Increase Speed Limits - Online Petition

[frostbite]

I have a car that will do 155mph (apparently). On any British road this would need a lot of concentration and room. For probably 99% of the time nationwide, there just isn't the room. So I enjoy how quickly it will get to 70 rather than how much it will go over it, and then how relaxed it is at 70.
Safety improvements over the years are meant to improve safety, not to go faster and be no safer.
I rode a fast motorbike on an unrestricted German road last year. Traffic was moderate and I was on lane 2 most of the time going at about 80 - 90 mph. Moving into lane 3 was terrifying as the closing speed of some of the cars in lane 3 meant I just couldn't see back far enough to judge it was safe to move out. I got off the autobahn and took a delightful route on lesser roads and got to my destination about the same time I would have on the autobahn anyway.
So no, raised limits, though convenient for my pleasure, would be a bad move.

 

[MD5]

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

The trouble is that most of the heavy, articulated traffic does.

 

[martyz]

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!

Good idea,I think a pink flashing elephant would be more apt though.

 

[219]

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!

A 1950's Ponton , as stated earlier will quite happily and safely cruise at its maximum of around 100 ( for the petrol ones , actually the 220SE would manage a bit more ) , they were , after all designed to exploit the new Autobahnen of the day . The 'super cars' of the day : 300SL's , E Types , Ferraris and others no doubt could manage much more , while there were doubtless many much more pedestrian cars still in common usage back then - the discrepancy between fastest and slowest traffic on the roads was probably much greater then than now and the resultant crashes were what brought in the NSL as a 'have to be seen to be doing something' reaction from the government of the day .

However , I wasn't referring to speeds such as 70 , which many routinely travel at on a daily basis , and consider 'normal' as 'high speed' ; I too would regard 100+ as 'high speed' and can fully accept that some drivers , in some vehicles , under favourable conditions and circumstances will be quite safe at 150+ ( I've been out in police traffic cars at 140+ on the twisty A and B roads of Clackmananshire without undue concerns , but I wouldn't like to see Joe Public doing that ) .

I rather think that my referral to 'high speeds' as being speeds significantly above the normal speeds seen on our present day roads would be obvious to anyone 'of reasonable intelligence' ?

I also think it is fairly obvious that some drivers are 'unsafe at any speed' , to use a well worn phrase , while others ( even the majority ) may be fine ; but I really don't think we can have an elite few with fast cars and even with advanced driving qualifications allowed to have one set of rules and another set for the rest ( The RTA exemptions for emergency services are provided out of necessity and not as a privilege ) .

 

[MancMike]

The trouble is that most of the heavy, articulated traffic does.

Lorry drivers do most of their journeys at night for the emptier roads, less chance of being stuck in traffic which can all but wipe out that journey's profit. They don't drive outside of those hours so that they can go faster.

If the limit was raised outside of those hours, the lorry drivers and other commercial drivers would still drive at the speeds they drive at. 56mph seems to be the most fuel economical speed for them.

 

[Giantvanman]

@MoAMG

"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."

The maximum speed limit should remain at 70mph because A. reaction times have not decreased and B. whilst the levels of vehicle safety have increased, the general standard of driving has not improved greatly, IMO.

My last sentence was no parting shot and using your own argument, it is not flawed. For example, the current maximum was set at a time when roads were in much better condition here and with much fewer vehicles. Would not the logical step be to reduce the limit to accommodate or has the balance been maintained by advances in vehicle technology?

I would point out that you are failing to take account of the organic squishy thing in control of the vehicle and the associated psychology. In the ideal world, people/drivers would have improved alongside the advances but this is not the case.
Instead I would argue that the very reliance on the advances in vehicle technology has had a detrimental affect on drivers' ability and skill. Psychologically, people feel safe and cosseted in their cars, I would argue, and it is this that contributes to rationalisation of speeding, increased risk taking and a general inability for honest self-appraisal…when was the last time you heard anyone admit to be a rubbish driver?

Even if drivers were assessed as individuals and a tiered licensing system introduced, you are still at the mercy of the driver who is perfectly safe at a fraction of your licensed speed but not able to assess your velocity. Should the lesser able be banned from the road even if they are perfectly safe poodling around?

And what happens if you are having an off day but don't realise it? Or one of those who are not able to maintain concentration because they are driving slowly? The follow on from that is that when anyone becomes used to driving at high speed all the time, I would argue that they may well get bored and their concentration wander.

This may seem like a puerile argument but I include it for one reason only; at no stage are you making allowances for those who are not superbly capable (by their own assessment, usually…strange that, don't you think?) nor any of the myriad of psychological factors.

To go off topic slightly, your 'arguments' are no different to those I have heard on countless occasions and normally following something dreadful. Everyone of those drivers rationalised away their culpability because it couldn't have been a lapse by them. No disrespect intended but you are sounding a lot like that, especially with asinine comments referring to which fuel your detractors use in their vehicles.

 

[aquanaut]

i would be happy with 80 on the motorways only and have it more rigorously enforced than 70 & 10%+2 or whatever it is. Then you have the choice. National speed limit on single as is

 

[cb1965]

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

I am 50 my friend and I think that probably puts me in the old category I just think that blindly defending laws simply because they are the laws and have no real basis in common sense (in some cases) is idiotic at best. It's clear to me that the motorway network is being camera'd up under the auspices of managed motorways, but in reality it's just a way to catch and fine those who flout the speed limits even by a few mph. And of course these are speed limits that have no real relevance in modern motoring! Which is more dangerous... 70mph in a Ford Anglia or 90mph in a modern hatchback? Anyway as I said not the forum for a sensible discussion about this!

 

[Bellow]

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

Could be dealt with by imposing a curfew on 20.00 to 08.00 for those who have newly passed their test either in the upper speed limit or to carrying passengers - or both.

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.

WTF evidence do you have that I am jealous of you or that I am greedy?

 

[Deleted member 6183]

I am 50 my friend and I think that probably puts me in the old category

Not on MBclub it doesn't!

 

[MoAMG]

@MoAMG

"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."

The maximum speed limit should remain at 70mph because A. reaction times have not decreased and B. whilst the levels of vehicle safety have increased, the general standard of driving has not improved greatly, IMO.

My last sentence was no parting shot and using your own argument, it is not flawed. For example, the current maximum was set at a time when roads were in much better condition here and with much fewer vehicles. Would not the logical step be to reduce the limit to accommodate or has the balance been maintained by advances in vehicle technology?

I would point out that you are failing to take account of the organic squishy thing in control of the vehicle and the associated psychology. In the ideal world, people/drivers would have improved alongside the advances but this is not the case.
Instead I would argue that the very reliance on the advances in vehicle technology has had a detrimental affect on drivers' ability and skill. Psychologically, people feel safe and cosseted in their cars, I would argue, and it is this that contributes to rationalisation of speeding, increased risk taking and a general inability for honest self-appraisal…when was the last time you heard anyone admit to be a rubbish driver?

Even if drivers were assessed as individuals and a tiered licensing system introduced, you are still at the mercy of the driver who is perfectly safe at a fraction of your licensed speed but not able to assess your velocity. Should the lesser able be banned from the road even if they are perfectly safe poodling around?

And what happens if you are having an off day but don't realise it? Or one of those who are not able to maintain concentration because they are driving slowly? The follow on from that is that when anyone becomes used to driving at high speed all the time, I would argue that they may well get bored and their concentration wander.

This may seem like a puerile argument but I include it for one reason only; at no stage are you making allowances for those who are not superbly capable (by their own assessment, usually…strange that, don't you think?) nor any of the myriad of psychological factors.

To go off topic slightly, your 'arguments' are no different to those I have heard on countless occasions and normally following something dreadful. Everyone of those drivers rationalised away their culpability because it couldn't have been a lapse by them. No disrespect intended but you are sounding a lot like that, especially with asinine comments referring to which fuel your detractors use in their vehicles.

If the speed limit remains at 70 and as we have established, a majority of people speed, are we, as motorists, not shooting ourselves in the foot here? But if it's raised to 80 (as an example), the only variation here will be a decrease in speeding tickets...

I would like to see a real world study in to reaction times to compare people travelling at 70 to 100 mph. Then, as I am sure you will agree, the government would be able to make an informed decision.

I am not stipulating a specific new speed limit, I am merely bringing this matter to the government's attention. What it chooses to do with it is down to them. But I do hope they take this matter seriously as, we can all agree, our 'motoring' related legislation is outdated in comparison to other 'first world' countries. Simply put, a reform is much needed and way overdue.

 

[MoAMG]

Could be dealt with by imposing a curfew on 20.00 to 08.00 for those who have newly passed their test either in the upper speed limit or to carrying passengers - or both.



WTF evidence do you have that I am jealous of you or that I am greedy?

You are taking things way too personally my friend...

 

[cb1965]

Anyway I have signed the petition

 

[219]

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.

Well , I can appreciate the stress involved in defending a position which is at variance with the body of opinion .

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

1) 500,000 convictions out of how many uneventful journeys ? A tiny , tiny fraction I would contend .

2) The ABD are a pressure group made up , I suspect , largely of aggrieved motorists ( much as FOREST is perhaps made up of aggrieved smokers ) and are merely stating opinion . The fact is , it is not particularly difficult to obey speed limits : every qualified driver on our roads had to prove that they were able to do so when they sat their driving tests , so they should still be able to do so .

3) That statistic could equally be interpreted as better detection and enforcement , which with the increased deployment of safety camera vans , Police speed checks ( no such thing as a 'trap' ) , average speed cameras etc , is actually quite likely .

4) I believe that a proportion of those who give up smoking also start again , even after health scares - perhaps some people are addicted to speed ? More likely , it is a lifestyle thing and they just don't allow enough time to complete journeys without speeding ?

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

No argument .

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.

Indeed , as per my response above , it may be a lifestyle thing , with ( some ) people in London not allowing themselves enough time to do things .

Could you please state your source?

My eyes !

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.

I agree re the causes of RTC's being various ( they are not 'accidents' : e.g. - undesirable or unfortunate events which occur unexpectedly without deliberate plans or causes ) .

However , I don't think we have evolved significantly as a species in the last 100 years or so , which is 'a blink of an eye' compared to millions of years of evolution , or even the time during which we have evolved from the apes .

 

[Dryce]

If the speed limit remains at 70 and as we have established, a majority of people speed, are we, as motorists, not shooting ourselves in the foot here? But if it's raised to 80 (as an example), the only variation here will be a decrease in speeding tickets...

People's behaviour at 80 will be the same as 70 - just pushing a bit harder than the limit. So the number of speeding tickets may well not change much.

Moreover an 80 limit may also be accompanied by tighter enforcement of all limits - so the convention of 10% + 2mph may be lost - in which case stricter enforcement makes things a bit more miserable.

And finally. The biggest impediment to smooth reliable journeys on the motorway network often isn't lower speed limits but congestion. An 80mph limit when the motorway is empty benefits very few people compared with the much larger number caught in congestion during the day.

I'd take a 60mph limit on some routes if meant that there wasn't a 60 to 90 minute variation in journey times due to congestion and incidents.

 

[219]

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

It usually involves exceeding speed limits , and already is a specific offence punishable with a ban .

 

[Deleted member 6183]

People's behaviour at 80 will be the same as 70 - just pushing a bit harder than the limit. So the number of speeding tickets may well not change much.

Moreover an 80 limit may also be accompanied by tighter enforcement of all limits - so the convention of 10% + 2mph may be lost - in which case stricter enforcement makes things a bit more miserable.

And finally. The biggest impediment to smooth reliable journeys on the motorway network often isn't lower speed limits but congestion. An 80mph limit when the motorway is empty benefits very few people compared with the much larger number caught in congestion during the day.

I'd take a 60mph limit on some routes if meant that there wasn't a 60 to 90 minute variation in journey times due to congestion and incidents.

For some reason the variable speed limits seem to work well of the M42, this might be down to the fact that they open the hard shoulder to those who are leaving the motorway at the next junction during peak times as well. For this reason I support them on the whole, however, they don't seem to work so well on the M25, possibly due to not opening up the hard shoulder.

It's a shame that the OP didn't give his petition more thought or provide some reasoning or potential solutions, for this reason I suspect that it will languish at the bottom of the pile with few supporters.

 

[219]

l…when was the last time you heard anyone admit to be a rubbish driver?

I did , on this very forum a few months back

At least compared to my standards when I was younger and freshly trained in AD .

 

[renault12ts]

If the speed limit remains at 70 and as we have established, a majority of people speed, are we, as motorists, not shooting ourselves in the foot here? But if it's raised to 80 (as an example), the only variation here will be a decrease in speeding tickets...

I would like to see a real world study in to reaction times to compare people travelling at 70 to 100 mph. Then, as I am sure you will agree, the government would be able to make an informed decision.

I am not stipulating a specific new speed limit, I am merely bringing this matter to the government's attention. What it chooses to do with it is down to them. But I do hope they take this matter seriously as, we can all agree, our 'motoring' related legislation is outdated in comparison to other 'first world' countries. Simply put, a reform is much needed and way overdue.

Reaction time is the same...no matter the speed.

 

[Giantvanman]

If the speed limit remains at 70 and as we have established, a majority of people speed, are we, as motorists, not shooting ourselves in the foot here? But if it's raised to 80 (as an example), the only variation here will be a decrease in speeding tickets...

I would like to see a real world study in to reaction times to compare people travelling at 70 to 100 mph. Then, as I am sure you will agree, the government would be able to make an informed decision.

I am not stipulating a specific new speed limit, I am merely bringing this matter to the government's attention. What it chooses to do with it is down to them. But I do hope they take this matter seriously as, we can all agree, our 'motoring' related legislation is outdated in comparison to other 'first world' countries. Simply put, a reform is much needed and way overdue.

I realise that you will not be swayed and it is not my intention to do so.

If you were to have a sit-down conversation with someone like a police Collision Investigator with the topic being reaction times he/she would give you startling figures…not guesses or conjecture but numbers found through experience and quoted from scientific journals on the subject.

Would you be surprised to learn that when reconstructing a collision, the investigator will consult said reference books so that their calculations take account of many factors?. One factor which is highly relevant to this particular thread and your argument is this; the reaction time SUGGESTED by the Highway Code is not often attained and especially so with regards to motorways.

You see, substantial research has shown that drivers become complacent on motorways because of many things e.g. traffic moving all the same direction on their carriageway, disassociation with their actual speed because everyone is travelling at relatively the same speed etc etc etc. The net result is that reaction time is increased substantially and the normal figure used in calculations is THREE seconds in these circumstances and not the ONE second the HC suggests.

That is only one example. If a driver manages to make the HC one second reaction time they are doing well because most do not. By a long way and allowances are made because research has shown, demonstrated and proven it is an unrealistic figure for the majority of people.

Please feel free to research my assertion and please take the time to do some basic arithmetic/physics calculations and see what that means in real life numbers. The conversion factors and formulae are readily available if you do not know them.