Safe Speed Forums

If we could increase the speed of the slowest vehicles, I therefore believe we could reasonably safely increase the speed of the fastest vehicles, too, to correspondingly more than 90mph.

I am at an age (59) when I can remember the late fities and the sixties, and the gradual spread of motoring in the UK, and reading some old 'Autocar' magazines I was given recently it is obvious that there were far more fatalities; nearly twice as many as now, with a lot less traffic. Of course there were no national speed limits then, either, just the urban limits of 30 & 40. However strange as it may seem, the traffic was actually a lot slower then, there were few motorways, and most cars were pushed to do more than 80, generally people kept to about 45-50. Nowadays every car can do a 100, (or almost). Cars then had small engines - Minis 900 cc, family cars 1500, only the Jags and others could go fast and even then in not many places. Frankly, speed was not then the main cause of accidents, just as it isn't today, so what has changed ?

(Of course if there was no speed at all there would be no accidents. Perhaps we should all walk !!)

Well, we now have much more commercial traffic, lorries etc. The failure of railway freight is a theme right through this period which includes the Beeching cuts whihc cut railway mileage by over 50%. Currently, commercial vehicles are involved in around 26% of accidents, (and a larger percentage of fatality accidents), but are only around 10-15% of the vehicles registered; food for thought there, maybe.

Roads have improved a hell of a lot. more motorways, better signing, and road junctions etc, and cars themselves are safer - better brakes, handling and so on. And casualties have gone down markedly, with the largest reductions before cash camera patnerships were introduced. Yet we are now stubbornly stuck at around the 3200-3500 mark for deaths.

What has really changed is that far, far, more youngsters drive, and are able to finance the running of their cars. I was a motorcyclist until the age of 32. Yes, I fell off a few times, and it taught me to drive to the conditions. But nowadays, at the age of 17, most youngsters are driving around. This has been accompanied by the dumbing down of the motoring magazines. You have only to look at the style of writing in the magazines of the 1950s compared to today. They were written by educated people for educated people; responsible people, people with families etc, natural law-abiders and people who took care, and were polite to others.

What is urgently needed is a cessation of mechanistic processes which punish people for minor infringements. Nobody, BUT NOBODY can be totally perfect when driving, yet this is what the cash camera partnerships rely on. They are feasting on fallibility. Of course they have generous salaries to pay, and pensions too. Even, dare I say it , incentive payments for maximising revenue from fines.

A concentration of effort on recklessness is what is needed. I think this can only be achieved by police road patrols, not robotic and sinister roadside cameras. People driving recklessly need to be confronted AT THE TIME with their stupidity. Fore some, a warning, for others, the full eight of the law. Of course this will cost more, and frankly, I have to say if any new model of partnership was formed which could draw its cost from the fines imposed for recklessness alone, I would be content, but the current cash camera partnerships disgust me now and always will.

</delurk>

Hello,

Not wishing to steal your thunder, but I actually suggested this to my girlfriend (while we were trying to solve the problems of the world, as we do) and I said that wouldn't it be good if I could take a series of courses, tests or whatever to prove to the Police that I was a confident, competent driver at "above average" speed limits.

You know, get awarded with a "+10mph" certificate or percentage-based or something.

So then, when getting flashed by said Gatso, the operator would check plate to name, name to "advanced drivers list" and see that I am legally allowed to exceed speed limits by 10mph.

Not a solution to the Speed Kills mentality problem, but it was just an idea. Nice to see I'm not totally barking up the wrong tree.

Personally I feel "attentive" driving at 90. Not overly confident, but definitely attentive. Anything over 90 starts to scare me.

Personally I feel "attentive" driving at 90. Not overly confident, but definitely attentive. Anything over 90 starts to scare me.

My view on motorway speed limits is that it is primarily speed differentials rather than absolute speeds that are the important factor. I believe that for safety, you need to have neither too much nor too little speed differential between vehicles. My non-scientific estimate of the optimum would be 15mph differential between each lane. It's rare that you encounter people who want to drive slower than 60 mph on motorways, so that would give us 75mph for the middle lane and 90mph for the outer lane.

If we make everyone drive at the same speed, bunching will result. If differentials are too great, the risk of misjudging another vehicle's speed and changing lanes in front of them when they can't stop in time is increased. If we could increase the speed of the slowest vehicles, I therefore believe we could reasonably safely increase the speed of the fastest vehicles, too, to correspondingly more than 90mph.

TripleS, I don't think your idea of an advanced licence (allowing the owner to disregard speed limits) is really practical (however appealing it must be to many). For one thing, even if you had such privileges, how would you exercise them when almost everyone else is travelling much more slowly?

My view on motorway speed limits is that it is primarily speed differentials rather than absolute speeds that are the important factor. I believe that for safety, you need to have neither too much nor too little speed differential between vehicles. My non-scientific estimate of the optimum would be 15mph differential between each lane.

Your point about youngsters is well made. They are, in the main, relatively irresponsible (I know, I was one once). It's not really their fault, they need time to gain maturity and responsibility but often refuse to accept their limitations. It would be unfair to label them all this way, there are some good young drivers but the wild (and noisy) minority do them no favours.

Keep up the good work, our society needs mature drivers to counterbalance the endless tide of youth.

Incidentally I think your 15 mph differential is a bit on the low side perhaps, and I have heard 30 - 40 mph being suggested as the upper limit, though that came from a Traffic Cop so maybe we lesser mortals would find that uncomfortably high.

If you had 30mph differentials, say 60mph inside lane, 90mph middle lane, 120mph outside lane, most cars will take a considerable amount of time to accelerate from 90mph to 120mph, making it hard to insert yourself into the flow of traffic.

I prefer low differentials. I rarely get more than 15 mph or thereabouts differential, except when there is a spare lane when I suggest a 50 mph differential is fair game (ie the overtaken vehicle is in lane one and the press-on driver in lane 3 for the manouevre).

I don't necessarily believe that we need a huge deal of experience to develop hazard perception and COAST, simply to learn from the experience we gain. But this could tie in well with a subsequent test, about 2 years after the original, where the new driver must be able to display the ability to perceive hazards and display COAST to an adequate level to release him to the full freedom of the motorway (perhaps initially limited by law to 70/80mph).