80mph motorways?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I just think increasing the limit would mean everyone does 90, and can't see how that can be inforced.

Well - I've seen exactly how for myself. The M25 in Surrey.

I've driven on it a fair few times, but it has tended to be very early in the morning at weekends.

Does anyone have a more representitive experience of the stretch I'm talking about. Sluffy, maybe?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

1 in 200 people will die in a road accident. That may not seem much, but in perspective, if you take a typical Reebok attendance, 100 of those there will die on the roads. I don't think 'tolerating' it is the way forward.

And... as I keep saying... my hypothesis is that most road deaths do not occur on motorways, and that driving practices off motorways are detrimentally affected by drivers' experience on them.

[Batman]

Still not answered why you think we need to change, for any other reason than you like to drive faster than you should.

[TANGODANCER]

Three years old but:

In 2004, 14,308 people were hurt in motorway crashes in the UK. Of those, 164 were killed and a further 1,137 were seriously injured – injuries including loss of limbs, burns, paralysis and brain damage.[1]

[fatshaft]

I don't drive any more but have done enough in the not too distant past to comment. With the amount of accidents and deaths daily, plus the ever-increasing number of vehicles already on the motorways, raising the speed limit is just asking for the legions who already exceed it to get worse. If all drivers were balanced and rational individuals it wouldn't be a problem. They aren't and it is.

Accidents and deaths on Motorways are comparitively rare though TD, that's not where the problem occurs.

Get a quick overnight frost or, Lord forbid a small snowfall followed by freezing, then repeat that. The Highway Code is for learning to pass driving tests, after that it goes out the window.

I have no idea what you're meaning here TD?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Three years old but:

In 2004, 14,308 people were hurt in motorway crashes in the UK. Of those, 164 were killed and a further 1,137 were seriously injured – injuries including loss of limbs, burns, paralysis and brain damage.[1]

And what percentage of total road deaths did that 164 represent in 2004?

[fatshaft]

Three years old but:

In 2004, 14,308 people were hurt in motorway crashes in the UK. Of those, 164 were killed and a further 1,137 were seriously injured – injuries including loss of limbs, burns, paralysis and brain damage.[1]

How many killed in non-motorway crashes? Over 3400 isn't it? ie. comparatively rare.

[fatshaft]

I don't drive any more but have done enough in the not too distant past to comment. With the amount of accidents and deaths daily, plus the ever-increasing number of vehicles already on the motorways, raising the speed limit is just asking for the legions who already exceed it to get worse. If all drivers were balanced and rational individuals it wouldn't be a problem. They aren't and it is.

Accidents and deaths on Motorways are comparitively rare though TD, that's not where the problem occurs.

But when they do happen, the speed makes then more horrific.

On the whole, I'm happy with the limit as it is. (Though I have never driven)

Not usually Chris, it's very rare to get head on collisions on motorways because of the strenght of the crash barriers, so usually the worst accidents are lorry drivers catching a motorist on their inside that they don't see, or when someone ploughs into someone from behind. If you get a head on in a country lane where both are legally travelling at 60mph, you've got certain deaths on your hands.

[TANGODANCER]

Three years old but:

In 2004, 14,308 people were hurt in motorway crashes in the UK. Of those, 164 were killed and a further 1,137 were seriously injured – injuries including loss of limbs, burns, paralysis and brain damage.[1]

And what percentage of total road deaths did that 164 represent in 2004?

By my reckoning about 164 too many. Increasing the speed limit on the assumption that everyone will obey it just doesn't work. People are not statistics or laws. People are people and, although they are supposed to comply with regulations, if they don't do it at 70-mph, what makes you think they will at 10 mph faster?

[CAPSLOCK]

Ditch speed limits

Make the offence 'driving like a dick'

And if 20 is too fast, get em in court

[officer_dibble]

Ever blown a tyre at over 80mph Mummy? I have (on a French Motorway). I never wanted it to happen again, believe me. I doubt if the relations of anyone killed in motorway accidents will back your campaign. And of course, at 80mph everyone is going to drive the required distance away from you and not tailgate you. This is England, remember.

I have, last year, it aint fun. Not on a windy spot of the m62 in the outside lane....

Its a strange one this - there are times when I think yes it should be 80, on a clear day its quite easy to be there doing a comfortable 80 without even realising it. But then when you got zip all visibility, driving rain, gale force winds, and some tw@t cuts you up doin 70+ you just think why bother with eejits like that around...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Still not answered why you think we need to change, for any other reason than you like to drive faster than you should.

Alright, alright, wait your turn...

1. Respect for traffic regulations generally.


The reality is that the majority of drivers do drive faster than 70mph regularly.

As I said:

As far as I'm concerned, having motorway speed limits set at 70 mph undermines the entire system of road speed limits. Because modern cars cruise comfortably in the 80-85mph range (and it's actually an effort to stay down at 70), most people break the speed limit regularly on the motorways.

The wider effect of this is a damaging lack of respect for speed limits when they are important. There are some areas where it is crucial that drivers don't exceed 30mph, or even 20mph around schools etc., but because we are conditioned to ignore speed limits because of our motorway experience, people drive too fast in these areas.

The majority of people clearly think that the 70mph speed limit is inappropriate in their modern cars and respond accordingly. Whatever you think the rights or wrongs of this decision is (and I appreciate that you're probably playing devil's advocate and have been known to exceed 70mph yourself), the fact is, it's what most drivers thnk and do. What I am saying is that this has a detrimental effect on driving practices on roads other than motorways - it would be better if people saw the speed limits system as being a reasonable and coherent system.

If you're used to ignoring speed limits on the motorway, then you're more likely to ignore speed limits in areas where adherence is more important.. or at least this is my hypothesis.

2. Time is valuable.

We have historically spent a lot of money on our motorways so that we can get people and goods around the country more quickly. A speed limit that is below the level that could be maintained safely means that we're not getting as much economic return as we might from our substantial investment.

These days, people are more likely to drive longer distances more regularly in their more comfortable cars on better roads. If someone does a lot of motorway driving then how much time will he save over an entire year if he can drive at 80mph rather than 70mph? Time is valuable per se.

3. Driving at a speed that is below your car's natural cruising speed is unpleasant, and detrimental to your concentration levels.


And there are other things that can be said about bunching etc....


Will that do for now?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Three years old but:

In 2004, 14,308 people were hurt in motorway crashes in the UK. Of those, 164 were killed and a further 1,137 were seriously injured – injuries including loss of limbs, burns, paralysis and brain damage.[1]

And what percentage of total road deaths did that 164 represent in 2004?

By my reckoning about 164 too many. Increasing the speed limit on the assumption that everyone will obey it just doesn't work. People are not statistics or laws. People are people and, although they are supposed to comply with regulations, if they don't do it at 70-mph, what makes you think they will at 10 mph faster?

As I say, it might be better to have 80mph strictly enforced to a low tolerance level, using the technology employed between junctions 10-16 on the M25, details of which can be found via Google if you really are interested, than having an unrealistic limit of 70mph that isn't really enforced.

[fatshaft]

Three years old but:

In 2004, 14,308 people were hurt in motorway crashes in the UK. Of those, 164 were killed and a further 1,137 were seriously injured – injuries including loss of limbs, burns, paralysis and brain damage.[1]

And what percentage of total road deaths did that 164 represent in 2004?

By my reckoning about 164 too many. Increasing the speed limit on the assumption that everyone will obey it just doesn't work. People are not statistics or laws. People are people and, although they are supposed to comply with regulations, if they don't do it at 70-mph, what makes you think they will at 10 mph faster?

I was watching an old Top Gear at the weekend, the one with Ladyman the transport minister in a reasonably priced car. Clarkson read out some report on there, and road deaths have fluctuated between 3400-3800 for the best part of a decade. So we're looking at 5%-ish or less.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

By my reckoning about 164 too many.

That's the tempting thing to say, and we should definitely take all reasonable precautions to reduce the number of casualties on the roads as much as possible, but are you saying that 164 deaths in a year is not a price worth paying by society for the benefits of the use of the motorway network?

We cannot have a riskless, or dangerless society - risk and danger are normal incidents of living.

That's life.

[chris]

2. Time is valuable.

We have historically spent a lot of money on our motorways so that we can get people and goods around the country more quickly. A speed limit that is below the level that could be maintained safely means that we're not getting as much economic return as we might from our substantial investment.

These days, people are more likely to drive longer distances more regularly in their more comfortable cars on better roads. If someone does a lot of motorway driving then how much time will he save over an entire year if he can drive at 80mph rather than 70mph? Time is valuable per se.

I disagree on a time issue. Time is saved if everyone travels at the same speed. If the limit was increased, you'd have lorries doing 55, less confident people doing 60 or staying at the 70 limit, a number keeping to an 80 limit, and more pushing 90.
That wouldn't work on a three-lane motorway - especially if you take into account lorries overtaking lorries.

Over long distances, I think there would be more slow patches, and journeys would take longer.



Over four lane areas, that would admittedly not be so much of an issue.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Over four lane areas, that would admittedly not be so much of an issue.

The four-lane areas generally exist because they're too heavily used to get by with three...

[Worthy4England]

By my reckoning about 164 too many.

That's the tempting thing to say, and we should definitely take all reasonable precautions to reduce the number of casualties on the roads as much as possible, but are you saying that 164 deaths in a year is not a price worth paying by society for the benefits of the use of the motorway network?

We cannot have a riskless, or dangerless society - risk and danger are normal incidents of living.

That's life.

Or death....I think some people are knee-jerking here

I do have to admit, that it is frustrating when you're lagging it down the outside lane and some pillock pulls out in front of you doing 69.2....flat fecking cap on...what's he getting all irate about, I'm doing 70....etc. etc. Apprentice Motorway police - shoot 'em.....

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

It's unhealthy for the law to be so out of step with standard practice. Given that the 70mph limit has been in force since 1965, and vehicle technology in terms of brakes, tires etc has come on a long way since then, I'd say it was time for a review.

I'd say that 'standard practice' is out of step with the law

It's a fair comment.

I can only repeat my view that it is unhelpful that the law is routinely ignored by the majority, and hardly ever enforced.

However, I do think it's sometimes fair to criticise the law for being out of step with people's reasonable expectations, and with what actually goes on.

The best example I can think of, off the top of my head, is our Sexual Offences Act 2003 and its legislative overkill.

One of the results of the Act is to render criminal a range of sexual acts, some of which are usually thought to be normal and proper, and others at least not seriously wrong. They include mouth-to-mouth kissing or minor acts of sexual exploration between consenting 14 or 15-year-olds (five years); two boys giving themselves a sexual thrill by looking at a porno mag (five years); and “rude games” between two 10-year-olds (14 years, or maybe life). In 1994 a widelyrespected study reported that the average age of young people's first sexual experiences (kissing, cuddling, petting, etc.) then stood at 14 for women and 13 for men. This also showed that 18.7 per cent of women and 27.6 per cent of men had full sexual intercourse before they were 16--figures which a follow-up study shows now stand at 24.8 per cent and 30.7 per cent. So far are these provisions of the Act out of line with the sexual behaviour of the young that, unless they provoke a sexual counter-revolution, they will eventually make indictable offenders of the whole population.

There was no need for this, because behind the specific crimes of consensual sex with children the Act provides a range of crimes that punish every form of nonconsensual sex. So it would be have been safe as well as simple to exclude from the offences of consensual sex with minors, any consensual act between persons of the same or similar age.

In Parliament, various attempts were made to amend the Bill to this effect. The government, however, took the position that all consensual acts involving children must in principle be criminal--and that it would be neither practicable nor desirable for the law to be otherwise. In practice, they said there is no problem. Under the present law, it said, there are no oppressive prosecutions, and the Crown Prosecution Service will have written guidelines to make sure there are none in future. If any children do get prosecuted, the ferocious penalties stated in the Bill are maxima: lesser penalties will in practice be imposed.

These arguments are strikingly muddled.

The argument “we have to criminalise behaviour that we do not wish to punish, or else we can't catch the behaviour that we do” was persistently deployed before 1967 to resist decriminalising homosexual acts between consenting males in private; only a total ban on homosexual acts, it was said, would prevent predatory pederasts corrupting little boys. The argument that none of this matters because the police and the CPS have a discretion not to prosecute runs contrary to the notion of the rule of law, and also ignores the risk of private prosecutions. Nor does it answer the problem of over-criminalisation for the government to promise written guidelines for the CPS. If the distinction between the cases where we do and do not want to prosecute can be set out in written guidelines, it can, and should, be stated in the Act.

It goes without saying that the undesirable results this Act produces are avoided in at least some other countries. In 1994, France enacted a new Criminal Code. This contains an offence of consensual sexual behaviour with persons who are under the age of 15: but (by contrast with the earlier law) it can only be committed by those who are themselves 18 or over.

So yes, a bit of a tangent, but I do think that it's sometimes fair to say that the law is out of step with standard practice, rather than the other way round.

[CrazyHorse]

It'd be nice to actually do 70mph on the motorways never mind 80 or 90. At least two hours every day of my life is wasted crawling slowly along the motorways at an average speed of about 20mph.