Safe Speed Forums

Reported in the Sunday Times today is news of a trial of 80mph limits on certain stretches of motorway. Presumably, these will be areas where variable limits are already possible and the policing cameras are already in position. BRAKE automatically condemned this (no surprise there).

The interesting thing to me was the comment from a senior policeman with some vague responsibility for this trial. He is reported to have said that the higher limit would be more closely enforced than other limits and that the 10% + 2mph rule will not be applied. If this is technically possible without huge numbers of legal challenges, why aren't the 70mph and 60mph limits also policed without the leeway?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

As odd as it may seem, that isn't impossible.
ACPO guidelines being guidelines and any speed over the limit being an offence aside,

Motorways are classified as 'special roads', where processes such as 'corroborating opinion' doesn't apply - thus the "2 speed measurements to be within 10% of each other" rule also wouldn't apply. Perhaps that is of relevance?


I don't know the answer to this.
Be careful what you "ask" for ... (I'm sure the likes of Brake are asking the same question)

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Next post - Brake spokes person as faint ,as car goes faster than 79MPH .Up till now , 70 was the limit of human endurance . After 80 , all skin falls off face,and the vehicle goes into shock .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I actually thought the 10% + 2 mph was to ensure that no defences that the equipment was inaccurate or the car speedo was wrong etc. would stand up in court. It is more of a legal/practical issue than a technical one.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Car speedos are not allowed to underread (show a reading lower than the true speed of hte vehicle) but some do anyway!
IIRC, an underreading speedo is not a defence against a charge of exceeding the speed limit (which is odd considering speedos are never checked).

I think the usual SCP representatives would choke on their donuts if anyone suggested their equipment could be out by +8mph.
However, there is now a tendency towards the acceptance that, if not used properly in certain circumstances, some equipment are at risk of giving speed reading errors of that order of magnitude. So your point here is valid Malcolm.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Once they have installed the 'zero tolerance' (SPECS?) average speed cameras, which presumably will be in additon to the HADEC's or GATSO's in the gantries on MM, then the 80mph bits will be slower than the 70 mph stretches policed in a more common sense manner.

Now I wish they'd ditch this 80mph bollocks and leave me to make progress as I always have on quiet bits of M-way.... seems the real reason for the trial is to get back on track with 100% M-way coverage with SPECS. Even the French are not taking things that far (why would they, they can't get the Brits with avg scams )

At least the concept of doubling up on cameras to enforce this might be hard to justify in the current economy, but I'm sure it will, as usual, be worth it if just 'one life' is saved over the next 20 years. Perhaps they should leave the lights on too????

At what point will all this become an obvious farce I wonder? It's really depressing actually. Luckily I tend only to enjoy my car well away from the trunk road and M-ways these days....

_________________
Enjoying the twilight years of personal freedom in the UK (and my M3) :)

A bit like the labour Governments idea of the 50MPH NSL. It never came about...or did it??

Look how many 50MPH roads have sprung up in the last few years and even on the NSL stretches, there are still loads of 50MPH drivers who either believe that the NSL is now 50MPH or believe they will live another 20years longer if they don't exceed 50MPH.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

It did in Derbyshire and Oxfordshire

I'm sure for many of us, the maximum speed we'd be happy to do on a 70 mph motorway without VSL is actually higher than the speed we'd be happy to do on an 80 mph one with VSL, so trialling it on such stretches seems singularly pointless. Also, the motorways with VSL tend to be congested for much of the day anyway.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

If they do strictly enforce an 80 then I can see exactly what that will lead to. Extra gawping at the Sat Nav to make sure I’m not over and as for overtakes, forget them. If I want to get past someone doing 75 without briefly speeding what a f-up that will be! Everything becoming an ‘elephant’.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

It would be right to think that they already had all the info to know already that the 80mph is the safe 85th%ile level, and any trial is just to ensure their thoughts not to expect any 'surprises'!

The concept that it will be any excuse for people to reach 90 +++ is false. On clear roads very few seem to exceed 85mph given 'free will' and many seem to remain under 70mph.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

£1.50/ltr.
My speed is going to be 56 max on every road I can legally do that.
AND that includes m/ways.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

That would make sense only to those who place comparably little value on the time spent behind the wheel.
That's not for everyone.

Besides, no-one (who is reasonable) is forcing anyone to do 80. For anyone who doesn't want to fully utilise the new limit, all I ask is that they apply proper and considerate lane discipline.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

As fuel costs rise, many more are going to be driving to cost. MANY vehicles are now limited to 70 max, or lower. I know of one company whose fleet of diesel focuses has been fitted with same,as are many vans and ALL trucks are 56 max.
I find that faster is not quicker, if that makes sense. In fact yesterday I was in the inside lane of a mway travelling faster than the outside lane, which wasn't travelling at all. Good luck with that 80.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

On the modern car with a 6 gear box, or more, 56 mph does not necessarily give the best fuel consumption; this is normally obtained at around maximum engine torque. It may on a dead flat road, but seeing most roads have inclines, a higher speed gives enough momentum to get up inclines with little throttle movement. This is where using cruise control does not give the best fuel consumption, because it holds back going down hill and then accelerates to maintain the set speed going uphill. It is better to gently accelerate going down hill in order to build up enough speed to take you up the next hill.

Yes, 56MPH was the ideal speed bandied about by the government of the mid 70's during the suez fuel crisis, which led to a blanket NSL of 50MPH (to save fuel). However in the mid 70s the majority of cars only had four forward gears, ran on carburretors and were less streamlined than now so I would expect modern cars to have a sweetspot in excess of this figure.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I don't know why you are so negative about this.
Your sentiments remind me of one of the classic Jasper Carrot routines: "He wont get there any faster you know!"

Not all motorways are permanently so congested to prevent safe speeds greater than 70. Indeed I think you will find that the majority of motorways will in fact safely hold 80+ traffic for the majority of the time. I've also done the L1 trick many a time when commuting on the M3, but that only happens between certain junctions (a small minority of), and only at certain times of the day; otherwise those in L3 are generally making swifter progress.

No one is forcing you to do 80, yet it is almost as if you don't care that others wish to capitalise on the 80 limit.
By all means do your 56, just apply correct and considerate lane discipline and we can all interact harmoniously.

Fleets that have limited their cars to 70 will quickly undo such modification if the limits are raised to 80; do businesses realise that time isn't money?

And if the price of fuel really does become so prohibitive, people won't just slow, they also simply won't drive at all. So this could well have the counter-intuitive effect of opening the roads for those who value their time.

Bring on the 80!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

If you do travel at 56 you will need to overtake every HGV going slowly past them which will extend your danger when passing them. Depending what time and density of the motorway traffic .... as you will be in L2 or L3 for those extended overtaking periods, it will potentially hold up others and cause 'jams' behind you, so do pull over as soon as you have past each HGV that you overtake. If you extend it to two or three HGV's it may massively increase the frustration from following motorists.
If you are travelling for longer periods will you really save very much ? Many cars have a 'sweet spot' where they are more efficient at certain speeds.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

IIRC one of the major factors in companies limiting the speed of their employees' vehicles on motorways is not fuel saving, but reduction in the instances of drivers missing turns off motorways.

Faster instantaneous speeds do not equal faster overall speeds on individual journeys, multiple journeys or the fleet as a whole.

Only over a very limited range of speeds.

Are you saying that if a company's entire car and van fleet was limited to 56 mph they would still get there just as quickly?

How about 55 mph?

Or 54 mph?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Probably faster overall I'd imagine.

Less fuel stops, less crashes, less missed turns.

Massively complex situation though and there are lots of variables, but to suggest faster speeds = overall speed is increased is a silly claim to make.