Safe Speed Forums

Now don't get me wrong, I belive that speed in the right place and at the right time is a good thing and that motorways should have no maximim limit, but aren't the government being hypocritical? They say that the maximum speed anywhere in the UK will not exceed 70mph, but they allow cars that exceed that limit (in some cases many times over) to be purchased and used. Now, if they really had proof that excessive speed caused accidents, don't you think that they would change the construction and use act to limit the maximum speed that a car could physically reach. after all, they did it with lorries and mopeds. In fact, they would have to so that they couldnt be accused of negligence! Road safety has noting to do with it, its all revenue.

Remeber what cars and roads were like 30 years ago? They still went fast, but they couldn't stop and the tyres were rubbish. There were no airbags and in many cases no seatbelts! But now we have anti lock breaks, airbags, crumple zones, better tyres, better steering, better roads, but the maxumum speed limit is still set at the temporary speed of 70mph put in place during the fuel crisis!

Perhaps is this is the same as smoking, where it's supposed to be be a very bad and dangerous thing, highly addictive and with a dreadfull mortality rate. Worse that some class A drugs!! but do they ban it? reclassify it? No. They keep taking the money.

I had to get that off my chest. I'm about to get banned, which loose me my job. I travel about 45000 miles a year from Cumbria (no jobs) to London (jobs) If I want to sleep and see my family, I have to exceed the speed limit (do the math). Speed limits: Safety? or just another way of reinforcing the North South divide and raising a few quid for Gordon.

The safety benefits of driving at 70mph rather than 80mph on the motorway are probably fairly limited compared with driving at sensible speeds in residential areas. There have been suggestions of using GPS technology to detect the speed limit in a particular area and require cars to be fitted with a device to limit it to that speed. I can imagine how popular that would be!



Whatever your views on speed cameras and enforcement, surely you don't believe that excessive speed doesn't cause accidents!?

I'd imagine Gordon does rather better out of the tax on the extra fuel you consume by driving fast all that distance than the relatively small amount on speeding fines!

Popularity won't even come a close second when you think about the safety repurcussions.
Just imagine having all the power automatically cut from under your right foot just when you need it most.


"Excessive" is down to interpretation and the surrounding conditions.

For example, you may very well class 100mph as excessive, but it is a walk in the park if you happen to be on the M6 Toll on a decent day with very little other traffic around you.

Excessive speed itself does not cause accidents at all, it is the "innapropiate" use of speed that causes accidents.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

See Speeding by Design on my website.

The only remotely conceivable measure is a Europe-wide requirement for 130 km/h speed limiters on cars and motorbikes, which would do sod all for safety, and in fact probably make it worse.

_________________
"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

That would never work Peter.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Ahh, but what is 'excessive speed'? And how much of it have we got?

DfT says 60% are exceeding the speed limit 'at sample sites' in most speed limit zones.

DfT also says that 12% of crashes have 'excessive speed' as a contributory factor. In this case, 'excessive speed' includes speed in excess of a speed limit AND speed inappropriate for the conditions.

So it is 5 times safer to speed than not to speed? ('course not)

And they say 2% of drivers are drunk, but 20% of crashes involve drunk drivers. (I don't know where those figures came from).

So is it 10 times more dangerous to drive drunk than sober? ('course it is).

But the fact remains that the speeding figures don't seem to make sense.

The gap is that speeding and crashes take place largely at different places and different times. We slow down in areas of danger and speed up when the road is clear. Now there's a surprise...

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

I know it wouldn't - but it's something it is just conceivable they might have a go at.

The technical and other issues involved with variable limiters make them a totally blue-sky concept.

_________________
"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

Speeding in places where you can legally do 70 can be quite safe due to lack of hazards which cannot be seen. This does not apply in built up areas where any drunken idiot, distracted pedestrian or boisterous child can jump out at you. So a 70MPH speed limiter will do what?
Also, people less responsible than you or I may be tempted to have ‘competitions’ to see how long they can stay on the limiter!

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

Always the same. "Limit the speed of cars to 70"

Does this stop you doing 70 mph in a built up area?

Nope.

And the fact remains that some lorry limiters can be disabled by removing one fuse....

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Maybe I did misunderstand ssilvie's meaning. To me if your speed is 'excessive' it is by definition 'inappropriate', regardless of the speed limit.

Regarding speed limitation, I guess the safety issues people refer to are not being able to 'accelerate out of trouble'. Can anyone think of a time when they have needed to do this? I've been driving 10 years, and I can't. I actually don't think it would be any worse than traction control. Probably the benefits outweigh the costs, but I have cursed it a few times when trying to pull out quickly and the power has been cut because my wheels spun slightly.

I can think of times when I've needed to. For instance, turning right off a 3 lane D/C with a 50mph limit. I was sat in L2 signalling right, rapidly approaching my turning and no let-up in the traffic speeding past in L3. I had no choice but to wind the throttle open to move into a gap that was smaller than I would have liked.

At the end of the day, if limits were set appropriately and drivers educated properly then there would be no need for any of this big brother nonsence.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

If you think of 'danger reduction strategies' on motorways and dual carraigeways it's frequent.

Passing an HGV? Accelerate to reduce the time you're exposed to the risk of sideswipe.

Approaching a busy slip road? Accelerate to a clearer space and reduce the risk of being caught in the squeeze.

Tailgater in L3? Accelerate to the next gap in L2 so that you can pull over sooner.

Need to change lane to the right? If the lane to the right is going faster, you'll need to accelerate to take advantage of a suitable gap in L3.

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

I think that some people have mistaken my views as advocating speed limiters. Nothing could be further than the truth, but I just can't understand why so much effort is being put into persecuting those who break the national speed limit, whilst allowing us to buy cars that will so readily exceed it (in first or 2nd gear!). I would love to hear a government spokesman's view on this!

I think you were pretty clear you don't advocate them ssilvie. I was just delving into the issue a bit out of interest.

I think Paul's 'danger reduction strategies' are fair points. Although if everyone was limited to the same speed, you'd take a couple of them out of the equation, e.g. tailgating would presumably no longer be an issue. I suppose the question has whether the safety benefits of forcing people to stick to the speed limit outweigh any dangers. I don't know the answer, but if we're serious about improving road safety I think it's a debate worth having.

Actually, tailgating would probably get worse. It is impossible to limit every single vehicle to EXACTLY the same speed - just look at LGVs that are supposedly limited to 56mph - you still see them overtaking each other. Therefore you would get very small variences in speed which would allow faster vehicles to close on slower ones but without the option to overtake.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

You may be right, although aggressive tailgating would be pointless. But yeah, lorries are hardly immune from tailgating themselves, I often see them on the M6 driving unbelieveably close. I suppose they often don't want to 'sacrifice their hard earned speed' as I think I saw it put elsewhere in the forum. It can sometimes make it hard to pull off the motorway as well, I know you should be looking ahead and try to get in lane in good time, but I've seen situations where there's almost a solid mile of lorries with barely a car length between them.

We don't make cars in this country except under the guidance of some foreign manufacturer who is only interested in the World market. The chances of the Government being able to persuade a large car manufacturer to limit cars for the Uk market to a maximum of 70 (IMO) is extremely unlikely.

Most of the buying public wouldn't buy them.

Any car limited to the maximum speed limit would be dangerous IMHO.

Having said that my next car has a limiter fitted but to more than the NSL.

_________________
Shooting is good for you and too good for some people.

I would say the main safety issue (with variable limiters anyway) is that drivers will feel that control of speed has been taken out of their hands and will therefore become "cruise control zombies" aiming to drive on the limiter for as long as possible.

_________________
"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

In fact it would be illegal under EU regulations - the government cannot set UK-only construction & use regulations except those that relate to left-hand driving and Imperial distances and speed limits. That is why we had to scrap dim-dip lights, which I thought were a good idea.

_________________
"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