Speed Limit up to 80mph

[Butts]

Just hearing on News at Ten of a proposal to raise the speed limit to 80mph.

Although this is largely academic (try driving at 70 in the middle never mind the outside lane)

My own view is that it should be raised to 100mph on Motorways.

Car safety has improved out of all recognition since the sixties so I feel this would be the appropriate upgrade to introduce.

What do others feel ?

 

[Yew]

Just hearing on News at Ten of a proposal to raise the speed limit to 80mph.

Although this is largely academic (try driving at 70 in the middle never mind the outside lane)

My own view is that it should be raised to 100mph on Motorways.

Car safety has improved out of all recognition since the sixties so I feel this would be the appropriate upgrade to introduce.

What do others feel ?

I think it depends, everybody can do 80, but your little citycars cant do 100 without a fight, and then there will be lots of buisnessmen in BMW's shouting on the internet about if your car cant do the maximum speed limit, then you shouldnt be on the motorway blahblah blah and about middle lane hoggers going below the speed limit (for some reason travelling at the speed limit, in the middle lane is unacceptable?)

 

[AlterEgo]

I think it depends, everybody can do 80, but your little citycars cant do 100 without a fight, and then there will be lots of buisnessmen in BMW's shouting on the internet about if your car cant do the maximum speed limit, then you shouldnt be on the motorway blahblah blah and about middle lane hoggers going below the speed limit (for some reason travelling at the speed limit, in the middle lane is unacceptable?)

The middle lane is an overtaking lane - not a driving lane. You should only be there if you are going faster than traffic on your left.

 

[Butts]

I think it depends, everybody can do 80, but your little citycars cant do 100 without a fight, and then there will be lots of buisnessmen in BMW's shouting on the internet about if your car cant do the maximum speed limit, then you shouldnt be on the motorway blahblah blah and about middle lane hoggers going below the speed limit (for some reason travelling at the speed limit, in the middle lane is unacceptable?)

That's because the middle lane is an overtaking lane so your supposed to return to the inside lane when you have completed overtaking.

Alter beat me to it !!

 

[Yew]

The middle lane is an overtaking lane - not a driving lane. You should only be there if you are going faster than traffic on your left.

Just checking, but are we defining the middle lane as the one closest to the central reservation, or the one centre lane in each direction?

ie

|Hard shoulder | Lane 1| Lane 2 |middle lane||

or

|Hard shoulder | Lane 1|middle lane| Lane 3 |

 

[anthony263]

Just checking, but are we defining the middle lane as the one closest to the central reservation, or the one centre lane in each direction?

ie

|Hard shoulder | Lane 1| Lane 2 |middle lane||

or

|Hard shoulder | Lane 1|middle lane| Lane 3 |

Always thought it to be the middle lane, ie central lane apart from where there is only the hard shoulder then 2 lanes where the middle lane would be the 1 closest to the central reservation.

How about letting us bus/coach drivers drive at 70mph that should reduce some journey times on coach services

 

[WestCoast]

I don't even drive (yet) but "keep to the left except when overtaking" comes to mind here. British motorways are not 'freeways'.

They should put that on the motorway gantry signs!

 

[Yew]

A quick google suggests it is my second example that is correct. and also reveals that it is acceptable to be there if there are slower vehicles (ie lorries)in the left hand lane. as whenever ive been on the motorway you have essentially a dual carrigeway, with an extra lorry lane

 

[WestCoast]

A quick google suggests it is my second example that is correct. and also reveals that it is acceptable to be there if there are slower vehicles (ie lorries)in the left hand lane. as whenever ive been on the motorway you have essentially a dual carrigeway, with an extra lorry lane

Yes, that's OK, because essentially you are 'overtaking' the slower traffic. However, if you're just cruising in the middle lane, with no traffic to the left, you are supposed to move over? However, people don't always seem to do that.

Like I said, I am just learning to drive, but that's how I understand it.

 

[SWT_USER]

Fairly rare for me to drive on the motorway (or at all) these days but unless I'm trying to save petrol I'll generally cruise around 80.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just hearing on News at Ten of a proposal to raise the speed limit to 80mph......My own view is that it should be raised to 100mph on Motorways.

Car safety has improved out of all recognition since the sixties so I feel this would be the appropriate upgrade to introduce.

Have drivers reaction times when driving at such higher speeds also improved to this extent? There have been police programmes which have brought this particular view into question.

 

[Yew]

Yes, that's OK, because essentially you are 'overtaking' the slower traffic. However, if you're just cruising in the middle lane, with no traffic to the left, you are supposed to move over? However, people don't always seem to do that.

Like I said, I am just learning to drive, but that's how I understand it.

When going ahead, keep left.

(overtaking excepted of course, as you are changing lanes so kinda going sideways)

 

[90019]

However, if you're just cruising in the middle lane, with no traffic to the left, you are supposed to move over?

Yes.
Doing otherwise is lane hogging.

However, people don't always seem to do that.

I had to sit behind someone doing 65mph on the M9 this afternoon who refused to move from lane 2 back across to lane 1 to let anyone pass for about 5 miles.

 

[Butts]

Yes.
Doing otherwise is lane hogging.



I had to sit behind someone doing 65mph on the M9 this afternoon who refused to move from lane 2 back across to lane 1 to let anyone pass for about 5 miles.

They didn't have a hat on did they ? - sounds like a "weekend driver" out early

 

[Yew]

What do people think of 80mph then? as it was only a temporary thing bought in until cars became more reliable (instead of always breaking down on t' motorway)

hopefully better braking distances will account for the increased reaction times

 

[87 027]

Went to France on holiday recently involving a longish drive from Calais to St Malo on relatively quiet French motorways.

On the way there, set cruise control to 70mph. On the way back, deadline to meet, set cruise control to 80mph, significant hit on the fuel economy. Just a thought.

 

[notadriver]

100 mph is madness. General public are stupid and can't be trusted to drive at those sorts of speeds. Just leave speed limit as it is. Everyone does 80 anyway. Unfair to raise speed limit for cars if limits of 56/62mph for HGV/PCVs remain the same.

 

[Yew]

100 mph is madness. General public are stupid and can't be trusted to drive at those sorts of speeds. Just leave speed limit as it is. Everyone does 80 anyway. Unfair to raise speed limit for cars if limits of 56/62mph for HGV/PCVs remain the same.

maybe they could go for 140 with in cab signaling? beat the WCML

 

[Peter Mugridge]

On the way there, set cruise control to 70mph. On the way back, deadline to meet, set cruise control to 80mph, significant hit on the fuel economy. Just a thought.

Which is precisely why the amendment will be approved; it's very likely been inspired by HM Treasury who have realised that the sharply higher fuel consumption the extra 10mph involves = a lot more tax income...

 

[notadriver]

Went to France on holiday recently involving a longish drive from Calais to St Malo on relatively quiet French motorways.

On the way there, set cruise control to 70mph. On the way back, deadline to meet, set cruise control to 80mph, significant hit on the fuel economy. Just a thought.

Another thought on fuel economy - apparently a coach emits less CO2 per passenger and is more fuel efficient than a train on the London to Glasgow run!

 

[Metroland]

Doesn't actually, a Pendolino is about 28g CO2/KM, coach is 30g (but does 40% of the speed).

80MPH is a non-news story as pretty much everyone does that anyway.

100MPH is too high, beyond the design limit of most roads and would significantly increase emissions.

 

[notadriver]

http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-5.htm

gives figures supporting my view.

 

[Butts]

100 mph is madness. General public are stupid and can't be trusted to drive at those sorts of speeds. Just leave speed limit as it is. Everyone does 80 anyway. Unfair to raise speed limit for cars if limits of 56/62mph for HGV/PCVs remain the same.

They seem to manage on the autobahn in Germany

 

[Greenback]

http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/transport-fact-sheet-5.htm

gives figures supporting my view.

No doubt they do. Transport Watch is notoriously anti rial, and Mr Witherington is a rather, er, controversial character to say the elast.

 

[Metroland]

I was wrong, it was 27g Co2 per pass km for a Pendo (ECML is similar).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2009/11/why_cars_are_greener_than_buses.html

(There's numerous other sources)

In fact they have since fitted meters to the train and it's lower than that, also passenger loadings are higher when the study was done about 5 years ago.

DFT and National Express both claim 30-32g CO2 per pass km, so they [coaches] are not 'greener'.

http://www.eco-rally.org/national-e...d-london-bridgestone-eco-rally-just-30gkm-co2

http://www.carbonindependent.org/sources_bus.htm

Rail average is nearer 56g per pass km (I think it's 49g now) but this is an overall average includes rural trains in Lincolnshire with 10 people in, and late night services.

Buses can be as high as 160g per pas/km outside London which is worse than cars and planes.

Unfortunately nothing on the transportwatch site is really a source, it is anti-rail creative accounting and bogus claims.

 

[notadriver]

No doubt they do. Transport Watch is notoriously anti rial, and Mr Witherington is a rather, er, controversial character to say the elast.

Oops I didn't know that !

 

[OxtedL]

With regard to Transport Watch, this is a shocking (but highly amusing) example of why everything they say needs to be urgently ignored.

Also, mathematically unsound statements like "In contrast a 20% rise in car occupancy may reduce car traffic by up to 20%."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And of course, when I say "they", I actually mean "Paul Withrington". I would be very surprised if he had fooled anyone else into agreeing with him.

 

[Zoe]

Also, mathematically unsound statements like "In contrast a 20% rise in car occupancy may reduce car traffic by up to 20%."

Well if you increase the occupancy of each car by getting people to share and not going in their own car then there would likely be a reduciton in car traffic.

 

[Metroland]

The whole point of a car is it's a personal form of transport. Yes car sharing is a good idea, but the reality is more tricky is people tend to want to go to different locations.

The sort of people that make arguments like many on that site, are very good at making statistics fit, but fail to appreciate the real world, practical realities, or are just plain economic with the truth.

 

[notadriver]

Found what I was really looking for :

http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectio...search/T618_traction-energy-metrics_final.pdf

On page 51 the table shows the coach as being the least polluting.