How fast do you drive on the motorway?

[ralphchadkirk]

I think that the fact that most drivers including the Police themselves don't stick to 70 tells its own story Ralph

I prefer to debate on facts rather than semantics. Most people think that parking on a double yellow line doesn't really matter but does that make it right? Of course not.

 

[me123]

I stick to 70 at a max, seeing generally no need to go any faster. 70mph is fast enough. I might use a bit more to overtake something (allowing for the ~10% over read that I know exists in my car), but I'll stick to what my car says is 70mph, and that's fast enough for me. More often than not, I tend to be a bit further down because it isn't even safe to reach 70mph.

However, I do cautiously support an increase to 80mph, but it should be applied to certain roads only. Some motorways are fine with a 70mph speed limit, but in some cases there is justification for an increase. The road I think of first and foremost is the A74(M); it's a very hilly motorway, and as such it is very easy to creep up to 80mph without noticing it!

The problem with limits in general is that some morons see them as targets. On a busy motorway, 70 is often far too fast (I have first hand experience of the M8, where you're lucky to do 7mph never mind 70!). Increasing the limits in general is only going to encourage people to go faster than they otherwise would, and that's not a good thing on every road. IMO, the motorway limit should be left at 70mph, but increased to 80mph in specific cases where it would make sense. I would suggest that it's only applied to motorways with three or more lanes, for example. I've cited the A74(M), but I'm sure that there are other cases in England and Wales. Definitely, the majority of motorways I've been on are busy and fast enough at 70mph.

And, if you were to increase it, an 80mph speed limit should be very strictly enforced IMO.

Interestingly, there's talk about Scotland gaining full control of speed limits. The papers have been opposed to this (and printed scaremongering headlines such as "Holyrood gains power to cut speed limits"), but it will be interesting to see if any limits actually increase as a result of such a proposal.

 

[gordonthemoron]

there seems to be something wrong with the poll, 10 voted for 70 (66.67%) and 6 for 80 (40%) which gives a total of 106.67%, weird

 

[me123]

It may not, but the law is the law, and it is there for a reason. If it was unreasonable, then it would have been challenged. If it was dangerous, then it would have been challenged. People with a much higher IQ than me have decided that 70mph is the maximum limit for a motorway. Therefore nobody should be driving above that speed until the law is changed. Going too far either way of the speed limit is dangerous.

I concur with what you've said. Just because you think it's safe doesn't mean it necessarily is. The law says 70, and you should stick to 70. Indeed, most times I've been on a motorway, 70mph is either fast enough, or so fast that it's not safe because the road is so busy.

As I've already alluded to, some people see the limit as a "target", and increasing the limit to 80mph in one broad brushstroke will probably just encourage some people to go faster when it's not safe to do so. That's why I think it should be done on a case by case basis; decided by the real experts (not a bunch of people on an internet forum).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

there seems to be something wrong with the poll, 10 voted for 70 (66.67%) and 6 for 80 (40%) which gives a total of 106.67%, weird

Slightly odd! There're 16 votes in total (at the moment), but it's working out the percentages based on only having 15 votes...

 

[The Barlow Boy]

The two are incompatible. In a town centre there are hazards such as poor condition of the road, pedestrians stepping out, parked vehicles and narrow lanes.

And that's why it's dangerous to travel at 50. It's not dangerous to travel at 100 on a clear dry motorway.

Sorry to state the obvious, but if the purpose of the speedometer is to tell me what speed I am travelling at and the speedometer tells me I'm doing 70 - I think I might back off the throttle. (As it happens, I've only got a provisional, so that's some way off)

.....

 

[SWT_USER]

Wasn't the speed limit brought in at some point in the early 70's because its what a Ford Anglia could do top whack? I think cars and safety have got a bit better since then, albeit with more cars on the road..

Personally if I am paying for the petrol I'll stick to between 70 and 80, if someone else is paying then faster if road conditions allow.

 

[The Barlow Boy]

It may not, but the law is the law, and it is there for a reason. If it was unreasonable, then it would have been challenged. If it was dangerous, then it would have been challenged. People with a much higher IQ than me have decided that 70mph is the maximum limit for a motorway. Therefore nobody should be driving above that speed until the law is changed. Going too far either way of the speed limit is dangerous.

OK history lesson.
When opned the motorway network had no speed limit - imagine that! The roadsign of the white disc with a diagonal black bar originally indicated "deristriction". People still use this expression to-day when talking about it but it actually means national speed limit applies which on a dual carriageway road is - for a car - 70 mph. In the early sixties as the motorway routes expanded people were clattering around in Morris Oxfords, Ford Anglias, Hillman Minxes and the like which were generally gasping for breath at 80. They also had the build quality of a biscuit tin. Not only were they breaking down with monotonous regularity but any prang would result in horrific injuries and fatalities. There was also the speeders at the other end. Both Aston Martin and AC used the M1 as their test track and their drivers would regularly exceed 140, in fact an AC Cobra still hold the record for the longest skid marks ever left at something like 150'. Something had to be done and so the blanket limit of 70 mph was applied as this was thought to be the best compromise between a sensible speed for the driver and for the common cars of the time.
Nowadays even the smallest 1 litre jobby will happily zizz along at above 70 and is more crashworthy than any car of the sixties. My 2 litre Golf will happily sit at 90 for as long as the diesel lasts. The government has finally woken up to the fact and is proposing a modest rise to 80 mph.
Finally, statistically motorways are the safest roads of all.

 

[me123]

Finally, statistically motorways are the safest roads of all.

1) In Scotland, National Speed Limit signs legally mean nothing on a Motorway, so we have 70 signs instead. Seems slightly odd to me going down to an English motorway and seeing a NSL sign; I'm sure it's just as odd for you coming up here!

2) Motorways are the safest roads under the current rules. When you change those rules, then the safety of the road may well change. Bear in mind that most people do adhere to the motorway speed limits (in my experience anyway). We do need to take the increase of speed into consideration when discussing this. I'm all for raising the limit to 80 in appropriate areas, but we do need to actually look and see what effect the change is going to have before making a decision.

Furthermore, I really do think that a blanket 80mph restriction would be foolish, and that the 70mph limit should remain on roads where it's needed. The 80 should only be applied on certain roads where it is regularly safe to travel at such speeds.

PS, come up and have a drive on the M8. You can enjoy a drop to 60 another drop to 50, back up to 70, then right down to 40 over the Whitecart viaduct (All bar the last one are actually pretty sensible for the road in question).

 

[Ferret]

I prefer to debate on facts rather than semantics. Most people think that parking on a double yellow line doesn't really matter but does that make it right? Of course not.

What I've stated is a fact though. I've been sat at between 70-75 on a motorway and been overtaken by plod who wasn't on an emergency so far as I could see. Our speed limits do need an overhaul, as they seem to be so widely disregarded.

 

[Zoe]

The speed limit is there for a reason and there is absolutely no reason why anyone other than the emergency services should exceed it. Sorry but anyone doing 100 mph deserves an automatic ban. I don't know why they haven't made speed limiters for cars mandatory. If anyone here was driving a train they wouldn't exceed the limit would they? This is why we need driverless cars.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

What I've stated is a fact though. I've been sat at between 70-75 on a motorway and been overtaken by plod who wasn't on an emergency so far as I could see. Our speed limits do need an overhaul, as they seem to be so widely disregarded.

As far as you can see...

The police have a general exemption from the speed limit where the car is being used for police purposes. Arguably, there are cases were the police wish to catch someone up without using blue lights. As they will (if they are traffic plod on a motorway) be level 1 pursuit response trained I see no problem.

 

[GearJammer]

I think 80-90mph would be ok on a motorway, most are monitered these days so if traffic levels get busy or the speed needs to be cut for whatever reason then the overhead matrix signs can display whatever limit is suitable under the circumstances!

As for the speed i drive at, i will drive as fast or as slow as i feel my vehicle and i (wether it be my car or truck) can cope with!

 

[Zoe]

I think 80-90mph would be ok on a motorway, most are monitered these days so if traffic levels get busy or the speed needs to be cut for whatever reason then the overhead matrix signs can display whatever limit is suitable under the circumstances!

80 - 90 mph would be a big no-no due to the increased CO2 emissions. Actually it has been proposed that the limit on motorways be reduced to 60 mph to reduce CO2 emissions.

 

[gordonthemoron]

also, 60 will increase mpg and therefore save money

 

[GearJammer]

also, 60 will increase mpg and therefore save money

Save money for whom? The motorist? Who pays a huge amount of tax on the petrol they buy which goes into the pocket of the goverment, sorry i don't think the government care if we burn more fuel coz they benefit when we gotta buy more of it!

Also i can't see co2 emmisions having much impact on the change in speed limits when all vehicles are producing less and less co2 as engine designs get better!

 

[Ferret]

As far as you can see...

The police have a general exemption from the speed limit where the car is being used for police purposes. Arguably, there are cases were the police wish to catch someone up without using blue lights. As they will (if they are traffic plod on a motorway) be level 1 pursuit response trained I see no problem.

Yes, because I'm sure that's been the case every time I've been overtaken by a plod! Ahem!

Zoe - can you help me with something? Can you tell me what in the name of sanity the point of a driverless car would be?!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Yes, because I'm sure that's been the case every time I've been overtaken by a plod! Ahem!

Coincidental and irrelevant really. What the police do or do not do does not have any bearing on the development of the law.

 

[EM2]

I generally sit just under 70mph, which in an S-reg 1.3 Fiesta is plenty fast enough. I may occasionally push it it up to 80, to overtake.
I have gone quite a bit faster, once did 110 in a borrowed 2-litre Carlton that I wasn't used to (although in my defence it was on a bone-dry, empty M4 at 3am), but it certainly wasn't deliberate and as soon as I noticed, I slowed down.

 

[Ferret]

Coincidental and irrelevant really. What the police do or do not do does not have any bearing on the development of the law.

Au contraire - surely it has to! If you're going to apply the law fairly and be seen to apply the law fairly then you have to stay within the law yourself surely? Witness the outcry over PC Harwood and that non-protestor where the PC is widely seen to have crossed the line.

 

[Zoe]

can you help me with something? Can you tell me what in the name of sanity the point of a driverless car would be?!

The point is that the car would drive itself and so reduce accidents. It would also be a much more effecient use of resources as the cars would not be sitting in people's drives doing nothing most of the time. Driverless cars will not exceed the speed limit, they will not get tired or drunk. The other benefit is that you would not need to concentrate on driving when travelling by car, you could get on with work, watch a video or play a game.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I may occasionally push it it up to 80, to overtake.

If you can't overtake at 70 then you shouldn't be overtaking at all.

 

[Ferret]

The point is that the car would drive itself and so reduce accidents. It would also be a much more effecient use of resources as the cars would not be sitting in people's drives doing nothing most of the time. Driverless cars will not exceed the speed limit, they will not get tired or drunk. The other benefit is that you would not need to concentrate on driving when travelling by car, you could get on with work, watch a video or play a game.

Crumbs, I'd be too busy watching what was going on to play a video game. Would you supply spare underpants in case of any near misses caused by computer malfunction?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Au contraire - surely it has to! If you're going to apply the law fairly and be seen to apply the law fairly then you have to stay within the law yourself surely? Witness the outcry over PC Harwood and that non-protestor where the PC is widely seen to have crossed the line.

What I meant was that whether or by the police speed - and we haven't fit any evidence to go on - should have no effect on whether parliament choose to amend the speed limit. If a police officer is seen to be breaking the law, then I hope they would be dealing with it in the same way as they would if it was Joe Bloggs from Chelmsford. The police are not immune from the law, but in the case you describe I think the exemptions apply but I would have to look at the act.

 

[EM2]

If you can't overtake at 70 then you shouldn't be overtaking at all.

In an ideal world, where everyone drives correctly, at the right distance and at the right speed, I'd agree. But real life isn't so cut and dried.
If I'm in the inside lane at 68mph, and I come up behind someone at 65mph with an empty lane in front of them, then yes, I could sit behind him for miles and miles, or I could accelerate slightly, pass them, and then get on with my journey.

 

[chris89]

Intresting to see. I myself don't drive but when my dad did have a car/ hired one have been various speeds.

In a Discovery 3 on the northen end of the M6 been up to 90 on the outside lane. I know my dad wouldn't have done that if it wasn't safe as he was an ex Advance Driver instructor for teaching Police & an Normal Driver instructor.

Another was in a Ford KA being driving by my dad taking my brother to a Glider Scholarship for Aircadets up to 80 with 3 people and a big burgen in the boot on the M5 the road noise was terrible.

On Friday saw a Vauxhall Insigna doing about 95+ on the M6 trying to race the train whilst we entered a 90mph section on the WCML North.

Chris

 

[90019]

The point is that the car would drive itself and so reduce accidents. It would also be a much more effecient use of resources as the cars would not be sitting in people's drives doing nothing most of the time.

There's a couple of issues with driverless cars, mostly to do with actually introducing them.
Firstly, you either have to make every new car driverless, in which case they have to interact with normal cars with unpredictable drivers, or you force all cars to be driverless from a certain point, and then have to cope with the initial cost of the conversion of the majority of vehicles on the road, not to mention the economic cost for people who aren't able to/won't travel either whilst the conversion is being done or because they can't afford to convert their car or buy a new car.

Also, what would you propose about classic cars?
Or what about foreign cars and HGVs?

It's all very well just saying that all cars should be driverless, but it's not as simple as just forcing everyone to have them. Whether you like it or not, the economy of the UK does still rely on the road network, and rather than just looking at the before and after, you need to look at the interim period around the introduction.

 

[Zoe]

they can't afford to convert their car or buy a new car.

The idea is that people wouldn't own the cars, you'd call one and it would take you where you wanted to go and you would pay for each use. Once you are at your destination the car is then available to be called by another person so you would not need as many cars to exist.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The idea is that people wouldn't own the cars, you'd call one and it would take you where you wanted to go and you would pay for each use. Once you are at your destination the car is then available to be called by another person so you would not need as many cars to exist.

They're called taxis

 

[90019]

The idea is that people wouldn't own the cars, you'd call one and it would take you where you wanted to go and you would pay for each use. Once you are at your destination the car is then available to be called by another person so you would not need as many cars to exist.

What do you do about all the cars that people already own?

And again, what about foreign vehicles that come to the UK?

 

[starrymarkb]

They're called taxis

Wonder if a out of control computer would be less scary then some Taxi Drivers I've experienced

 

[Zoe]

What do you do about all the cars that people already own?

And again, what about foreign vehicles that come to the UK?

Well I would expect such a system to be adopted EU wide once the technology is available. For the cars that people already own it would be quite simple to introduce legislation banning their use on public roads. It is for this reason though that the introduction of drivleress cars may take a long time even though they may be available in ten years time. A big selling point though is the reduction in accidents and also the more effecient use of resources, I'm just not sure if people would object to giving up the option to manually drive the car. That said with issues like peak oil and climate change it's likely that in the future the average person won't be able to afford a car.