Speed Limit up to 80mph

[Zoe]

On the point of cruise control, they are one of the worse devices for fuel economy anyway.

How? You set the speed that you want and it stays there.

 

[Schnellzug]

I suppose it'd be because to stick to a given speed, it has to use more throttle when, for instance, going uphill, whereas if you didn't try to keep to the same speed up hill & down you'd go easier on the thorttle.

 

[notadriver]

I tend to keep the same speed if possible whether going up or downhill. Is that a bad habit? Apparently cruise control on hybrid cars can save fuel !

 

[S19]

Driverless cars could be here in just 8 years time. They would allow much high speed on the motorway. The only concern is that once they are introduced people may not want to use public transport.

The day I'm not in control of my own destiny is the day I leave this crappy country

 

[S19]

How? You set the speed that you want and it stays there.

If roads were completely flat it would be.

If you're on an incline how does your speed stay at the set speed? More revs... Thus using more fuel

A rev limiter set at 2000 rpm would be better. However, that would be boring!

 

[SS4]

Pointless and expensive masquerading as something good for us while ignoring the big picture - this has all the Tory hallmarks

 

[Butts]

Pointless and expensive masquerading as something good for us while ignoring the big picture - this has all the Tory hallmarks

What was the last Governments Hallmark then - open honest and let's invade Iraq

 

[SS4]

What was the last Governments Hallmark then - open honest and let's invade Iraq

Their policy was to pretend to support the poor while actually shafting them

 

[michael769]

If you're on an incline how does your speed stay at the set speed? More revs... Thus using more fuel

Not with a manual gearbox. In any gear the engine revs are fixed in relation to speed (think about it!). To maintain engine speed (and thus road speed) the ECU increases the amount of fuel going into the cylinders.

I tend to keep the same speed if possible whether going up or downhill. Is that a bad habit?

Depends what you want to achieve. For maxium fuel saving - this is bad! For a smooth, consistent drive - this is good! Having said that smooth even driving is for the most part conducive to good fuel economy so you are probably gaining more elsewhere that you lose on hills.

As for CC saving fuel or not. It depends on the driver. A skilled driver with good mechanical sympathy will beat CC hands down for economy. A choppy, reactive "heavy footed" driver will not.

 

[jon0844]

We will have no waiting around for tardy passengers in the brave new World. It will teach people to be Punctual.

We already have buses that leave when people approach, they're operated by a company called Uno.

No need to wait for fancy technology!

Yes but there is no law saying you will have to drive at 80. Those who burn lots of fuel can either afford it or will soon change their driving styles. On the point of cruise control, they are one of the worse devices for fuel economy anyway.

Our car seems very keen to rapidly accelerate if you resume after slowing down quite a bit, but I can't say it's that bad when it keeps you at a speed afterwards.

It's great for keeping on through SPECS equipped areas, plus on motorways (with the ability to nudge the pedal to speed up every now and then). I also quite enjoy using the + / - to adjust the speed, as well as having a manual gearbox to give me something to do.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

How many people, realistically, have a car that is used once a week or less?

Me....!!

 

[jon0844]

Why is this now becoming an anti-Government bash? We should be standardising our speed limits with mainland Europe, and there's no conspiracy given nobody is forced to drive at 80mph, or even on a motorway.

We own a car that is not fuel efficient, even less so than our last car. Instead of 53mpg in our last diesel, our 2.5ltr turbo petrol car now averages around 26-28. A big drop! It was our decision, based on my enjoyment of driving and the low mileage we do.

Allowing me to legally drive at 80mph, when most people do anyway, is a pretty pathetic way to get me to spend more on fuel. If the Tories are so evil, they'd surely think of something better?

 

[richw]

I use cruise control on motorway journeys, and according to dash computer its use over identical jouneys to me control vs cruise control, I see cruise control giving about 4-5 mpg better.
I drive a manual saab 95 disel engine has a lot of torque, and will maintain 70 at about 1500rpm, leading me to speed a little every now and again due to the cars ability

 

[Butts]

Have seen on the news tonight it may take two years of consultations to make a decision on the increase to 80mph.

TWO YEARS for heavens sake

 

[jon0844]

Probably because a lot of organisations have come out saying how bad it will be, either for safety reasons or the environment.

It will probably take as long (and as much money) to get through as getting to go ahead for HS2 or a new airport runway!

 

[Pen Mill]

Having lived in France where the non-urban motorway speed is 130kph (81mph) , I'd say it's fine there because there's hardly any traffic on the roads.

In the UK it's a bit pointless as it can't be sustained for any distance.

 

[90019]

In the UK it's a bit pointless as it can't be sustained for any distance.

You think? :?

 

[Schnellzug]

Have seen on the news tonight it may take two years of consultations to make a decision on the increase to 80mph.

TWO YEARS for heavens sake

Probably because a lot of organisations have come out saying how bad it will be, either for safety reasons or the environment.

It will probably take as long (and as much money) to get through as getting to go ahead for HS2 or a new airport runway!

this is why it take so ridiculously long for any government to do anything.
Sometimes I like there might be a lot to be said for a dictatorship ....

 

[jon0844]

In the UK it's a bit pointless as it can't be sustained for any distance.

There are absolutely loads of motorways where you can drive for huge distances at speed, and even the most congested pinch points (and the M25) aren't always busy.

Many motorways do have these pinch points, often near big interchanges - and even in Germany, they simply impose slower limits near them. So it's unlimited (130kph advisory) and then dropping to 110 or 80 through sections where motorways merge, or queues are likely. I am pretty sure they also have speed limits that apply only at certain times (peaks).

We're talking about increasing from 70 to 80, and nothing clever like variable speed limits and so on. Even after the increase, it will make very little difference and all those who protested and made the tax payer spend millions on inquiries will forget all about the fuss.

 

[Butts]

Having lived in France where the non-urban motorway speed is 130kph (81mph) , I'd say it's fine there because there's hardly any traffic on the roads.

In the UK it's a bit pointless as it can't be sustained for any distance.

Hmm not quite true - if I am ever travelling a long distance ie Edinburgh to Birmingham I either leave at 5am or 11pm.

You can cruise the length of the M6 at whatever speed you consider appropriate with just HGV's for company

 

[jon0844]

The M6 toll road is virtually empty everytime I've been on it - and it's sufficiently long to allow you to make up good time if you can do another 10mph.

All of the police officers I've known, most notably when my mum worked for a regional IAM group, have said they don't bother with people doing up to 85mph. I don't know what they'd regard as worthy of attention if it became 80mph as a limit, but I expect it may well be 90-95mph.

Naturally, traffic officers aren't just looking at the speed but the way the driver is driving. Lane discipline, distance from the car in front, general attitude etc... all things that no camera could ever detect. I have far more faith in a traffic car making a good judgement on who to pull and prosecute.

I'm sure I've already said that I once got pulled by Thames Valley police in the middle of the night (2 or 3am) where I'd been doing nearly 120mph. They agreed to put me down as having done 98.6mph to keep it below 100, as that would have almost certainly resulted in a ban.

I ultimately got a fine and six points, but their advice to me was simply to be considerate of other motorists who might not expect me to be going that fast - no b******ing about what I'd done. They even said they didn't have any problems with my actual driving and they were impressed with my lane discipline, keeping to lane one, overtaking as and when, signalling clearly etc. They didn't even give be a breath test (not that I'd had anything to drink).

It was rather odd to be complimented on my driving while also being done! However, I took the advice on board and have never done anything like that again, except for when driving in Germany.

 

[Butts]

The M6 toll road is virtually empty everytime I've been on it - and it's sufficiently long to allow you to make up good time if you can do another 10mph.

All of the police officers I've known, most notably when my mum worked for a regional IAM group, have said they don't bother with people doing up to 85mph. I don't know what they'd regard as worthy of attention if it became 80mph as a limit, but I expect it may well be 90-95mph.

Naturally, traffic officers aren't just looking at the speed but the way the driver is driving. Lane discipline, distance from the car in front, general attitude etc... all things that no camera could ever detect. I have far more faith in a traffic car making a good judgement on who to pull and prosecute.

I'm sure I've already said that I once got pulled by Thames Valley police in the middle of the night (2 or 3am) where I'd been doing nearly 120mph. They agreed to put me down as having done 98.6mph to keep it below 100 (using VASCAR, they'd followed me from quite a distance, if you're wondering why I hadn't noticed them!). I got a fine and six points, but their advice to me was to be considerate of other motorists who might not expect me to be going that fast. They even said they didn't have any problems with my driving and I'd been keeping to lane one, overtaking as and when, and signalling clearly etc.

It was rather odd to be complimented on my driving while also being done! However, I took the advice on board and have never done anything like that again, except for when driving in Germany.

You were lucky there - that should have been an automatic ban

Standby for a tirade from the "tree huggers" about your emissions and lack of environmental consideration.

 

[jon0844]

It would have been if they'd put it down as anything over 100mph. They'd followed far back using VASCAR (and timing me as I went under bridges) and eventually got closer. At this point, I saw something and got a little suspicious and began to slow down.

I expect they'd only got an accurate measurement at the lower speed I was doing before they pulled me, but they were incredibly polite and certainly didn't give me any attitude. Now was I over confident or cocky. You always imagine how you'd say 'yeah, whatever..' and so on - but when stopped by these people, you suddenly become 'Yes sir.. Sorry sir!'.

I knew I was lucky, but they were surprisingly friendly, while making it clear they couldn't just give me a caution (well, perhaps they could, but I probably needed to be punished). What they did worked, as I won't go at silly speeds now. I'm not going to pretend that I stick to 70mph on a motorway though!

Bring the tree huggers on; as long as they can keep up.

 

[furryfeet]

Yes.
Doing otherwise is lane hogging.

I am a lane hogger !

Why ? Because the inside lane is so badly rutted by heavy lorries, I would be putting my car at real risk of damage - i.e. tyres, suspension etc.

Of course this style of driving does not necessarily protect one from the motorway pot holes and cracks, which are now worse than I ever seen before.

This proposal does nothing to
a) repair the said potholes / cracks / ruts
b) lessen the lorry traffic

Do Messrs Hamond, Villiers and Baker have costs and timescales to rectify this ?
Until then driving at 80 mph instead of 70mph will only increase the risk of a serious accident, given the defects in the road that i have mentioned.

 

[valenta]

As so many people already travel at 80mph, a change in the rule won't make an awful lot of difference.

 

[richw]

Jonmorris, I beat you for speed, not proud of it, and wouldn't even think about it now I have a daughter. The police officer put me down as excess speed as the offence, as his car didn't have recordings. As he recorded it as excessive speed, I got only 3 points. I think being polite and friendly helped my case.

 

[jon0844]

Do Messrs Hamond, Villiers and Baker have costs and timescales to rectify this ?
Until then driving at 80 mph instead of 70mph will only increase the risk of a serious accident, given the defects in the road that i have mentioned.

Are you blaming the Government for being a middle lane hogger?

What motorways are THAT bad you can't drive in lane 1? Yes, some are bad - and some cars tramline worse than others, but I've never felt it would damage my car or used it as a feeble excuse like that.

 

[90019]

I am a lane hogger !

Why ? Because the inside lane is so badly rutted by heavy lorries, I would be putting my car at real risk of damage - i.e. tyres, suspension etc.

What motorways do you use that are that bad?

If you have that much of a problem with them, use a different road.

 

[2Dogbox]

I'm always amazed at the amount of people whizzing past at over 100. Just been to the south of the country round Southhampton and they really go for it about on that M3.

 

[GearJammer]

I am a lane hogger !

Why ? Because the inside lane is so badly rutted by heavy lorries, I would be putting my car at real risk of damage - i.e. tyres, suspension etc.

Of course this style of driving does not necessarily protect one from the motorway pot holes and cracks, which are now worse than I ever seen before.

This proposal does nothing to
a) repair the said potholes / cracks / ruts
b) lessen the lorry traffic

Do Messrs Hamond, Villiers and Baker have costs and timescales to rectify this ?
Until then driving at 80 mph instead of 70mph will only increase the risk of a serious accident, given the defects in the road that i have mentioned.

Ive been watching this whole thread since it started and theres been so much bulls**t its almost been comical at points but what you just said really is the best yet, never read so much rubbish in one post!