104 on the motorway.

[PMKeates]

I see where you're coming from... But think about it.. Can you imagine the potential carnage a delimited motorway would cause? Most people are too stupid to react to hazards at 60/70 let alone higher.

You say "would" cause - show me the evidence. It "could" cause, but that is something different altogether. Freedom is the default option, a restriction of any kind should be justified and should be able to be justified at any time it's in place.

People should drive to the conditions of the road and within the limit of their frame of mind. If you feel a bit tired and want to waft along, do 70. If you are actually wide awake and wanting to get to your destination, do 100. I might not think my safety is any more compromised at 85 than it is at 70 (and there's little fact to suggest it is), so why should I be forced to do, at most, 70? This is a speed plucked out of the air, deemed safe for late 1950s and early 1960s vehicles to drive at in fog. We are driving cars 50 years on at the same speed in perfect conditions.

are you actually mentally ill?

It hasn't yet been medically proven.

Unless youve got a massive distance to cover that extra 30mph isnt going to make much of a difference. Is getting home a few minutes quicker worth the extra risk and potential cost?

Well, when you do have a massive distance to cover, it can make a difference. It can be the difference between making a flight/ferry/train/event/whatever, or not. If by extra risk you mean in terms of getting caught, that's debatable. If you are sensible and carefully watch where you speed, you can speed. If you mean extra risk in terms of safety, I believe (and again, there's little factual evidence to suggest otherwise) that 100 is no more or less safe than 70 on the clear motorway in the cars of today.

 

[InvaderGIR]

My dad got caught a few weeks ago doing 94 in a 60 by a camera van, court case was last week and he got 3 points and a £100 fine...

His exact words were "How is this supposed to discourage me from speeding?" He was pooing himself as he assumed it was ban time or 9points and a mega fine. He didnt even turnup to court to plead his case (though he did write a letter) so you might get lucky OP

Yeah, I had to drive said person to their court appearance as he assumed he was going to lose his license. I drove him back too as he was still not in the mood/condition to drive despite still holding his license.

It can vary such a huge amount it's almost impossible to tell what is going to happen really.

 

[Howard]

You say "would" cause - show me the evidence. It "could" cause, but that is something different altogether. Freedom is the default option, a restriction of any kind should be justified and should be able to be justified at any time it's in place.

People should drive to the conditions of the road and within the limit of their frame of mind. If you feel a bit tired and want to waft along, do 70. If you are actually wide awake and wanting to get to your destination, do 100..

I said "potential"

And like I said it's all very well saying only drive at 100mph if you feel up to it etc but in reality is it going to work that well? I don't think so. It's a bit of an idealistic view

 

[PeterNem]

Seems to work on the derestricted autobahn.... in theory (as long as you're not seen to be dangerous) you can go as fast as you like. Not every car does though... plenty continue to cruise at 70-80.

 

[PMKeates]

And like I said it's all very well saying only drive at 100mph if you feel up to it etc but in reality is it going to work that well? I don't think so. It's a bit of an idealistic view

Why isn't it going to work that well? Around my house there are numerous NSL roads. On many of these roads you cannot safely drive at 60 because of the poor road surface or the tightness of the bends, or both. People do not drive at 60 on these roads. People actually drive quite slowly on these roads. The limit is set way above what 90% of the people drive along it at. The limit is not met or exceeded by most as they feel it would not be safe, or it does not fancy them, to do so.

This system could work on normal roads. Current speed enforcement is a crock - I think it should be either careless/dangerous driving, or not. If it isn't, there is nothing wrong, surely? Speeding is simply exceeding the arbitrary velocity limit that happened to be on the road that day. I think advisory limits on roads that are reviewed when changes are made to the makeup of that road, will not only decriminalise the majority of drivers (I think we can all say the majority of drivers speed - I don't think I know anyone that rigidly sticks to the posted limits at absolutely all times), but it will improve road safety. It will no longer be commonly accepted to just drive at the speed limit. You will be expected to think about road conditions, the number of pedestrians around (where applicable), visibility and weather etc.

If you are perceived to be driving too fast, the police can pull you over and have a friendly word about your speed. It becomes a positive message about safety and good quality driving rather than a silly fine and public resentment. If you are perceived to be driving dangerously fast, then you can be prosecuted for that.

 

[Howard]

People drive slowly in 60 limits most of the time regardless

Most speed limits are there for a reason.. (Note I say most) They establish a base line as to what speed is acceptable and what isn't. Otherwise, what happens when the police officers' opinions of what is "acceptable" differ?


And going back to this whole means-tested thing.. Aren't all court fines means-tested?

 

[PMKeates]

Most speed limits are there for a reason.. (Note I say most) They establish a base line as to what speed is acceptable and what isn't. Otherwise, what happens when the police officers' opinions of what is "acceptable" differ?

Simply, most of them aren't there for a reason. If they are, that reasoning is likely to be flawed at best. They are just "there". If you were to submit a FOI request for the body of information behind the decision to set the current speed limit of a random road, there would be either nothing to request or some flaky accident statistics that showed the number of incidents go up over a period, so the speed limit was reduced by 10 MPH. This new limit will then stay forever, even if accidents drop to 0, and all the accidents that caused the limit to be lowered in the first place were, in reality, nothing to do with speed.

Speed limits currently establish a base line as to what speed you will get punished for travelling over, and what you won't. That is simply it. You can drive at 40 in a 40 without fear of punishment because it's legal. You can drive at 40 in a 30 with significant fear of punishment because it is not legal. The latter road could, and oh so often is, safer to travel at 40 on than the former.

In terms of a police officer's opinion of what is "acceptable" differing, that is what a court is for. It's fairer than any speed camera.

 

[L0rdMike]

Dont they pick speed limits out of a hat these days?

 

[PMKeates]

I think a hat would be more reasonable. At least there's a chance it would be realistic!

 

[L0rdMike]

Why do they still have single track NSL lanes that if you do over 30 over you have a high risk of dying?

 

[PeterNem]

[cynical]because it'd cost them too much to put signs up and the flow of traffic is too insignificant to make traffic enforcement very appealing[/cynical]

Of course, the reality is that a hell of a lot of NSL lanes are nowhere near suitable for travelling at 60MPH... and surprise surprise, the vast majority of people manage to decide on a suitable speed for themselves.

 

[cheets64]

This thread is funneh

 

[L0rdMike]

On the way into Brockenhurst the speed limit goes from 60 straight into 30 which is something I dont really think is all that safe. The limit change is still miles outside "actual" Brockenhurst too. :\

 

[Howard]

In terms of a police officer's opinion of what is "acceptable" differing, that is what a court is for. It's fairer than any speed camera.

What a brilliant idea. Let's waste the court system's time with thousands of cases per week where there's a debate over whether 50 in a 40 was safe or not. Let's waste hundreds of pounds of tax payer's money with 'evidence' and police officers' time. Sod the rape and manslaughter cases. Or we could just administer fines for breaking the speed limit which are intended to act as a deterrent. If you don't want the fine, you don't break the law.

[cynical]because it'd cost them too much to put signs up and the flow of traffic is too insignificant to make traffic enforcement very appealing[/cynical]

Of course, the reality is that a hell of a lot of NSL lanes are nowhere near suitable for travelling at 60MPH... and surprise surprise, the vast majority of people manage to decide on a suitable speed for themselves.

The vast majority of people do less than the speed limit in their Citroen Xsara Picassos on most rural roads, it doesn't matter how suitable the road is. These people wouldn't suddenly speed up if the road became de-restricted. Most rough, rarely-used single track roads are NSL because it's not cost effective to classify them all individually with a speed limit due to how little use they probably get, I'd guess.

We need speed limits. Perhaps the enforcement of them is debatable, but they offer a good indication of what's safe. If a road suddenly becomes a 40 or a 30 from an NSL, I wonder why? Oh, we've entered a village. A village with houses, and junctions, and children running around playing. What a surprise, it's no longer safe to blast through at 60mph. I'm afraid I simply disagree with you PMKeates when you say they aren't there for a reason!

 

[PMKeates]

We need speed limits. Perhaps the enforcement of them is debatable, but they offer a good indication of what's safe. If a road suddenly becomes a 40 or a 30 from an NSL, I wonder why? Oh, we've entered a village. A village with houses, and junctions, and children running around playing. What a surprise, it's no longer safe to blast through at 60mph. I'm afraid I simply disagree with you PMKeates when you say they aren't there for a reason!

You say we need speed limits. Why? Provide the evidence that suggests they are necessary for the entire road network at all times. The people supporting the restriction, if it was just, would have the evidence and scientific basis to show it. Hear-say and claims of "common sense" do not cut the mustard. We could enforce a 1 MPH speed limit tomorrow and I'd wager they'd be a huge reduction in road accidents - down to almost zero. That is, however, not justification for a 1 MPH speed limit. You have too much faith in the government if you think that they have thought our current speed limits through in a rational manner.

The onus is on the party restricting freedom to justify the restriction.

 

[Howard]

You say we need speed limits. Why? Provide the evidence that suggests they are necessary for the entire road network at all times. The people supporting the restriction, if it was just, would have the evidence and scientific basis to show it. Hear-say and claims of "common sense" do not cut the mustard. We could enforce a 1 MPH speed limit tomorrow and I'd wager they'd be a huge reduction in road accidents - down to almost zero. That is, however, not justification for a 1 MPH speed limit. You have too much faith in the government if you think that they have thought our current speed limits through in a rational manner.

The onus is on the party restricting freedom to justify the restriction.

Can you provide evidence that suggests they aren't necessary?

No, I'm sure the government hasn't thought out every single speed limit. That's why road A isn't 52mph and road B isn't 36.5mph. It's all about balance and compromise. A road with a 40 limit has been given such a limit because it has been deemed not safe to do 20mph more without it being dangerous due to visibility, hazards etc. What's so irrational about that? There isn't time to classify every single road, just like there isn't time to judge every single case of somebody breaking the speed limit.

Can you honestly say you trust every person you see behind the wheel of a car to accurately judge an appropriate speed? I think your whole "freedom" idea is irrelevant when we are in charge of 1 tonne+ metal boxes that could quite easily kill someone.

 

[FreeStream]

Can you honestly say you trust every person you see behind the wheel of a car to accurately judge an appropriate speed? I think your whole "freedom" idea is irrelevant when we are in charge of 1 tonne+ metal boxes that could quite easily kill someone.

I agree, sadly with 95% of people on the road, this is the case

Some of my mates drive FAR too fast and close to the guy in front, I sit in the back now, just incase...

It's a sad state of affairs where the actions of stupid people dictate what the clever people should be limited to

 

[PMKeates]

Can you provide evidence that suggests they aren't necessary?

That is a flawed response - I am not the one saying that there should be a restriction. The restriction needs to be justified, not the non-restriction. Until you can justify the restriction your argument is baseless and we needn't continue to discuss it.

Can you honestly say you trust every person you see behind the wheel of a car to accurately judge an appropriate speed? I think your whole "freedom" idea is irrelevant when we are in charge of 1 tonne+ metal boxes that could quite easily kill someone.

We have a system of driver education and licensing. This practice needs to ensure that drivers are equipped to determine the appropriate speed for the road and the conditions.

 

[Howard]

That is a flawed response - I am not the one saying that there should be a restriction. The restriction needs to be justified, not the non-restriction. Until you can justify the restriction your argument is baseless and we needn't continue to discuss it.We have a system of driver education and licensing. This practice needs to ensure that drivers are equipped to determine the appropriate speed for the road and the conditions.

This debate is just going round and round in circles tbh. Do you genuinely think it's a good idea to let all the chavs and inbred morons in this country dictate what speed they believe it's safe to drive their chavved up Saxos or knackered old Escort vans? How many more accidents do you believe there will be if this idea is taken up? Is it worth it? It's all very well saying "well let's educate them bla bla" but people push the boundaries now even with the set punishments in place. Do you disagree with every single speed limit set in this country?

I do quite like the American approach to speed limits where on rural roads etc the limits vary much, much more often to account for road conditions than they do here.

 

[pcoltrane]

Mate of mine recieved at £120 fine + fees and had his license removed completely for doing 112 in a 1.2 Clio. Was told that speed was wry dangerous and his car was at from ideal to be doing those sort of speeds. He was given 28 days to wait before applying for a provisional and had to retake everything including a 2 day course for dangerous drivers.

Caught someone at a bad time it would seem.

Andy

He must have been going down a pretty steep hill??

You'd have thought he'd have grounds for claiming that the police speed checking equipment was inaccurate since a clio 1.2 16v is meant to max out at 106 (and even that is pretty optimistic!)