80mph motorways?

[Neon Jay]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15116064

I note with interest that ministers are considering raising motorway limits to 80mph. With the evolution of efficient engines and countless safety features in modern cars, I personally feel this is a fairly sensible idea, and besides, more than half (very rough guess) of drivers seem to go this fast either way.

What are peoples thoughts on this one?

 

[tek-monkey]

Unless you ban older cars, the improvements in vehicle safety are irrelevant. Just because an audi can stop much quicker nowadays doesn't mean a classic mini can.

 

[Neon Jay]

Very true TM... I suspect that the scrappage scheme didn't remove all the old bangers around - and as if to back up this point, am SURE I saw an old Nova driving around the other day.

And even newer cars aren't always great at stopping, just ask Toyota...

 

[tek-monkey]

I'm a big fan of classic cars, especially VWs. If they decided to force these older cars off the road I'd be more than a little ****** off! Plus if you make cars have a shelf life, why ever buy? May as well just lease and change every few years, so always paying it off.

 

[henryscat]

I'm a big fan of classic cars, especially VWs. If they decided to force these older cars off the road I'd be more than a little ****** off! .

So would I!!

 

[Withnail]

more than half (very rough guess) of drivers seem to go [80mph] either way.

Make it 80 and more than half (rough guess) will do 90...

 

[henryscat]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15116064

I note with interest that ministers are considering raising motorway limits to 80mph. With the evolution of efficient engines and countless safety features in modern cars, I personally feel this is a fairly sensible idea, and besides, more than half (very rough guess) of drivers seem to go this fast either way.

What are peoples thoughts on this one?

It should be left well alone....

Advances in vehicle safety shouldn't be used as a justification. If you increase speed limit then you decrease the margin of safety. Car manufacturers can't overcome the laws of physics.... the more speed the worse a collision is.

Also, there's no getting around that fuel consumption rises significantly with speed. The biggest proportion of vehicle miles is driven on the motorway network, so increasing the motorway speed limit would potentially increase emissions by a significant amount. Conversely, if the existing 70mph limit were to be enforced properly, fuel consumption and emissions could be reduced significantly.

The government allege economic benefits, which seems a bit disinginous. Journey times are probably most critical to people at rush hour, when large parts of the motorway network struggle to make 8mph let alone 80mph. Congestion costs the economy billions of pounds a year, so actually the better thing to do for journey times would be to introduce road pricing so that road space is used sensible and congestion is reduced. A huge proportion of the economic value of the road network is linked to the movement of commercial vehicles, and I doubt the DfT are going to be consulting on increasing speed limits for HGVs, PSVs, and vans.

Then there's enforcement - which is pretty non-existent for the existing 70mph limit and you have to be going faster than 80 for the rozzers to take any notice anyway. If the limit is raised then based on existing practice, the limit wouldn't be enforced til 90mph. Since most people who want to travel at 80mph do, and the risk to their licence is currently around nil, what's the point in changing the limit?

Final thought is that, if the government support the idea of raising the limit, and so do drivers, then presumably fuel at £1.35 a litre of diesel is a bargain?

 

[tek-monkey]

I don't agree with road pricing as it affects poor people worse than rich ones, those who earn well couldn't give a monkeys but those on NMW would see a much larger proportion of their wages spent just on going to work. I do like the Swedish(?) system of penalties being based on income, so as a fine you might get 5% of your salary for example.

 

[henryscat]

I don't agree with road pricing as it affects poor people worse than rich ones, those who earn well couldn't give a monkeys but those on NMW would see a much larger proportion of their wages spent just on going to work. I do like the Swedish(?) system of penalties being based on income, so as a fine you might get 5% of your salary for example.

It depends on the system of pricing to some extent. Typically, lower paid workers tend to travel shorter distances to work, as well as a lot of lower paid work being shifts involving travel at times when the roads are quiet. A variable road pricing would see a very low cost when the roads are quietest and the highest cost per mile at the height of the rush hour. Car ownership is also fairly low in the lowest income households as you might expect.

 

[tek-monkey]

The problem as I see it is that I have had to turn down several jobs due to lack of transport, they just weren't easily commutable on public transport. Adding another cost into getting mobile may well reduce congestion for those that can afford it, but I wonder how many lower earners will be priced out of working at all? We already pay an extortionate amount of tax on fuel, varying tax based on emissions, making us also pay tax to use the roads is a joke.

I wonder how much the Gov makes at present per mile you drive?

 

[henryscat]

The problem as I see it is that I have had to turn down several jobs due to lack of transport, they just weren't easily commutable on public transport.

Absolutely - but the answer there is that more needs to be invested in public transport, both the rail and bus network. Instead the government are busy stuffing bus operators and making rail travel increasingly extortionately expensive.

Adding another cost into getting mobile may well reduce congestion for those that can afford it, but I wonder how many lower earners will be priced out of working at all? We already pay an extortionate amount of tax on fuel, varying tax based on emissions, making us also pay tax to use the roads is a joke.

One option for road pricing is that the proceeds are invested in public transport, which imo is what should happen. Congestion costs the economy billions, and road pricing is the only solution that will reduce congestion and cost to the economy. There is enough road space, the problem is people using it willy nilly for short trips/trips they could make in another way, and too many people wanting to use the roads at the same time for a short period each day (i.e. road pricing would shift a lot of people to travelling either side of the rush hour).

Long term the price of fuel is only going to rise, due to Peak Oil which successive governments are just sticking their heads in the sand about.

I wonder how much the Gov makes at present per mile you drive?

How much does it then spend on maintaning / building roads, emergency services, the NHS, and so on?

 

[dangerousdave]

i think that generally this would be a sensible thing to do. people disregard the speed limit as these days it seems to be out of date. the main problem that i see on the roads (especially motorways) is people driving at a speed which is not within their capability. this is different for everyone, so surely the main issue is the mentality of drivers. I haven't checked but i wouldn't be surprised if the autobahn in germany sees less accidents per mile than british motorways

 

[shoes]

No, significantly higher in Germany in fact. Although that's nationally, not on the Autobahn vs. Motorways, so the figure could be very different in that case.

Source

 

[henryscat]

i think that generally this would be a sensible thing to do. people disregard the speed limit as these days it seems to be out of date.

Are the laws of physics out of date too....? More speed = more severe collisions when they happen. More speed = higher fuel consumption.

Yes, people do disregard the speed limit, but as it is so badly enforced with no sign of any extra enforcement, what is the point in increasing it? If you drive down a motorway at 80 now, the police will not bat an eyelid.

the main problem that i see on the roads (especially motorways) is people driving at a speed which is not within their capability. this is different for everyone, so surely the main issue is the mentality of drivers.

Isn't speed part of the mentality of driving? Most of those that are driving at high speed are also the ones who are driving without the stopping distance for that speed.

 

[dangerousdave]

that does surprise me, but if that's the case that is the case. I still stand by the fact that what is needed more than speed limits is better driver training as i genuinely think far too many people drive at speeds that they cannot control their vehicle adequately.

having said that, isn't the old adage that anyone driving slower than you is an idiot who should get off the road if they're not confident to drive at a sensible speed, while anyone driving faster than you is a maniac?...

 

[dangerousdave]

Isn't speed part of the mentality of driving? Most of those that are driving at high speed are also the ones who are driving without the stopping distance for that speed.

no, you;re making a generalistaion here that I don't believe is true. There a lot fo drivers who may drive at above the speed limit, but give themselves plenty of braking distance should the need arise. however, it's in our human nature to notice things which are wrong, and not those things that are right, so you focus on the minority bad drivers insteda of focusing on the majority good drivers

 

[Miss Red]

I think it should be raised. I find that most of the dangerous drivers drive at slow speeds dithering. Crossing lanes no indicators then they toddle off at 50mph sitting in the fast lane!!! Those sort really annoy me along with the "brakers" nothing in front but they touch the brakes!
Most slow moving traffic is caused by slow moving vehicles - how many times have you snailed along the m6 only to find theres nothing at the end of it except a huge lorry that couldnt quite overtake and a car then didnt want to go over 70 in the fast lane!

The ones that really get to me are the ones who drive around the residential areas, 40mph rule and they drive at 25-30......then the limit drops to 30 mph zone and they do 45!! whats that all about?

I remember when i took my driving test they could fail you on going too slow!

 

[Neon Jay]

Advances in vehicle safety shouldn't be used as a justification. If you increase speed limit then you decrease the margin of safety. Car manufacturers can't overcome the laws of physics.... the more speed the worse a collision is

Excellent point, and I think as TM already mentioned that only counts for the newer vehicles on the road either way. And it still relies on the driver being alert enough to actually hit the brakes, or ensure he / she has sufficient stopping distance. As they say, you can adjust every nut in the car apart from the one behind the wheel...

I'll admit to not exactly sticking to the prescribed limit myself on occasions (and yes, I got done for it), but I always try and use the 2 second rule where appropriate as I think that's just really common sense. It's rare but you do still see nitwits doing 90+ mph, 10ft behind the guy in front. I can appreciate you might need to get somewhere quickly, but that's just plain idiocy.

One thing I find that helps judge this is the painted chevron system, for example M6 between J14 + 15, provides a very good visual cue that you don't have to take your eyes off the road to use; not sure if maybe more of these would help? But then, paint also costs money, especially when you have to close a major road to put it there...

 

[shoes]

I'm sure the fact that you can't get on a motorway until you've passed your test, at which point you can just jump on and have a go doesn't help. There are plenty of people out there who clearly fail at motorway driving. It's not beyond reason to suggest that perhaps some mandatory motorway driving tuition before you can go on the motorway would go a long way. Simply treating it like a 3 lane dual carriageway is foolish, as they are not the same and the level of idiots doing 100+ are also much higher on the motorway.

Not to mention that most people drive at 'clock 80' anyway (although 75 in most cars is probably closer to actual velocity), so now people are just going to drive at 'clock 90' instead.

Still, should be a nice little earner for the man.

 

[shoes]

I think it should be raised. I find that most of the dangerous drivers drive at slow speeds dithering. Crossing lanes no indicators then they toddle off at 50mph sitting in the fast lane!!! Those sort really annoy me along with the "brakers" nothing in front but they touch the brakes!
Most slow moving traffic is caused by slow moving vehicles - how many times have you snailed along the m6 only to find theres nothing at the end of it except a huge lorry that couldnt quite overtake and a car then didnt want to go over 70 in the fast lane!

The ones that really get to me are the ones who drive around the residential areas, 40mph rule and they drive at 25-30......then the limit drops to 30 mph zone and they do 45!! whats that all about?

I remember when i took my driving test they could fail you on going too slow!

They still can, I failed mine in 2004 for 'not making progress'.

Your point is illogical though MR - if people pootling along at 50 is dangerous with a limit of 70 - 20mph closing sped, then upping that to 80 and adding another 50% onto the closing speed is only going to endanger people more.

Of course if I had it my way then women, the elderly, people younger than me and people older than me wouldn't be allowed on the roads at all, thus reducing congestion to one singe car, and road safety would be improved dramatically, over night.