80 Miles Per Hour on British motorways?

[Neil]

There is a reason why bends have chevrons and some have signed limits.

80 miles per hour as an expectation of a safe speed

No, the speed limit is always the speed limit - the maximum, legal speed for normal drivers.

Not a blanket safe speed at all locations and in all conditions.

Often, like other types of roads, the highest safe speed can be notably below the speed limit. Motorways, nor any other roads for that matter, nor speed limits, abdicate drivers' responsibility to drive at a safe speed for the conditions.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I wonder why speeds of up to 100 are tolerated on a large amount of the network.

Could it be that the authorities don't see it as a problem when there is little evidence it is causing a hazard?

There are plenty of parts of the motorway where sitting at 100 would mean cars leaving the road by the dozen.

Where a motorway may be safe for hundreds of miles at the stated limit and a margin above it, yet then becomes safe only around the limit, it would be normal practise to lower the limit to retain a margin.

Going to 80 nationally would mean identifying all these sections and signing them.

You don't have the expectation to be safe at a constant 70 on a 60 limit.

I would suggest the vast majority of motorway users think differently when they settle into the Archers sitting at ninety on the M1.

They expect to attain at least the limit and it is seen more as the standard speed, whereas on the A roads they are actively driving and constantly adjusting.

One trip through the Lakes would make the case very well for retaining the current limits.

Why bother signing for cross winds? Surely any observant motorist would notice they are approaching an exposed area where they might encounter these?

Why sign a blind hump on a B road, or a narrowing road going under a bridge?

Why bother with road signs?

I just don't hear any good arguments for increasing what is, after all, a very selectively enforced speed limit.

 

[Neil]

I wonder why speeds of up to 100 are tolerated on a large amount of the network.

Could it be that the authorities don't see it as a problem when there is little evidence it is causing a hazard?

There are plenty of parts of the motorway where sitting at 100 would mean cars leaving the road by the dozen.

Where a motorway may be safe for hundreds of miles at the stated limit and a margin above it, yet then becomes safe only around the limit, it would be normal practise to lower the limit to retain a margin.

Going to 80 nationally would mean identifying all these sections and signing them.

You don't have the expectation to be safe at a constant 70 on a 60 limit.

I would suggest the vast majority of motorway users think differently when they settle into the Archers sitting at ninety on the M1.

They expect to attain at least the limit and it is seen more as the standard speed, whereas on the A roads they are actively driving and constantly adjusting.

One trip through the Lakes would make the case very well for retaining the current limits.

Why bother signing for cross winds? Surely any observant motorist would notice they are approaching an exposed area where they might encounter these?

Why sign a blind hump on a B road, or a narrowing road going under a bridge?

Why bother with road signs?

I just don't hear any good arguments for increasing what is, after all, a very selectively enforced speed limit.

Personally, I'm ambivalent to the proposal.

All the same, your perception on how people either expect or should expect to drive on motorways is flawed - on ALL roads, drivers are expected to drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions (and that largely works out).

There are circumstances where signs and other warnings are used, but NONE abdicate drivers' responsibility to drive at a safe speed for the conditions - NONE. That's still a very reasonable expectation, and one that would be expected of drivers taking their driving tests.

Fog, sudden snow, torrential downpour - plenty of things can happen, that may make the safe speed on ANY road be considerably below the speed limit. And drivers are expected - demanded, even, by weight of law - to be able to deal with it.

 

[Magsy]

What has happened in modern times is the removal of the element of skill/effort required to drive, run and maintain a car. Driving a 70's car at 70mph is going keep you awake, its going to pull and weave and barely stop if you need it to. Compared to even run on the mil cars now it would be trounced yet the limit never changed. 10mph won't make much difference for the vehicles.

So few people have any idea how their car works, the art and skill of motoring is gone. No finesse, no tinkering, no choke in the morning and clouds of smoke; mechanical sympathy is gone. Hardly anybody is at one with their car I work with so many people who cannot even change a wheel it makes me mad

Every new car I drive is more numb than the last, no feeling is left and people are so far removed from the experience it is little more than sitting on the sofa with a Xbox controller, it is almost too easy. This feeling seems to lead to that 'I'm in a box and can't get hurt' mentality.

I'm not going to pretend, I drive fast, very fast. Countless people loose their bladder at 100mph+ on a straight stretch of M4 on a clear day yet when I passenger with them they have no observation, no forward planning, tailgate like crazy and have all maner of reasons why its ok to be on the phone. They don't understand the difference between dry and wet and unless there are signs they don't think about anything, there is no element of caution..'what if'. They are dangerous. When I get in the car it is to drive, not talk to my passenger or fiddle with the radio, I am completely focused and alert.

Speed is not really the issue any more, driving standards are its easy to point at the go faster people but many of the go slow crowd are worse.

May I add I have and have always had a clean licence, observation is king

 

[highlandsflyer]

I wonder why speeds of up to 100 are tolerated on a large amount of the network.

Could it be that the authorities don't see it as a problem when there is little evidence it is causing a hazard?

There are plenty of parts of the motorway where sitting at 100 would mean cars leaving the road by the dozen.

Where a motorway may be safe for hundreds of miles at the stated limit and a margin above it, yet then becomes safe only around the limit, it would be normal practise to lower the limit to retain a margin.

Going to 80 nationally would mean identifying all these sections and signing them.

You don't have the expectation to be safe at a constant 70 on a 60 limit.

I would suggest the vast majority of motorway users think differently when they settle into the Archers sitting at ninety on the M1.

They expect to attain at least the limit and it is seen more as the standard speed, whereas on the A roads they are actively driving and constantly adjusting.

One trip through the Lakes would make the case very well for retaining the current limits.

Why bother signing for cross winds? Surely any observant motorist would notice they are approaching an exposed area where they might encounter these?

Why sign a blind hump on a B road, or a narrowing road going under a bridge?

Why bother with road signs?

I just don't hear any good arguments for increasing what is, after all, a very selectively enforced speed limit.

Personally, I'm ambivalent to the proposal.

All the same, your perception on how people either expect or should expect to drive on motorways is flawed - on ALL roads, drivers are expected to drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions (and that largely works out).

There are circumstances where signs and other warnings are used, but NONE abdicate drivers' responsibility to drive at a safe speed for the conditions - NONE. That's still a very reasonable expectation, and one that would be expected of drivers taking their driving tests.

Fog, sudden snow, torrential downpour - plenty of things can happen, that may make the safe speed on ANY road be considerably below the speed limit. And drivers are expected - demanded, even, by weight of law - to be able to deal with it.

In an ideal world all drivers would be busy observing the road well enough to reduce speed before it is too late.

I live in the real world, and report back from it.

My perception of drivers' behaviour is anecdotal.

 

[Neil]

I wonder why speeds of up to 100 are tolerated on a large amount of the network.

Could it be that the authorities don't see it as a problem when there is little evidence it is causing a hazard?

There are plenty of parts of the motorway where sitting at 100 would mean cars leaving the road by the dozen.

Where a motorway may be safe for hundreds of miles at the stated limit and a margin above it, yet then becomes safe only around the limit, it would be normal practise to lower the limit to retain a margin.

Going to 80 nationally would mean identifying all these sections and signing them.

You don't have the expectation to be safe at a constant 70 on a 60 limit.

I would suggest the vast majority of motorway users think differently when they settle into the Archers sitting at ninety on the M1.

They expect to attain at least the limit and it is seen more as the standard speed, whereas on the A roads they are actively driving and constantly adjusting.

One trip through the Lakes would make the case very well for retaining the current limits.

Why bother signing for cross winds? Surely any observant motorist would notice they are approaching an exposed area where they might encounter these?

Why sign a blind hump on a B road, or a narrowing road going under a bridge?

Why bother with road signs?

I just don't hear any good arguments for increasing what is, after all, a very selectively enforced speed limit.

Personally, I'm ambivalent to the proposal.

All the same, your perception on how people either expect or should expect to drive on motorways is flawed - on ALL roads, drivers are expected to drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions (and that largely works out).

There are circumstances where signs and other warnings are used, but NONE abdicate drivers' responsibility to drive at a safe speed for the conditions - NONE. That's still a very reasonable expectation, and one that would be expected of drivers taking their driving tests.

Fog, sudden snow, torrential downpour - plenty of things can happen, that may make the safe speed on ANY road be considerably below the speed limit. And drivers are expected - demanded, even, by weight of law - to be able to deal with it.

In an ideal world all drivers would be busy observing the road well enough to reduce speed before it is too late.

In MANY circumstances they'll HAVE to.

Never mind ideal, we're talking about survival.

I live in the real world, and report back from it.

My perception of drivers' behaviour is anecdotal.

Me too.

Me too.

I drive on motorways daily.

I've also spent years doing both driving on motorways, and driving a fair number of miles on single carriageways, some rural.

At the end of the day, driving hasn't become so dumbed down that society can't or shouldn't expect drivers - in the main - to drive at speeds appropriate for the conditions - that's not just idealism - that's very much realism.

Now I wouldn't wholly disagree that in recent times, much has happened to make drivers switch off a bit where speed is concerned - to believe that under and up-to the speed limit is safe. But all the same, society and the legal system damned well expects drivers can manage to get it largely right - because if they can't, then whole swathes of roads need either closing or dumbing down beyond belief.

And to put that all in context, getting back to a point I made previously - learner drivers taking their practical test are expected to be able to drive at a speed appropriate to the conditions.

 

[al]

6 pages of words :shock:

Any chance of someone posting a few pictures to break up the wordiness?

I like ickle kittens doing funny things.


al.








Words confuse me and make me dizzy!

 

[highlandsflyer]

I think this is a case of coming at the problem from different angles, not necessarily at odds.

For clarity, the worst drivers I know of are the ones who set their cruise control at seventy and start listening to a play on R4.

If you drive more than 12k a year, you are up there in terms of accident risk.

I do as much as I can to limit that risk, but I really believe most drivers barely consider the risk they are taking day to day.

The number of drivers I see daily who are driving without their lights on for example.

It would be so simple to pass a law requiring everyone to drive with their lights on.

Legislation does have its place.

I would rather the authorities focussed on the real causes of accidents and the main victims, pedestrians.

'Speeding', over the stated limit, is far too easy to promote as a major problem.

As you point out, it is inappropriate speed that is the issue.

The whole reason I have the view I have about the proposed increase to 80 mph is that it is unnecessary.

Where it is deemed safe by the majority of road users, by whatever means they reach this conclusion, they already exceed that proposed speed.

There are studies that indicate increasing or decreasing limits have little effect on driver behaviour, unless you shove cameras up or enforce limits by traffic calming, etc.

The proposal stinks to me of the current idiots in 'power' wanting to give away sweeties to a large group in society, reinforcing their claim to be the party of small government and personal freedom.

I just don't want to rely on other drivers for my safety when it comes to their approach speed into some of the bends I drive regularly that there is no escape from once you carry too much speed into them, and on the other hand I don't want my tax money being wasted on reams of new signs, regardless of whether they 'should' be needed or not.

The status quo seems fine to me.

 

[David B]

6 pages of words :shock:

Any chance of someone posting a few pictures to break up the wordiness?

I like ickle kittens doing funny things.


al.

Fair do's. Here's a favourite of mine:

David

 

[al]

What a luvvly puzz wuzz.

al.









It can't all be my fault, can it?