Safe Speed Forums

oh for f*cks sake. I said I was doing ROUGHLY 85. That's somewhere between 80 and 85 AND THAT IS AN INDICATED SPEED NOT AN ACTUAL SPEED, so in fact I was driving BELOW the speed limit. Which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that the other drivers for the most part seemed to be happy at around 110km/h despite the higher limit.

Who said the vast majority stuck to the speed limit? That isn't stated or implied anywhere.

And in some cases it will be lower........

edit: in other cases it will be even lower due to equipment uncertainty.

how many people have been done by safety camera partnership operated speed traps at less than 79 mph?

Millions.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

clever. sorry, i meant when the speed limit is 70mph

Yep,
I was done for 47 mph on a motorway. Sorry Actual speed was 43 now I have calibrated my speedo with satnav.

Richard

I know someone who was prosecuted for exceeding a motorway 70 limit at 76mph

by whom, the SCP vans or actual traffic cops?

Hmmm. so let me get this right then.

me wanting to drive at the same speed as the vast majority of other car drivers on the motorway is selfish and (in your view, I guess), dangerous but you wanting to be a "mobile chicaine" and being the cause of many hundreds of needless overtaking manoeuvres is not?

Yeah, whatever.

As for you telling me what speed I would drive at if the limits were raised...

well, I'd quit that line of argument ASAP if I were you - if you want to retain any credibility! I might get to 90 on occasions where it was appropriate but I doubt I'd do it very often and for very long. Partly economic arguments and partly that it's unlikely that I'd get much of a chance to do it in safety on today's crowded roads. Sorry if that was the "wrong answer" though!

Incidentally, I HAVE seen an NIP for 79 on the morotway - a close family member, in fact!

Anyway, getting back to the argument Jec, you still haven't come up with anything concrete as to why a higher motorway limit would be a bad thing. You keep telling us that 70 SHOULD be good enough for all of us but you haven't given any decent reasons as to WHY we would all be better off (except the environmental one - which I already partly accept). The "it's the law of the land" one isn't really an argument, it's just stating a fact that we're all amply aware of and hopefully, you should have come to realise by now that it wasn't a law that was arrived at with any kind of scientific basis whatsoever!

because it is a speed limit that almost everyone who is driving on our roads today will have recognised and adapted to (in most cases) - i fear that increasing the limit (and hence the prosecution threshold which would presumably go to 90) would mean that the most vulnerable people to high speed driving (ie inexperienced, recently qualified, elderley, etc) would be forced to drive at speed they were not comfortable with or risk being referred to as a mobile chicane by the likes of yourself or risk being tailgated by someone who thinks everyone should drive at the limit regardless.

you are asking for higher speed LIMITS remember, not "speed advisory signs" that you can routinely ignore.

the people who ask for the 80 limit are more than likely going to be the ones that will ignore it ! where do you draw the line? should you be allowed to drive at 200mph on the motorway just because you may _think_ you're safe? what about the 17 year olds who think they're indestructible?

We can safely turst the judgement on the majority in almost all cases. That's why speed limits have been set to 85th percentile levels with prosecution thresholds often above the 95th percentile.

Speed limits are OK for nicking nutters. They are useless for changing behaviour.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Hi Jec,
I want a higher limit and don't want to ignore it. Please don't base your judgement on the few nutters on the road - speed cameras don't catch these. Most people I know want police patrols on the road, they want safer roads. Read TRL 595 a document only uncovered under freedom of information act. In roadworks 1% of accidents caused by speeding. Most people drive safely. LEGAL does not mean SAFE.

Richard

err, no. When en france I drove no faster than I do here (conditions permitting etc etc) despite having been told that French cops (a) tend to ignore what goes on in good conditions and (b) if they are bored enough to sit on a motorway in good conditions don't worry about anything under 150km/h. So in effect the only difference for me was that I didn't have to try and spot vans parked on bridges.

But as you pointed out, no-one is FORCED to drive at the higher speed. Those who choose not to will be entitled to continue to drive at 65mph if they so desire and conditions allow.
If they are driving sensibly and safely they will likely to be spending most of their time in Lane 1. if they are a 'mobile chicane', that would be due to their poor choice of lane rather than speed...
As has been pointed out often before, those who tailgate will tend to do so regardless of the travelling speed, speed limit or current road conditions; this will not change with an alteration of the speed limit.
Finally, those 'vulnerable' drivers do not have to use the motorway at all if they feel so threatened.

..and your evidence for that is WHAT, exactly?

Obviously you're entitled to your suppositions. I take it being referred to as a "mobile chcaine" won't make YOU drive any faster! So, thus far, that's at least ONE person it hasn't worked on!

Sorry, I'd have thought it was obvious from me suggesting that we have an 80 limit like the rest of Europe that I DIDN'T want a 200MPH limit! I apologise if I didn't make this clear enough!

If that limit was then enforced by TRAFPOLS (who are highly trained, can tell what the weather and other conditions are like and are allowed discretion then choose to start enforcing it at about 90 (give or take whatever their discretion dictates, that'll be fine by me!

as for the "indestructible 17 year olds. Do you think, for one minute that the ones that get themselves into trouble now wouldn't get themselves into trouble of the speed limit was 60 orwould get themselves into more trouble if it was 80?

dream on...

Does it matter?

it does smeggy

_________________
now retired