the speeding ticket revenue of course.

 

[219]

I totally disagree. The 20 limit is a sort of modern fashion statement.

I'd simply enforce the existing 30 limits more rigorously.

I don't agree with imposition of blanket 20 mph limits as applied by some councils , but I do fully support targeted 20 limits outside schools , in shopping streets and other places which merit them .

It has long been stated that if a vehicle strikes a pedestrian at 40 mph , most will be killed ; at 20 most will survive , and at around 30 the survival rate is around 50% .

 

[John Jones Jr]

I agree that there are many other things besides speed limits which influence road safety ; I also agree that some drivers in some vehicles can be perfectly safe at high speeds under certain circumstances ....

.... problem is , you can't have one set of rules for a privileged few , and another set for the others .

Here you go again, banging on about 'high speed', wtf is that...High speed in a 50's Ponton is probably 70, in a modern Honda Accord it's 100+. So, please stop with the Daily Mail mentality and meaningless phrases, you are doing yourself a disservice.

Also what are you on about 'privileged' for in relation to this discussion? The vast majority have reasonable intelligence, so it goes without saying then that the vast majority are 'privileged' if wish to call it that.

P.s. You know what I'm out now because I'm worse for indulging you!

 

[martyz]

Why not say between the hours of 08:00 and 20:00 the limit is 70 and between those times 100?

It might make more people/companies plan their journeys of an evening that would then reduce the strain through a day?

Then the motorway will be full of the fast and furious boyz pushing the limits
and the emergency services cleaning up after them.

 

[Bellow]

Why not say between the hours of 08:00 and 20:00 the limit is 70 and between those times 100?

It might make more people/companies plan their journeys of an evening that would then reduce the strain through a day?

Perfect sense - and those who aren't up to the speeds can restrict their driving to daytime.

You buy car with it's a array of safety features, intelligent cruise, satnav, five star NCAP rating etc, etc, not to mention with a minimum of 150 and heading north of 500 BHP (in context to this forum), it's driver who has to take responsibility.

And the main thrust of the OP is that he has just such a car and wants to drive it fast so the law must be changed to suit him and all other considerations valid or otherwise are of no consequence.

 

[John Jones Jr]

I have just had a ball reading this. This is just about the worst forum you could have posted something like this on as it is populated by a significant number of holier than thous who know better than everyone else. Anyway thanks for the laugh and sadly I doubt common sense will ever be allowed to prevail as regards raising our stupidly antiquated speed limits on motorways due to the very same sort of people in positions of power.... oh and then there's the speeding ticket revenue of course.

Ha, I said I was out but just copped your post.

One could be forgiven for thinking there are two different type of Merc drivers, older boys and the less older boys

 

[Deleted member 6183]

You might remember *** from this forum and wish to ask him about doing three figure speeds on motorways both during daytime and at night

He is still active over on Pistonheads and has either just got his licence back or is about to sit his extended driving test .

He , like many , used to extend his cars on the motorway , never as far as I know crashed as a consequence , but has had an 18 month 'holiday' from driving thanks to standing too far out from the crowd .

I also wonder about some of the anecdotes related here about so many people speeding : I cover minimum 30K annually , sometimes a lot more and can state that , here in Scotland , compliance is almost universal - you just don't see the speeding that used to go on years ago and speeders are very much the exception . Even on my occasional forays south of the border , having travelled the M6 to Wales , all of the A1/M1 on multiple occasions , even out with the roadworks , driving at an indicated 70 , I find that only a few are passing me , with me passing many more people than are passing me ( and , no , that isn't driving marked vehicles . ) .

What could I possibly ask from *** apart from advice on photography or eating?

If you took the time to read my post properly you could see that I refer to up to 100, i.e. double figures not triple and that I would feel safe from fear of conviction which is quite different from actually driving at 138mph and getting caught.

Incidentally, wasn't it *** who was booked for speeding on his way to a GTG on an empty motorway at night when the PC admitted that had he kept below 100mph he would have been in the clear?

My 250k was covered in the last 5 years not over a lifetime, they were around 90-95% motorway miles so I do speak from experience.

 

[MoAMG]

Then the motorway will be full of the fast and furious boyz pushing the limits
and the emergency services cleaning up after them.

Racing is not speeding and should be punishable with a ban.

 

[martyz]

Perfect sense - and those who aren't up to the speeds can restrict their driving to day time

And the 17yr old driver of a go faster corsa full of his
mates that thinks he's a better driver than Lewis Hamilton?

 

[MancMike]

Why not say between the hours of 08:00 and 20:00 the limit is 70 and between those times 100?

It might make more people/companies plan their journeys of an evening that would then reduce the strain through a day?

Companies certainly wouldn't plan their journeys in the faster time period as the fuel cost would be disproportionately disadvantageous to the time saved.

There's also the argument that raising the limit during nocturnal hours when drivers are most likely to suffer tiredness is a bad idea, although as others have said, I certainly perk up when I'm doing higher speeds, so maybe that's it's own counter-argument. It'd be hard to write into law though.

 

[MD5]

Whilst we're on the subject, I've often thought we could do with a separate drink driving lane. Restricted to 20 mph and with compulsory pink flashing lights on the roof, you'd spot them a mile away and know who to avoid!

 

[MoAMG]

Perfect sense - and those who aren't up to the speeds can restrict their driving to daytime.



And the main thrust of the OP is that he has just such a car and wants to drive it fast so the law must be changed to suit him and all other considerations valid or otherwise are of no consequence.

Oh the hypocrisy... :fail

So it's ok if we maintained our 1960s speed limits so you can continue to chug along at 60 mph blocking everyone from getting on with their lives?

I have had 500+ hp vehicles since I was 17 and this is the first time that I am campaigning to raise the limits. Your perspective is largely flawed and fueled by greed and jealousy I'm afraid.