Would love it to happen but it never will as the safety lobby want to keep us all in cotton wool.
When the speed limit was set at 70 cars could barely reach 70 MPH, had drum brakes that hardly worked, windscreen wipers that hardly cleared the rain, no compulsory seat belts, no pyrotechnic seat belts no airbags, no ESP or ABS etc. etc. etc.
The speed limit could easily be 90 MPH.
|
They'll all grind to a halt soon anyway. Done a couple of long trips this week and I just can't believe the volume of traffic.
There were even queues at the M6 Toll plaza.
Last edited by: Bill Payer on Sat 24 Jan 15 at 23:28
|
Just for balance, Zippy, remind us what's happened to drivers' vision and concentration, and to traffic volumes over the same period. Similar improvements?
And when were you last pulled on a motorway for driving with the needle at 80 anyway? Don't we already have what we want, as far as it can be justified?
|
If we got 80mph official limits, then some would assume it is okay to drive at 90mph.
I would guess 70mph is here to stay and up to a real 79mph is accepted by authorities.
|
The difference in the 1960s when the limit was set is there was a hell of a lot less traffic on the motorway so a lot less to crash into. Also most speedos over read, I have got my car to 95mph on the M62 and it still had more to give, the official top speed is just 93mph.
In reality that 95mph speedo reading was probably about 85mph. If my speedo reads 35mph my sat always says I am doing 31/32mph.
My dad passed his test in 1970 and mostly drove 1950s bangers with illegal tyres etc (I have seen the pics!) but still says it as a lot more enjoyable driving back then than it is now, despite the fact that cars are so much better and easier to drive now.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Sun 25 Jan 15 at 03:35
|
It's a bit of a function of time, place, traffic volume and weather conditions as to whether certain speeds would be appropriate as opposed to legal.
At rush hour on a congested motorway not only would it be quite difficult to maintain a high speed, it would also be genuinely dangerous whereas at 4.00 on a summers morning on an empty stretch of motorway 70 feels inappropriately slow.
The line of least resistance is to have a lowest common denominator limit sadly. An experienced, thinking driver can work out for themselves what is safe but there will always be plenty who can't or won't.
Not sure what the right answer is to be honest. If people could be trusted to make the right judgements there would no need for limits at all.
|
|
95 mph Rats ? you giddy kipper !
|
>>
>> The speed limit could easily be 90 MPH.
>>
The cars are more capable, but I believe that driving standards have deteriorated. Or at least not kept pace, some drivers seem to be totally unaware of the highway code, common sense, or the laws of physics. There is no compulsory motorway training or test.
A point close to my heart at the moment, yesterday a van changed lane while I was overtaking it on the M8, no signal, it pushed me towards the central reservation. I braked hard as possible with two wheels on the gravel and hit the horn. In the vans mirror I saw the driver drop his phone as he pulled left when he realised what was going on. It was not speed related, traffic flow was about 55mph in lane 1 and 65 in lane 2.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 25 Jan 15 at 08:42
|
Currently there is no maximum speed limit on the motorway. On paper there might be, but in practise there isn't because there variable enforcement on most of the network
We have therefore settled into an unofficial arrangement where, if they see you, the old bill wont bother you if you are safely doing 80 mph (unless you get involved in an accident where your speed will count against you). Their actions will be variable depending on circumstances if you are doing between 80 and 90, and you get a kicking if you are doing over 90.
The sliding scale of greyness and uncertainty (for the average motorist) from 70 to 90 works really well on several fronts. There is no bunching, less frustration, motorists are wary and careful at speed, and the old bill get a kind of freedom to enforce driving by standards, not speed.
Conclusion? leave things exactly the way they are, it works and it works well.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 25 Jan 15 at 09:03
|
|
Through gritted teeth I tend to agree with Z. :)
|
>> We have therefore settled into an unofficial arrangement where, if they see you, the old
>> bill wont bother you if you are safely doing 80 mph....
If you stick to indicated 80 you should be OK but you'll get done at a real 79MPH by speed enforcement partnerships, and they know just where to position themselves (at the bottom of downhill curves is a favourite) to maximise their revenue generation as that 80 creeps up to 85.
I count myself lucky to have only been caught once (at 85) but I can't tell you how many escapes I've had. It's had its effect on my driving - I try and get in clear "windows" of traffic and sit at 70 to 75 and am wetting myself if for some reason (getting past someone etc) I find the speedo nudging 80.
I have to say on this weeks' trips I haven't seen them once, but that's unusual - perhaps too cold for them to venture out.
Last edited by: Bill Payer on Sun 25 Jan 15 at 10:12
|
My boss at work just got trimmed for 79 on the M180 eastbound on a quiet Saturday morning. Easy pickings when quotas have to be fulfilled.
He had a speed seminar in spring so its points and a fine. Of course nobody has mentioned the fact that he must have fallen asleep during the seminar. Or that maybe he should ask for a refund under the Sale of Goods Act. :)))
|
>> He had a speed seminar in spring so its points and a fine. Of course
>> nobody has mentioned the fact that he must have fallen asleep during the seminar. Or
>> that maybe he should ask for a refund under the Sale of Goods Act. :)))
>>
As he obviously hasn't learned, he should pay both fines, and get all six points.
And no refund on the course either.
(tongue in cheek)
Last edited by: Tigger on Wed 28 Jan 15 at 05:42
|
>> My boss at work just got trimmed for 79 on the M180 eastbound on a
>> quiet Saturday morning.
Reminds me of the time I had an accident at work, when I rear ended someone at traffic lights, on a call.
The amount of my lot who managed to do a 'drive by' was unreal.
One PC even took a load of pictures with his camera phone and sent them to everyone who couldn't make it to the scene!
Didn't help that I was the Borough 'Safe Driving' manager.
The first (and hopefully the last) time I've set airbags off.
|
As others say it's not a particularly good idea, still less one that's going to make a practical difference.
It's got a significant political risk too. Within a week of it coming in the same newspaper that's publishing this story will have a grieving Mother /Widow on the front page blaming the increased speed limit for their plight. The public tide will turn and 'something must be done'.
I'd also take issue with Bill Payer. The bottom of downhill curves is exactly the right place for speed traps. A downhill curve is usually into a valley with the curve concealing the following climb. As soon as it hits the climb traffic slows down and pile ups are a serious probability.
'Death Valley' on the Manchester motorway network is one example, there's another near Luton on the s/b M1.
And anybody who thinks there's significant 'revenue' to be made from speed traps needs to sit down and do some sums.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 25 Jan 15 at 10:44
|
I think the answer is a modified version of the variables.
At the moment they are only triggered by traffic volumes, but if the system could be upgraded to account for weather conditions then perhaps we could have a system where you can do 90 at 2 in the morning on an empty road, and also monitor / punish the idiots who do not take any degree of weather conditions into account
|
|
All too complicated. Just leave it as it is. As Zero says the informal arrangement works well. No one gets done for speeding on the motorway unless they are well over the limit. It ain't broke, don't fix it.
|
>> All too complicated. Just leave it as it is. As Zero says the informal arrangement
>> works well. No one gets done for speeding on the motorway unless they are well
>> over the limit. It ain't broke, don't fix it.
>>
+1
|
"All too complicated. Just leave it as it is."
Agreed. Anyway, the only place you can do more than 70 in Norfolk is the Acle straight!
|
As it stands it is possible we are being lulled into a false sense of security. If the perception is that 80MPH has become accepted by the authorities, and lets face it you cant do much less in lane 3 or get stuck amongst the heavies at 57MPH in lane 2, then enforcing 79 on a relatively quiet stretch of motorway somewhat stinks.
But no one has ever said so much other than the threshold is 10% + 2. If you are driving to the edge sometimes you will err over the line, say on the downhill stretch, and they are waiting for you.
However if you put the limit up to 80MPH then the threshold becomes 90MPH which is probably not where the road safety lobby wants to be.
|
|
Can't really follow the first part of your argument, FC. As for the second, who's to say a similarly lax standard for enforcement would have to be applied to a higher limit? Other countries have higher motorway limits but allow less leeway; we could get a higher nominal limit but find ourselves going the same way.
|
Indeed when the increase in the speed limit was being discussed a few year back the Transport Minister's view was that an increased limit would be strictly enforced.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366194/Philip-Hammond-We-strictly-enforce-speed-limit-raised-80mph.html
|
>> All too complicated. Just leave it as it is. As Zero says the informal arrangement
>> works well. No one gets done for speeding on the motorway unless they are well
>> over the limit. It ain't broke, don't fix it.
>>
If this is linked to managed motorways, as the article suggests, then it would be really easy to allow the cameras to catch people when there's no variable limit active.
|
>> and am wetting myself if for some reason (getting past someone etc) I find the
>> speedo nudging 80.
>>
So why do it?
>> I have to say on this weeks' trips I haven't seen them once, but that's
>> unusual - perhaps too cold for them to venture out.
>>
It is the one you didn't see that got you.
|
>> The cars are more capable, but I believe that driving standards have deteriorated. Or at
>> least not kept pace, some drivers seem to be totally unaware of the highway code,
>> common sense, or the laws of physics. There is no compulsory motorway training or test.
All good points. The current speed restrictions haven't changed in my lifetime, but anyone who's recently driven a 1960's or older car in modern traffic will be well aware that the maximum safe achievable speeds in place when they were built were pretty much in line with the law as it stood then. Driving standards have IMO decreased partly because modern vehicles are so easy to drive and require a lower level of both driver input, and concentration from their drivers. There is also the undoubted psychological cushion of knowing that you are far more likely today to walk away from a crash which twenty or thirty years ago, let alone fifty, would have killed you; and that furthermore if you do write said car off a replacement is easily and cheaply available.
When I first learned to drive, in the army, we went on a two week course. The second week was officially put aside in case you failed on the first test which was at the end of week one; in practice most passed, and then benefited from a week's driving experience with our instructor which covered motorways and more advanced driving techniques which if taught before the test would probably have induced a fail under the prevailing criteria. That experience proved priceless in the following few years.
|
When I started driving the NSL sign meant you could drive at any speed (safely of course). Now it means 70mph.
Naturally I favour raising the NSL, as high as possible. What about, say, 120mph? Obviously the laws and regulations should apply, and road fuzz and cameras should still finger people for crap dangerous driving.
|
|
Does it? I thought it meant 60mph on a normal A road?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 25 Jan 15 at 15:43
|
>> Does it? I thought it meant 60mph on a normal A road?
And less than that for some types of vehicle.
|
>> I thought it meant 60mph on a normal A road?
Yes. 70 on any dual carriageway in the absence of lower posted limits. Does one have to spell everything out every time FMR? Surely not.
|
>> Yes. 70 on any dual carriageway in the absence of lower posted limits. Does one
>> have to spell everything out every time FMR? Surely not.
Even quite modest vans are limited to 60 on a dual carriageway. Catch 'em like flies where same road switches between M and A (eg M2/A2, M23/A23)
|
NSLs depend on type of road and class of vehicle. There is not one figure.
www.gov.uk/speed-limits
|
>> My boss at work just got trimmed for 79 on the M180
How? Overhead camera or police with speed gun?
This is unfair especially when 80 MPH is socially acceptable rarely dangerous.
Last edited by: movilogo on Tue 27 Jan 15 at 14:07
|
>> Mobile scamera van.
Is it me FC, or are they using those more often now? I've been seeing at least one per 300-mile day lately.
|
How the mobile camera vans work on motorways?
I have only seen them pointing guns from top of a bridge over a motorway.
Do they also work from ground level? Do they have to be stationary or they can follow you as well?
|
>> I have only seen them pointing guns from top of a bridge over a motorway.
>>
>> Do they also work from ground level? Do they have to be stationary or they
>> can follow you as well?
They work just as well at ground level. Positioning them on bridges is for safety of the operators, standing on hard shoulder or verge with one, or even parked in a van, is too dangerous for UK H&S (and rightly so). Les Flics are made of sterner stuff and I've seen them on French Autoroutes standing between the barriers of the central reservation.
Cannot follow you but standard jam sarnie or unmarked police cars are not as rare as we kid ourselves.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 28 Jan 15 at 08:25
|
>> Do they also work from ground level? Do they have to be stationary or they
>> can follow you as well?
>>
There's often one tucked into a deep "layby" around a bend passing Blackburn heading East on the M65.
|
>> >> Mobile scamera van.
>>
>> Is it me FC, or are they using those more often now? I've been seeing
>> at least one per 300-mile day lately.
Saw one yesterday, Its a beaut. A3 Northbound, approaching the Hook underpass, the NSl changes to 50 mph enforced by camera. 350 yards beyond the camera, round the bend and under the flyover is a cameravan, so positioned to be invisible until the last moment.
Its there to catch those who slow for the camera then speed up again. It does very well out of those who don't know about it.
In the afternoon, they move it to the southbound carriageway, 800 yards beyond the start of the NSL. That one is there to catch Chelsea Footballers on their way to Cobham. Its phenomenally successful often catching the same ones multiple times.
|
In my area we do not have fixed cameras (except on motorways and average speed ones) but do have vans. I can assure you they can work in both directions of travel and side on. They also set up shop in devious locations out of sight around bends, in laybys, on and under bridges etc. Also the police use hand held speed measuring devices, there are ANPR cameras for insurance and road tax enforcement, and of course Highways Agency survellience cameras. Don't worry your hazard flashers provide an invisibility cloak. :)
EDIT-
Having read Zeros post, I have also seen double traps a mile apart in my area.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 28 Jan 15 at 09:00
|
Interested to know how you know they are so succesful. Are any figures available or is this just conjecture on your part?
|
>> Interested to know how you know they are so succesful. Are any figures available or
>> is this just conjecture on your part?
>>
to whom was it aimed?, as the forum is broke.
If you mean the Chelsea remark, check the papers, plenty of corroboratory evidence there.
|
>> to whom was it aimed?, as the forum is broke.
Well, he replied to your post according to when viewing in threaded mode.
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=t&t=19000&m=419684
|
>> >> to whom was it aimed?, as the forum is broke.
>>
>> Well, he replied to your post according to when viewing in threaded mode.
>>
>> www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=t&t=19000&m=419684
If the forum was meant to be viewed in threaded form, that is the way it would be presented as default. Its not so stop making excuses and fix the forum.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 28 Jan 15 at 13:01
|
>> If the forum was meant to be viewed in threaded form, that is the way it would be presented as default
I was merely pointing it out for the non computer savvy bloke as he had no idea how to do it himself (or was too lazy to look ;) ).
>> stop making excuses and fix the forum.
I only moderate it. Someone else gets the spanners out and does the repairs.
|
The normal view is actually threaded, in that the latest post is not always at the bottom, but it doesn't show which posts are the children and which the parents.
HJ does, but it results in the posts getting ever narrower.
What I thought Zero was referring to as broken is that hovering over the little arrow by the subject isn't showing the parent post at the moment.
|
>> What I thought Zero was referring to as broken is that hovering over the little
>> arrow by the subject isn't showing the parent post at the moment.
He was (but it's now fixed).
I was trying to point out to him that if he temp changed the view of this topic he'd have seen who was replying to who.
|
>> >> What I thought Zero was referring to as broken is that hovering over the
>> little
>> >> arrow by the subject isn't showing the parent post at the moment.
>>
>> He was (but it's now fixed).
>>
>> I was trying to point out to him that if he temp changed the view
>> of this topic he'd have seen who was replying to who.
And I was trying to point out to you that is not the default view of the forum.
|
>> And I was trying to point out to you that is not the default view of the forum.
I didn't say that it was. I was trying to tell you how you could have checked who was replying to who by temp changing the view. God you're hard work.
And for the umpteenth time please summarise and not quote everything when you reply.
|
>> >> And I was trying to point out to you that is not the default
>> view of the forum.
>>
>> I didn't say that it was. I was trying to tell you how you could
>> have checked who was replying to who by temp changing the view. God you're hard
>> work.
>>
>> And for the umpteenth time please summarise and not quote everything when you reply.
>>
Why?
|
>> Why?
Not sure if you're on a wind up, but I'll bite the carrot anyway.
Because apart from re-reading what someone else has written before finding the reply to it, it makes the post look untidy. Take your reply for instance, which was a one word reply preceded by 9 lines of what you were replying to.
Not to mention being lazy and ignoring the polite message that pops up when pressing the quote button asking you to only include any relevant text.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 29 Jan 15 at 21:46
|
>> Not sure if you're on a wind up,
he is
>>but I'll bite the carrot anyway.
I wouldn't.
>> Because apart from re-reading what someone else has written before finding the reply to it,
>> it makes the post look untidy.
Looks ok to me
>> Take your reply for instance, which was a one
>> word reply preceded by 9 lines of what you were replying to.
he was taking the mick
>> Not to mention being lazy and ignoring the polite message that pops up when pressing
>> the quote button asking you to only include any relevant text.
Not ignoring - I mean I actually prune quite a lot, but surely the poster decides what is relevant and includes such text as required to make it so?
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 29 Jan 15 at 21:53
|
>> >> >> arrow by the subject isn't showing the parent post at the moment.
>> >>
>> >> He was (but it's now fixed).
>> >>
I've never noticed that before!
And what do the three little arrows on the right of the title line do? I clicked them, of course, but the results seemed random.
ETA: I figured it out now - up, down, and back. :)
Last edited by: Bill Payer on Thu 29 Jan 15 at 21:57
|
Zero and all who use the Hook area.
Probably the same BiB working a similar ruse above the A3 but on the A243. Hook Road.
This is the road from M25 at Leatherhead, past Chessington and Lidl to Kingston.
There is a Gatso near the Hook shops and then folks speed up approaching the roundabout over the Hook underpass. The Bib hide in Kelvin Grove, a few yards short of the roundabout, then pop out and gun folks.
So beware all locals ( and others) else a Lidl may visit might turn out to be expensive .
|
Pre election carrot ? - sooty123
