Clubjazz - Honda Jazz & HR-V Forums
Other Hondas & General Topics => Off Topic (Non-Honda) => Topic started by: RichardA on October 03, 2011, 08:47:47 PM
-
A consultation over raising the motorway speed limit from 70mph to 80mph will take place soon. The new limit could be introduced as early as 2013.
The current limit was set in 1965.
Do you support the move to 80mph?
-
Sure am! It's only legalising what's already happening!
-
Personally I don't think the driving standard is good enough already.
80mph would be OK if it was enforced, but realistically 90 mph will become the norm and the killed and seriously injured numbers will dramatically increase.
The overall stopping distance at 90mph is 180ft further than 70mph, but no-one will allow a bigger gap when following traffic.
Ozzie
-
I agree with Ozzie, I believe if you are driving at 80mph sensibly now you would not get stopped.
It is not speed which kills it is poor driving.
-
I am in favour of being able to make my own decisions and risk assessments (which is why I enjoy rock climbing........) so yes the 80 mph limit is a good idea when conditions allow.
However with all the variable speed limits that are going up will there be any 70mph or 80 mph motorway left?
I am also in favour of getting rid of the 50mph limits on country A and B roads that seem to be the norm now.
I also wish that these rules were strictly adhered too and enforced..
169
Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.
168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.
-
No - there are enough idiots doing 80 to 90 at the moment, if the limit is raised to 80 they will then do 90 to 100 and feel justified.
To save fuel my bet is that the limit will be lowered, like it has been in Switzerland - and it makes sense because drag increases with square of the speed - ie to double your speed you need 4x the power (and fuel).
everybody thinks they are the worlds greatest driver - until the laws of physics and human limitations proves them wrong.
Better Mr Jones late than the late Mr Jones.
-
ok lets be honest..in this day and age cars should be doing 90+ down the motorways...lorrys 70+ busses 80+ since the technology is in the cars...
although i do recon that people who havent been passed all that long should be limited to 70mph until they get use to their car..
-
While I agree with John about making our own decisions and risk assessment, I unfortunately do not have the faith in a huge majority of the general public to make rational decisions. Whenever I leave a 2 second gap on the motorway some idiot pulls into it, often without indicating.
When it comes to driving I can be quite anal. I love a bit of speed driving and fun but there is a place for that. And don't get me started on those who don't even have a licence......
-
I think yes if the road is dry and then lower it back to say 60 when the roads are wet. they do something like this in France.
-
Cars may be better these days - but the drivers aren't. Driving faster requires more attention, and no distractions such as the stereo, passengers, let alone phones. Are your tyres up to it? Or a different tyre on every wheel? Then add the fact that in the dark 70mph really is quite fast enough, throw in some rain, 1.6mm legal minimum tread...
People then talk about enforcing it more closely. But safe traffic flow requires a level of speed disparity between vehicles, to reduce bunching and tailgating. You actually want a fairly loose interpretation of the speed limit. We're all aware off the effect of one truck passing another when they're both sat on their speed limiters, or bunching in average-speed-camera zones.
Neither would it help our CO2 emissions. And the government said it would increase productivity! How? The few minutes saved would be at either end of the day, you'd spend longer in bed instead.
-
And don't get me started on those who don't even have a licence......
...or insurance >:(
-
And don't get me started on those who don't even have a licence......
...or insurance >:(
Indeed!
-
Speed doesn't cause accidents ??? Posted on this USA website
http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/what-causes-car-accidents.html (http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/what-causes-car-accidents.html)
This expert says that when speed limits were set our roads were much less crowded than they are now, and people who argue that speed limits should be increased because 'cars are better' are wrong because the limiting factor is still the human behind the wheel - he actually says that because of more crowded roads speed limits should actually be reduced (have you noticed how drivers on motorway always feel they can do 10mph more than the speed limit and still not get done for speeding, well the bad news is that if speed limit was raised to 80, those people would be going 90mph+ and still feel justified). Even carparks, with possibility of cars pulling out, children, dogs etc. Everyday I am seeing people doing stupid speeds even in housing estates and carparks, and on our local Tesco carpark the other day an old lady was knocked down and killed by a white van, now if the van had been doing 10mph it would have been bad enough, but the old lady ended up UNDER his van - so god knows what speed he was doing - if there is no speed there is no collision possible, but as speed increases the outcome rapidly gets worse. The impact force is proportional to the square of the velocity, so hitting some / something at 20mph is four times as bad as 10mph.
I have done a lot of intensive and hands on research about road traffic crashes - more than 40 years of it to be exact. It is not the car which is the core element or cause of a road traffic crash - it is the human being in control of that car who is the core element of crashes. How cars were when the standards for current speed limits were set up had virtually nothing to do (in my country at least) with the criteria used to set up the limits - the criteria used was twofold: (1) "human perception time + human reaction time + time taken, after the perception/reaction phase, to complete or achieve what is necessary to avoid an impending collision like stopping or swerving in time". (2) The actions and reactions of road users based on their experience and expectations of what they perceive other road users are usually doing - virtually all driving decisions are based on what the driver expect or belief another road user is doing based on his previous experiences regarding the usual behavior of other road users. Example: when a driver wants to cross a road he looks for approaching vehicles on the road he wants to cross and when he saw a vehicle approaching he will decide, based on his previous experience and what he normally expects from other road users, to cross or wait. If the approaching vehicle is at a distance which his experience taught him he has enough time to safely cross, he start crossing the road. Now imagine, if the approaching vehicle is doing 130 miles per hour instead of the 30 miles per hours it is supposed to do at that section of the road, what would happen? (the point here is that it is not the great capabilities of the driver or the greatly advanced modern car of the speedster that should be the criteria for determining speed limits but the reasonable expectations of the average road user).
The speed limits were thus based on the average time it takes for an average human to perceive/react/achieve in relation to the rate of speed of a moving object AND the way the average road user usually react to the actions of other road users.
It is thus the capabilities and perception of the human which is the central factor in collision avoidance and NOT how good or bad the vehicle is. The modern car may have improved tremendously over the older cars BUT the capabilities and perception of the human (the road user) has NOT improved (changed) at all between then and now so no new justification or reason to change the current speed limits came up.
It is true that poor driving skills, recklessness, negligence and criminal behavior (breaking the law = speeding) are SOME of the factors that must be present to cause an accident but the other factor SPEED (speed is the rate of movement of an object) must ALWAYS be present as without it no collision can happen (no movement = no collision - unless you belief in motionless collisions of course). The test to decide if a factor (speed) is the cause of a result (collision) or not, is to simply take away the factor and see if the result still follow - if the result can not follow without the factor, the factor is obviously the cause for the result. A collision is a forceful contact between two or more objects due to the movement (speed) of one or more of the objects involved in the collision and the force of the contact (lethality) is caused by the rate of speed involved in the contact - so speed is not only an essential cause (requirement) for a collision to happen, it is also the main cause of the severity of the collision AND will determine if the collision can be avoided or not due to to reduced action/reaction time available caused by higher speeds. Today, in contrast to the past when current speed limits were set up, traffic is very much more dense and the typical distance between people/vehicles on the road is much less (much shorter distances) than in the olden times drastically reducing the available time for road users in which to act or react so current speed limits should in the interest of road safety be reduced and not increased. As to your moaning that speed limits make only the government / police department / insurance companies rich I counter with the following: (1) do not make the criminal speedsters who have no regard for the law or the safety of other road users out to be "poor victims" - they are not! (2) The desire to speed in public spaces can not outweigh the desire of the law abiding to be safe on their roads. (3) Speed limits can not be based on how good a driver you are or how fantastic your cars is - it must be based on the capabilities and expectations of the average road user. (4) Speed limits can not be based on your lightning like reflexes or the carbon fiber brakes of your car but on the reflexes and standards of the average driver and car. (5) "Let crime pay" - it cost to protect the law abiding road user and somebody must pay for it. I much prefer that the criminal rather than the law abiding tax payer do the paying (through heavy fines how else) - In fact I would like the criminal to pay so much that he also fully cover the cost of medical care, pain and suffering and the damages and stresses he caused. Arrive alive! and remember speed kills
-
Really interesting article. On the 80 mph thing, I'm a bit agnostic. I just wonder if, with smart motorways becoming more prevalent with their variable speed limits, an 80 limit could be signalled when traffic is light and the weather conditions good.
-
What will happen if speed limit was raised everyone will start doing 90 instead of doing 80 like they do with the 70 limit.
Life is fast enough as it is chill out and slow down.
-
What will happen if speed limit was raised everyone will start doing 90 instead of doing 80 like they do with the 70 limit.
Life is fast enough as it is chill out and slow down.
That is the worry. It would need enforcing but smart motorways would do that - there are cameras everywhere.
Even if they did raise it - I wouldn't be using it - I prefer a stress free drive!
-
Sometime around 2003, I got my first car with Sat Nav. I have had it in one form or other ever since. I set it for my destination on any journey away from my local town, even if I know the way like the back of my hand, for two reasons...
1) It will alert me to any traffic alerts, diversions and other dynamic factors
2) The ETA calculation reminds me that, even when I speed, or get slowed down by someone pulling out in front of me, it typically makes very little to no difference to my eventual arrival time.
This second factor is a massive reason why I no longer believe that higher speeds are worth the higher risks. On a typical one hour journey of mixed road and motorway conditions, travelling over the speed limit might, at best, save you 5 minutes or so. Is it really worth the extra stress, risk (both of accident* or speeding ticket) and effort to gain 5 minutes?
In the 1990s, I had to drive a lot from West Yorkshire to West Kent. A journey of around 240 miles, usually at peak times in both directions, mostly along the M1/M25 or A1/A14/M25. I used to drive like an idiot, so aggressive, get there all tense and tired, and take around 4 hours 15 minutes, plus or minus 15 minutes.
One day, for no good reason, I chose to drive normally, i.e. like the average road user, politely, within plus or minus 5mph of the speed limit (for overtaking). I arrived fresh, ready to work and in 4 hours 20 minutes. I repeated this a few times and quickly came to the realisation that all my aggression and youthful acceleration was only really gaining me 15 minutes on average over that journey. It was a revelation.
Nowadays, I might 'push on a bit' on a quiet motorway in good conditions, but mostly, I just settle back to what ever feels right up to the speed limit.
The other night, I drove my H/RV for around 80 miles on normal A roads, not something I do very often, I'm usually on the motorway within 10 minutes. It was night and the weather was modest fog and ice, snow on higher ground. I felt confident with all the safety features of my new car and was reassured by my winter tyres.
I took the journey nice and steady, modest acceleration, within the speed limits, and the 1.6DTEC returned 61.2mpg (on the trip computer, so take that with a pinch of rock salt). This was the best recorded consumption I have had in that or any car. So there are other benefits too to driving 1950s style.
*There is no such thing as an accident. Someone is always at fault. Either you, the other driver or the designer/manufacturer/fitter of a part that fails, or the designer/constructor of the road.
-
The other aspect I have not seen discussed here is the impact on fuel consumption. Wind resistance, which is a key source of energy loss when driving at speed, is proportional to the square of the speed. The fuel consumption difference between 80mph and 70mph is a lot more than the difference between 70mph and 60mph and that extra fuel means proportionally extra emissions coming out of the exhaust pipe.
Sensibly, if fuel cost is a consideration, we should all be pottering along at 50 to 60mph. However, I don't like my forward view being blocked by the back end of a lorry with the front of another lorry blocking the view of of my back window which means I have to move over to the next lane of traffic and have to drive a bit faster in order to justify being there.
-
The other aspect I have not seen discussed here is the impact on fuel consumption.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2011/mar/25/hypermiling-tips (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2011/mar/25/hypermiling-tips)
here is a quote form this article (point #7)
7. The Energy Saving Trust says that the most efficient speed you can travel in a car in terms of achieving the best fuel economy is 55-65mph. Any faster, though, and the fuel efficiency decreases rapidly. For example, driving at 85mph uses 40% more fuel than at 70mph (oh, and it's illegal too).
+1 Richard Frost, I have tried this as well and it is amazing how much time you DON'T save by driving faster, and it is far less stressful if you just let the idiots pass who just want to overtake everything in sight. What is the point in getting from A to B a little bit quicker if you do not have a chance to see anything around you - life is a journey, but the final destination is not one that you want to be in a hurry to reach
-
In the late 70's I was being trained to get a coveted police driving permit. I don't think police drivers today ( with the exception of Traffic) have to do such a thing. At that time we were instructed to obey the 20/30/40 mph speed limit but ignore all others. Remember I was doing training. The upper speed limits were in place as a government fuel saving exercise. We had to make progress, bearing in mind the safety of our and other road users. In fact when given a hurry up job that what came over the radio.
Many years on, I am distressed to see the way people carry on when driving a vehicle. At the end of the day it is more lethal than a weapon.
Yesterday, I was following a Citroen, when it signalled left, I as was trained, sat back to make sure it did indeed turn left, which it did, into the throat of a slip road onto an A road, so I just continued and to my horror the car did a 'U' turn and came out of the one way. I had to move over into the opposing carriageway which fortunately was empty and braked. Normally one would accelerate out of danger. The car continued and I am convinced the woman driver did not even see us. My Wife, afterward just said well the old fools reactions are still pretty good.
Here we have a low speed incident purely caused by at the least lack of attention or was it just pure 'sod you I am going to do what I want?' It would have been an injury only accident but the honda would have been written off because the side air bags would have deployed. The car contained children. A considerable cost because of stupidity. On the way home the A30 was virtually deserted and I was popping along at about 70/75, yes speeding BUT had there been more traffic then obviously other factors come into the equation. There is a video of a Honda Fit hitting surface water and aquaplaning. I think it flipped 7 times all recorded on an in car video. The little old Fit was a mess BUT the driver walked away. Now, it could be said the driver should not have aquaplaned but we cant drive around at 20mph just because something might happen but as the article states it is the driver that is the problem not the vehicle after all they are getting safer and safer but the idiot drivers just take more chances.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2011/mar/25/hypermiling-tips (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2011/mar/25/hypermiling-tips)
I agree with most of that article but think that 50 mph may be nearer the sweet spot for economy than 60 or 65 mph. A couple of years ago I was going up the M1 and had to pass through about 20 miles of continuous 50 mph speed limit due to road works. The trip mpg reading increased substantially during that period. However, 50 mph may not be an efficient speed due to impeding other traffic when the speed limit is higher than 50 mph.
-
The little old Fit was a mess BUT the driver walked away. Now, it could be said the driver should not have aquaplaned but we cant drive around at 20mph just because something might happen but as the article states it is the driver that is the problem not the vehicle after all they are getting safer and safer but the idiot drivers just take more chances.
All the modern safety aids in a car make people complacent about accidents, they are reassured that whatever stupid thing they do that THEY will not be badly injured or killed (sod the others on the road, I'm all right Jack). I think replacing the airbag with a big spike in the centre of steering wheel will get people attention and slow people down. As well as driving a car I ride a powerful motorbike (weather permitting LOL), and I have to say you certainly do not feel invulnerable on a motorbike (not if you have an IQ of more than 10 anyway) and you realise every second that you have to concentrate fully on the job in hand. Maybe speed itself does not kill - but without speed a collision cannot occur, what the speed does do however is make the outcome of an accident much, much worse.
Everyone is a great driver until the laws of nature and physics proves otherwise.
Auntneddy talking about Police drivers >:( I saw a dark BMW in my rear mirror today - it had a bump in the roof above the driver, as the sun glinted on it i saw blue so assumed it is an unmarked police car - well I was last in a line of 3 cars doing 50 in a 60 limit B road, hilly, fairly narrow, bendy country road with high hedges either side, this guy tailgated me and then overtook me on a blind uphill bend, had to swerve back into line in front of me when a car came the other way, and then overtook the cars in front of me in a similar unsuitable place. If I had dashcam footage I would have sent it to Chief constable of Shropshire. No matter how highly trained you are you cannot see over hills and around bends. He did not have lights or siren on but was driving like he did, and pulled away from line of cars pretty quick so I guess he was speeding too.
Had anything been said to him he would probably have said he was "practising", just like another Shropshire copper who took a brand new Volvo out one day a few years ago, he was caught by the cars own onboard video recorder doing nearly 160 mph on M54, 120 in fifty limit and over 80 in a 30 limit - the police were not even going to caution him (he said he was practising) until local press took up the case, last I heard of him he had been suspended on full pay but don't know if he lost his driving licenece etc. - If the police want the public to have any respect for them and the law then the police have to behave themselves, and if they want to speed then they should turn their blues and twos on and have to explain why they did it.
-
Some really good posts here. I've made up my mind - keep it at 70 mph.
-
Unfortunately having been retired for a while, I cannot comment about police driving today BUT what I have seen does not give me confidence. In my days of driver training, the training cars were unmarked all white no blue light and no two tones. There was always three pupils and an instructor and in the rear window was '----------driver training. All pupils had to have a full DOT driving licence and we were graded as to what our aims were, traffic, general etc. I was aiming for a rural beat, another for traffic and the last was so useless he came back for further training. You could not drive a marked police car until you had a permit. All you were allowed was a small unmarked car for enquiries and even then you had to pass a police test. We all had to serve a certain time in a town for experience. The traffic bloke had to get a certain mark before he could continue to achieve a class 3 or 1. I got the highest for a 'general purpose patrol car' that was all except Traffic vehicles. as an aside on my M/C course my mark could have earned me a M/C Class 3 but I wasn't interested. When on a hurry up, two tones and blue light HAD to be used, in fact if you didn't and the incident reported our Chief Constable was likely to put you before a court for speeding. To illustrate, on a foggy day Traffic were doing a lights on check for reduced visibility, along came one of my rural colleagues no lights, all drivers reported in the previous half hour were exempted and the copper was disciplined. Today, I see police cars wandering about over double white lines and generally pretty poor driving. I think Culzeans comments about practicing is a classic. I am glad it was taken up and hopefully the cowboy was banned by a court of law. Hard, but if coppers want the public support they have to learn to behave. If that was a police car that Culzean saw then he should have been reported HOWEVER even in my day, a cowboy like that would have been a very dangerous person to the person that had the bottle to make a complaint. All I can do is apologise for the fact that there will always be Jack the lads in the police.
Back to the speed limit question. Has there been any information regarding as to whether lorry involved accidents have gone up or down since they were allowed to travel at higher speeds.
-
Raising the allowed speed of a heavy lorry or HGV just does not make sense, the stopping distance of a loaded lorry will always be a lot longer than a car or light van traveling at the same speed. IMHO mixing vehicles on the road traveling at the same speed when some of them are not going to be able to stop is sheer lunacy, also as the speed rises so does fuel consumption, and most lorries have the aerodynamics of a house brick.
No doubt haulage companies have been lobbying (a polite way of saying 'lobbing money at') the government as they see a raise in speed limit as a money making move - they will try to justify it as well by saying people will have less reason to overtake a faster moving lorry (but I would rather have a 40mph lorry behind me than a 50mph one if I have to brake suddenly, as that extra 10mph translates into a lot of extra braking distance and also energy to flatten your car when the lorry runs out of road space and your car becomes 'the crumple zone' for the rest of the traffic queue in front). Also 40mph uses less fuel than 50 or 60.
-
Unfortunately, experience of lorries being allowed to drive faster has not made me feel very secure. Not only does the incidence of tailgating seem to have increased but oh when will these so called professional drivers NOT try and overtake another when they just do not have the power. I second Culzeans concern over stopping distances etc.
NOW, HAS THE WHOTSIT HIT THE FAN? Today, I have heard that we the motorist are contributing to the 26,000 deaths caused by air pollution. I have heard that there will be more speed bumps, they will be abolished and now they will be reconfigured. We all know that a vehicle has an optimum speed for economy but given that different cars have different gear ratios ( any one who has ridden a bike knows that in low gear you have to pedal like stink) how is it going to be decided? Variable speed limits might be an idea but the idea of getting motorists to drive more smoothly good luck. It is possible to with forward vision to anticipate traffic lights etc so that use of the brakes is minimal. Bends, the number of people that ignore warning signs rush up and brake all round the bend and then there are the dabbers on the brake pedal at the sign of the slightest bend slope whatever. Recently, a mate who was a lorry driver and I were talking and he had no idea about reading the road. He did not know that the white line in the middle of the road ( if done properly) gives warning of hazards and about the telephone pole indication. Country lanes can be read by looking at the poles, not electricity poles as they often go across fields, as in the main they follow the road and when the white lines get closer together it indicates a hazard. How on earth are 26,000,000 motorist going to be educated? As always a bright theorist comes up with an idea and everybody is running around like a headless chicken. Start with the diesel problem if you want to improve air quality. My Jazz has returned ZERO Co2 readings on it's last three MOT's Sorry piggin boffins. Smoking is a problem to air quality. Just to stir the pot even further OPEC has decided to cut production and the average fill up will now cost us a fiver extra. AND back to diesels is it true that where 20 gallons of petrol can be distilled from crude only 9 gallons of diesel can be extracted from the same amount. Why is diesel not twice the price of petrol? So raising the speed limit to 80 seems to be a dead duck!!!!!!My personal opinion is why doesn't NICE stick to ensuring we ALL get safe drugs and medication. Sorry Guys bee in my bonnet.
-
Raising the allowed speed of a heavy lorry or HGV just does not make sense, the stopping distance of a loaded lorry will always be a lot longer than a car or light van traveling at the same speed. IMHO mixing vehicles on the road traveling at the same speed when some of them are not going to be able to stop is sheer lunacy, also as the speed rises so does fuel consumption, and most lorries have the aerodynamics of a house brick.
No doubt haulage companies have been lobbying (a polite way of saying 'lobbing money at') the government as they see a raise in speed limit as a money making move - they will try to justify it as well by saying people will have less reason to overtake a faster moving lorry (but I would rather have a 40mph lorry behind me than a 50mph one if I have to brake suddenly, as that extra 10mph translates into a lot of extra braking distance and also energy to flatten your car when the lorry runs out of road space and your car becomes 'the crumple zone' for the rest of the traffic queue in front). Also 40mph uses less fuel than 50 or 60.
Raising the HGV speed limit to 50mph on single carriageway roads has reduced the frustration exhibited by following drivers when behind 40mph trucks and hence the dodgy overtaking attempts. I regularly use two of the busiest single carriageway roads where HGV's concerned, the A15 and A17 in Lincolnshire. I have noticed that more trucks are travelling at their governed max speed of 56mph on single carriageway roads. I queried this with my grandson who is a trucky and he agreed and said that it is down to two facts. There are very few traffic police cars in use these days to apprehend speeding vehicles and in most counties speed limits are adjusted to allow for the 10% under read plus 2mph so 50mph equates to 57mph although this usually doesn't apply at the lower limits of 30 and 40mph.
Vic.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/01/nice-proposes-smooth-driving-measures-to-cut-pollution-and-save-lives (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/01/nice-proposes-smooth-driving-measures-to-cut-pollution-and-save-lives)
I have said before ( including somewhere earlier in this thread I think ) that I would not be surprised if speed limit got lowered instead of raised - well in most of todays papers were proposals to do just that - 50mph on motorways to cut air pollution
-
50mph on motorways equals 50mph traffic jams including the trucks.
Vic.
-
50mph on motorways equals 50mph traffic jams including the trucks.
Vic.
One of the features of the smart motorway technology is that instead of everyone rushing into a jam at 70 to 90 mph the speed of upstream traffic is slowed well before the jam to prevent traffic stopping and it seems to have worked on the motorways I have been on, where before there were lots of stoppages now you keep rolling, even if it is only 20 or 30 mph but you are still moving.