If 80% of people thought rape or robbery acceptable then, yes, in a true democracy it would be legal.   However, we all know that the vast majority of us find rape, robbery, vandalism etc anti-social and agree, by and large, with the way justice is administered,

 

Deciding to break the speed limits on the motorways is not anti-social at all, and interferes with no one, providing one does so with due regard to conditions and other road users.   In fact, drivers who are speeding slightly and then slam the anchors on when they spot a camera, Highways Agency vehicle or police car are far more of a danger to us all!

There's no excuse for ramming someone from behind, that's poor driving no argument. Braking the law IS antisocial by definition; whether it's ethically as serious as other crimes depends on the consequences. If you mow down a group of schoolkids at 40 mph then you won't get much sympathy. 

 

I think the point you are trying to make is that the law is something of a crude instrument, and it could be finessed. Higher limits at times of the day / night when lightly trafficked (and there are enough sensors on our major networks that measure traffic density real time), lower limits as the traffic density or weather conditions make a lower limit more appropriate. Speeding doesn't kill, it's driving too fast for the conditions that is dangerous. I've driven at 155 mph lots of times on a German autobahn, and no one died. Had I driven at that speed in pouring rain and fog then it might have been different. Sadly speed limits are draconian in the UK because the standard of driver training and discipline in the UK is dismal.

These are the speeders that need to be tackled not somebody doing 80mph on a motorway!

 

Delete 'not' and substitute 'as well as'.

IMHO

Delete 'not' and substitute 'as well as'.

IMHO

 

I have no problem with somebody who chooses to do 80mph on the motorway as long as it's safe to do so and they're not being a bully about it (I hate doing 70 mph passing cars with somebody sat on my back bumper pushing me to go faster!).

 

Phil

That was my point earlier. Blanket 20 & 30mph limits with cameras, outside schools and local parks, in town centres and housing estate. Use the managed motorways to drop the limit down to 30/40/50mph as needed and enforce as they do now BUT when it's bright, clear and little traffic lift the limit to 80mph. Dont park camera vans on that nice wide, clear straight bit of road doing people for 68mph in a 60mph, go and park it outside the school at 3:30 and get the speeders who pose the most danger.

 

The speed limit isnt the definition of driving dangerously and not, doing 30mph past a school at kicking out time (within the speed limit) is no safer than someone doing 80mph on a empty motorway, it's inappropriate speed thats a danger. 

 

If funds allowed we'd replace cameras with police officers that can actually do people for drink driving/bald tyres/dangerous driving etc

 

As it stands though, it doesnt work like that so we have to accept it, when it comes down to it we all make the choice of how we drive. I tend to have my fun below the limit, I've never been one for v maxxing anyway but there have been times when the limit has felt distinctly slow. 

At 4.00 am on a dry, clear motorway (which tends to be the time I go to work)  - of course 80 mph is safe (as it happens, I don't exceed an indicated 80 mph which is a true speed of 73 mph.)   On a two lane autobahn in Germany, I have driven at 130 mph perfectly safely and legally.   Of course 80-85 mph is not safe in fog, or falling rain with reduced visibility - the time most people seem to speed up!   If 80 mph is so unsafe, why has every other country in the world (except the USA - 56 mph in some states, 70 mph in others - and Germany unlimited) accepted 130 kph (80 mph) as the motorway limit?

 

Since the 70 mph limit was introduced:

 

1.   Tyre technology has improved.

2.   Legally, all cars must have at least 2mm tread depth with no cuts or scuffs that have penetrated the sidewall.

3.   Cars have power steering

4.   Cars have anti-lock brakes 

5.   Drivers (in theory) have all had superior training to those who obtained licences under "grandfathers' rights"

The speed limit should be set at 80 mph as successive governments have promised - end of!

 

Interestingly enough, fatal accidents involving members of the public are declining.   Fatal accidents involving police vehicles are increasing.   What does that tell you?

4.00ams not a safe time to speed and increase the consequences of a crash is it?

What types of crashes cause the biggest disruptions? The ones that effect the daily rush hours and a 4.00am crash will certainly do that.

 

Have you ever done a hard stop from 130mph to 0?

 

You'll be lying if you say you have and still think it's safe for those sorts of speeds, with out testing it and seeing how you car reacts to those huge changes in forces you can't ever claim to be driving safely.

Unless you're always driving at those speeds you have no reference to compare it to and react to a situation safely 70 compares to 130 is hugely difference.

 

Even just at 100mph you've doubled your stopping distance compared to 70mph so I dread to thing what 130 is like.

 

And in answer to you list;

 

1. Yet people still like to fit "budget tyres and part worn stupidity"

2. With improving car technology and reliability less folk are checking the condition of the car every day and tyres don't even get a look in to be checked.

3. And? at high speed power steering is irrelevant and it's not needed (and speed adjustable power steering turns it off at 60-70mph)

4. Glad you noticed that as well but not really relevant is it?

5. hmm I must of missed the part of the test where every one is now tested at motorway speed limit? 

 

And this stupid argument that speed doesn't kill!  of course it flipping does! and to prove this point to anyone that disagrees try this for proof;

Try driving into a tree at 10 mph then at 70 mph and let me the speed is irrelevant....

 

I don't think there is a cure for stupid yet :(

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by iMatchu

Motorway Speed Limits are not democratic - they can't be when over 80% of drivers disobey them. The 70 mph limit was introduced during a fuel crisis and never rescinded.

I've always been lead to believe that the 70 mph limit was introduced after uproar of the ac cobra racing team was testing prior to lemans 24 hr race on a uk motorway and was clocked at well over 100mph this was articled in a news paper and public up roar created the need fora defined speed limit in stead of the previous unrestricted limit we used to have

And this stupid argument that speed doesn't kill!  of course it flipping does! and to prove this point to anyone that disagrees try this for proof;

Try driving into a tree at 10 mph then at 70 mph and let me the speed is irrelevant....

 

I don't think there is a cure for stupid yet  :(

 

That is the worst example of pseudo-science I have seen yet!

 

In the example you have just given, speed hasn't killed at all.   Speed is merely a factor.   The argument "Speed Kills" is as relevant as Queen Victoria's scientists who advised that anyone travelling at over 30 mph would have all the air sucked out of their lungs.   What a bloody good idea!   Let's reduce the speed limit to 3 mph right across the land, make a man walk in front with a red flag and then no one will get killed by those nasty motor cars!   Oh, wait!   We've already done that!

80 mph on a motorway is perfectly safe for the majority of cars and the majority of drivers, hence why the speed limit is 80 mph right across Europe (except Germany where cars are kept in better condition and drivers exercise better lane discipline and speed limits are unlimited providing the car is capable of sustained high speed.)   At the risk of repeating myself, every government since 1977 has promised to raise the motorway speed limit, and every government has welched on it!

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by bealine

In fact, drivers who are speeding slightly and then slam the anchors on when they spot a camera, Highways Agency vehicle or police car are far more of a danger to us all!

So by your own admission, speeding motorists do cause a danger to us all. It's not the speed camera/van/police that are causing the danger as it would cause no danger at all to a motorist passing at the speed limit but rather the driver who wants to drive faster than the limit but doesn't want to face the consequences.

You've pretty much summed up how stupid your argument really is there!

If 80 mph is so unsafe, why has every other country in the world (except the USA - 56 mph in some states, 70 mph in others - and Germany unlimited) accepted 130 kph (80 mph) as the motorway limit?

Because their motorways aren't as congested as the UK network. We have the most congested motorway network in Europe.

 

Read this http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/policy/our-policies/motorway-speed-limit

 

I drive extensively in the USA and not as many highways as you might think have a 70mph limit, mainly Interstates and even then when in a busy city areas the limits are usually reduced. While people do speed in the USA it's not usually more than 5 mph over the limit. Their lower limits go down to 15mph and are strictly enforced.

 

It is also estimated up to 85% of the US cars now on the road have EDR's (Electronic Data Recorders) fitted from new, in the case of an accident they can tell exactly what speed/braking/throttle etc you were using at the time and this evidence can be used for prosecution. Only a matter of time before European cars are the same  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_data_recorder#NHTSA.27s_Event_Data_Recorder_Ruling

I drive extensively in the USA and not as many highways as you might think have a 70mph limit, mainly Interstates and even then when in a busy city areas the limits are usually reduced. While people do speed in the USA it's not usually more than 5 mph over the limit.

 

Quite right too, given that police cars and motorbikes in the States can suddenly appear from nowhere!

 

Basically, the IAM's document is the same old crap that they have printed for 45 years!   Maybe if we pulled out of the EU and sent all the migrant workers home our motorways wouldn't be quite so congested!    (Saturday afternoon in Calais is a real eye-opener!    Queues and queues of European trucks coming to Britain because they can't drive anywhere else in the EU on Saturday afternoons and Sunday (all day) - perhaps if Britain wasn't a happy hunting ground for all and sundry, we could enjoy our roads a bit better.)

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by bealine

Quite right too, given that police cars and motorbikes in the States can suddenly appear from nowhere!

.

 

So by your own admission, the only reason for complying with speed limits is that you may be caught breaking them !!!!

Hang on - isn't that what speed cameras are there for?

 

BTW, where does this assumption that if you are caught by a camera prosecution automatically follows, whereas if stopped by a real human Police Officer, they will have a little bit of a chat with you and send you on your way?

Sadly speed limits are draconian in the UK because the standard of driver training and discipline in the UK is dismal.

 

I totally agree with that statment and there getting worse

BTW, where does this assumption that if you are caught by a camera prosecution automatically follows, whereas if stopped by a real human Police Officer, they will have a little bit of a chat with you and send you on your way?

 

In the UK, the policeman never prosecutes.   He reports the offence.   Depending on individual circumstances you may be fortunate in receiving a caution, you may be summoned to appear in court, you may receive a fixed penalty notice.   In all three cases, you have an opportunity to state your case and explain any mitigating circumstances.

 

In the USA, in many states a police officer often has the power to arrest you and hold on to you in the local cells until sufficient bail money is raised.

 

With a camera, you will never have any options.

 

That is the worst example of pseudo-science I have seen yet!

 

In the example you have just given, speed hasn't killed at all.   Speed is merely a factor.   The argument "Speed Kills" is as relevant as Queen Victoria's scientists who advised that anyone travelling at over 30 mph would have all the air sucked out of their lungs.   What a bloody good idea!   Let's reduce the speed limit to 3 mph right across the land, make a man walk in front with a red flag and then no one will get killed by those nasty motor cars!   Oh, wait!   We've already done that!

80 mph on a motorway is perfectly safe for the majority of cars and the majority of drivers, hence why the speed limit is 80 mph right across Europe (except Germany where cars are kept in better condition and drivers exercise better lane discipline and speed limits are unlimited providing the car is capable of sustained high speed.)   At the risk of repeating myself, every government since 1977 has promised to raise the motorway speed limit, and every government has welched on it!

 

 

 

I'm a little disappointed that you've only chose to response to 1 small part of my post but simple things for simple minds? But hey if you call things you don't understand "pseudo-science" I can forgive you.

 

So I'll explain how science works to you (it's not magic and wizards just so you know)

 

So I've hypothesized that excess speed kills. (okay? stay with me it not that hard.)

 

Now we have a statement and we need to investigate and either prove or disprove it.

So the experiment that I proposed is a 10mph tree crash and a 70mph tree crash.

 

So let identify the variables in the experiment (Now this was a long and difficult process but after 3 hours of searching I couldn't find anymore).

It turns out the only different is the speed and therefore I can now say "the only relevant factor to compare is the change in speed" (also know as Delta Speed) .

 

So what would happen in the crashes?

Now I understand that I haven't actually done this test is I do find live rather fun and would like to keep doing it but from looking on the magical picture box that talks to other picture boxes I found a few videos that say the deceleration(the technical term is retardation) on the internal organs would make a 70mph crash of this nature fatal.

 

Now it is possible for some to die at 10mph crash it's a lot less likely than the 100% fatal 70mph.

 

So now we can draw a comparison from the tests  "with the increase of speed fatality's in increase as well"

 

Where do we go from here?

 

In a experiment where 1 factor has been changed and the outcome is the difference between them is you live in one and die in the other what can we draw from that experiment? that the change in condition must have caused the outcome.

 

and as we haven't done anything different except the speed differential the speed must of killed the subject

 

So if the speed didn't kill what did? I notice you've fail to identify the culprit in your ridicule of my reply! I suppose it could be the magical pixies or the Gnome King from under the hill?

 

"No my lord, it was them pixies that kill him- honest!"

 

Science lesson over.

 

Now I think that this may hurt your brain to understand this but don't worry I'm here to explain any hard phrase or things you don't understand.

 

I'm also interested where you found out that German cars are better maintained?

 

If autobahns are safer to drive at higher speeds why do they have a lot more deaths per year than our motorways?

 

And re: about the cameras having no options:

 

You can appeal the fine or contest it in court much like the police officer?

So yet another one of you claims is unfounded and quiet frankly I think disappointingly naïve and stupid to claim.

 

 

And at risk of repeating myself "I still don't think there's a cure for stupid yet"

 

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by iMatchu

I must admit, I do prefer travelling at 360 mph!

 

 

 

 

 

 

And at risk of repeating myself "I still don't think there's a cure for stupid yet"

 

.....but you haven't explained why on earth would I be wanting to hit a tree?

 

I have been driving cars, high-speed ambulances, cross country amphibious vehicles, coaches and cars for over forty years, and I have been flying light aircraft on a PPL for the last 20, without any trees jumping out and hitting me.   Have trees developed life-threatening properties of which I need to be aware?

You could, I suppose, argue that Marc Bolan of T-Rex hit a tree in Richmond Park so it must have been the speed that killed him.   The fact he was high on a cocktail of alcohol and drugs wouldn't feature using your "scientific" theorem.
 

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by bealine

Another option is stay off M-ways, not always possible but sat nav is your friend. I have switched from jumping on my local M6 and just driving 2-3 junctions, for convenience, to travelling across country. In the past higher speed made up for longer distances as the M-way option was never the shortest route. My fuel economy has not changed or journey times and the scenery is much better.  :sun:

Yes indeed.   In fact, on a bright summer morning, I much prefer the scenic route through Ascot and Virginia Water to go to work.   I never feel the need to speed on rural roads and I have never once broken the speed limit in towns, villages or residential areas in all my years of driving (except in Central London where until the mid-1980's, everyone used to do 40-45 mph and you had to dodge the WH Smith and Evening Standard vans!)

I have a feeling, reading the responses on this topic that there are a lot of hypocrites out there, or stupid policemen that have been brainwashed into "the law is the law and we can't change it" attitude.   You see, if I join the M4 and drive at a constant 65-70 mph, at any time of day, I could put money on it that I will spend most of the journey between here and Heathrow Airport in the left hand lane being overtaken by every single car.   The only other occupants of Lane 1 will be trucks and coaches.   That seems to bear out Top Gear's estimate that 80% of motorway car drivers drive at between 85 and 90 mph, making my 80 mph (which in reality is 72/73 mph) seem a bit slow.

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by bealine

.....but you haven't explained why on earth would I be wanting to hit a tree?

To win a Darwin award? I think you'd be a perfect candidate.

 

Yes you could use Marc Bolan as a example( I heard he was on the radio on the day he died, and all over the windscreen) the fact that a drugged up marc hitting a tree at 10mph and 70mph would still have very similar results.

But there marc bolan reference has no reason to be included as we're not discussing if drugs make you a bad driver.

 

So are you saying if I never drink or use drugs I can crash into trees and be fine? I mean just I can't fathom how you even process that as a argument and think its a good point.

 

 and I would love to see a tree jumping into the air to hit a aircraft.

 

And trees have always had a life threating property( not just since the invention of motor cars) particularly by the fact they don't move when they get hit.

 

And 40+ years driving and you don't understand still how cars behave while under high speed travel is comically bad. there is a office you can return your licence in Swansea I believe?

Yes indeed.   In fact, on a bright summer morning, I much prefer the scenic route through Ascot and Virginia Water to go to work.   I never feel the need to speed on rural roads and I have never once broken the speed limit in towns, villages or residential areas in all my years of driving (except in Central London where until the mid-1980's, everyone used to do 40-45 mph and you had to dodge the WH Smith and Evening Standard vans!)

I have a feeling, reading the responses on this topic that there are a lot of hypocrites out there, or stupid policemen that have been brainwashed into "the law is the law and we can't change it" attitude.   You see, if I join the M4 and drive at a constant 65-70 mph, at any time of day, I could put money on it that I will spend most of the journey between here and Heathrow Airport in the left hand lane being overtaken by every single car.   The only other occupants of Lane 1 will be trucks and coaches.   That seems to bear out Top Gear's estimate that 80% of motorway car drivers drive at between 85 and 90 mph, making my 80 mph (which in reality is 72/73 mph) seem a bit slow.

wow just wow

 

Please just stop, you lower the IQ of the whole forum every time you post.

 

Do you understand the meaning of hypocrite? You claim to have never broken the limit and then explain that you have.....

 

Don't you ever remember you parents telling just because someone else has done something doesn't mean you have to?

 

Now it may just be me or just the word constant mean it stays the same? so you fluctuating from 65 to 70 mph isn't constant and therefore people doing 70 would eventually pass you.....

 

I wonder if you were one of the challenged folk that like Mr Clarkson's uttered words as gospel truth even when the man himself response sarcastically to the fact they're classed as a factual show. I think that fits the definition of a brainwash man if ever! ha

 

I also would like to point out that it's top gears "estimate" not a study nor fact finding research.

Edited 21 January, 201511 yr by iMatchu

 

I also would like to point out that it's top gears "estimate" not a study nor fact finding research.

 

You mean the BBC is wrong ! I presume you have not ventured out onto a motorway yet yourself then.  :sun:

Rubbish!

If you want to break the Law, be it speeding or anything else, then you can expect to get caught and pay for your consequences.

Tough, but that's life.

If you don't like it I suggest you sell your car and travel in another way.

Exactly and as for saying everyone does speed (person above Llani, they don't. I did and am now meticulous in not doing so on a stretch of motorway I'll quite happily sit behind lorries at 62 mph it gives me better fuel economy and I'm not speeding

In the UK, the policeman never prosecutes.   He reports the offence.   Depending on individual circumstances you may be fortunate in receiving a caution, you may be summoned to appear in court, you may receive a fixed penalty notice.   In all three cases, you have an opportunity to state your case and explain any mitigating circumstances.

 

In the USA, in many states a police officer often has the power to arrest you and hold on to you in the local cells until sufficient bail money is raised.

 

With a camera, you will never have any options.

With a camera you will ALWAYS have the option of requesting a court hearing, at which you can explain your mitigation

"My mitigation, your worships, is that we live in a democracy, and 80% of the population speed on motorways, therefore I do not accept that the prosecution is lawful"

That will go down like the proverbial ton of bricks.........I'd suggest going down the fixed penalty route

Ban lorries during daylight hour's. I'm all for that and I think they do in Austria. Cut congestion and deaths instantly and make it easier for the lorries.

 

Ban lorries? you kidding?  have you ever sat the test to be able to drive a class 1 ? 

 

i think what you meant was make the test alot more strict than it is and include motorway sections to every test as an extended license once you pass standard car licence. 

Ban lorries? you kidding? have you ever sat the test to be able to drive a class 1 ?

i think what you meant was make the test alot more strict than it is and include motorway sections to every test as an extended license once you pass standard car licence.

What I meant was what I wrote. Take them out of the motorway system DURING DAYLIGHT HOUR'S.

What I meant was what I wrote. Take them out of the motorway system DURING DAYLIGHT HOUR'S.

Possibly ott and would certainly affect our daily lives negatively. Shops would run out of stuff more often including petrol.

A better solution might be to limit them to one lane during peak times, just like they do in several European countries.

And just to be pedantic, speed does not kill, it's the rate of deceleration, usually excessive during an unplanned impact. The long term solution should therefore not simply to blanket reduce speed but to work on avoiding unplanned impacts, given current car technology this relies heavily on the driver skill and attitude. The former is the glaring hole, which doesn't help the latter. There's enough tech commercially available for example to restrict the car to the visual limit point, that alone would make a significant effect on reducing collisions.