Good idea or bad idea?
I think a rise in speed limits on such roads is well overdue
Sex God
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Speed limit on motorways to rise to 80mph
for me the old speed limit of 70mph was set in i think 1965, when a car took about 3 miles to stop at that speed. plus only certain cars could go at 70mph as most cars in that era would have blown up. 
with the advances in cars and there ability to be much safer and more prone to stoping a lot quicker then i think it is a good idea.
i think the french way is good where it depends on the road conditions. so in a bright sunny day it would be 80mph but in rainy conditions 60mph. truble is that the british would struggle with sumthing as simple as that.
a good idea though and in my view long over due.:thumbup:
with the advances in cars and there ability to be much safer and more prone to stoping a lot quicker then i think it is a good idea.
i think the french way is good where it depends on the road conditions. so in a bright sunny day it would be 80mph but in rainy conditions 60mph. truble is that the british would struggle with sumthing as simple as that.
a good idea though and in my view long over due.:thumbup:
Sex God
I think it is a bad idea. People drive at 80, not because it is safe, but because it doesn't feel as likely to get pulled for speeding as 90 does. Make it 80, those same people will be doing 90 as a matter of course within days.
I would personally like to see bad drivers caught and dealt with far more often and far more severly with many more patrols dealing with idiot drivers like the one reading the map while in the fast lane. Not just telling him off but seizing the car on the spot.
If they get rid of the Darwin Awards nominees before they kill other people, then they can think about adjusting the speed-limit. Until then you just have the same population of drivers - including the ones who endanger the rest of us with moronic driving (regardless of speed) all going faster. Not an improvement.
How about this as a list of road improvements to consider first?
Mandatory eye tests every year for everyone - no excuses.
Full driving retest after 50, 60 and 70 etc.
A test that measures same as now, plus courtesy, threat avoidance, defensive driving and failing on aggressive (as opposed to proper assertive) attitude to driving.
Engine capacity limits for new drivers (regardless of age on pasing the test) for 2 years or unless they pass an advanced driver test.
Combined Car Tax, basic 3rd Party Insurance and license renewal - indicated on the number plate (as in Germany) and instant car seizure if not up to date. They can have it back if they pay 4 times the normal cost - that will pay for some of the cost of dealing with them.
Car crushing for breaching SORN once and that plus an escalating fine for doing it again.
MOT standards bringing older cars up to the minimum standards required of modern cars.
Police with the power to order a further MOT in between if a qualified copper identifies that the vehicle no longer appears to meet the standard. (Smokey exhaust etc)
Swingeing punishement (but don't waste money on jail) for dangerous, careless or even plain discouretous driving.
Live cameras on every single red light that will catch: red light jumpers, seat-belt avoiders, phone clutchers, map-readers, dog/child-on-lap people. Again swingeing punishments for all.
A zero-value alcohol limit is hard to prove or avoid, but a much MUCH lower limit than now making it impossible to pass a b-test if you have had even 1 drink within 2 hours. That way no-one has the excuse that they thought that one/2/3 drink was ok.
More life-time bans - certainly for any behaviour that injures other people.
Driving is not a right - it is a privilage dearly bought with effort and cost - unless you are a speedy-boy in a crappy cra with a stupidly big exhaust in which case it seems to be a matter of 'who cares, get out of MY way, I am the king of the road'.
I would personally like to see bad drivers caught and dealt with far more often and far more severly with many more patrols dealing with idiot drivers like the one reading the map while in the fast lane. Not just telling him off but seizing the car on the spot.
If they get rid of the Darwin Awards nominees before they kill other people, then they can think about adjusting the speed-limit. Until then you just have the same population of drivers - including the ones who endanger the rest of us with moronic driving (regardless of speed) all going faster. Not an improvement.
How about this as a list of road improvements to consider first?
Mandatory eye tests every year for everyone - no excuses.
Full driving retest after 50, 60 and 70 etc.
A test that measures same as now, plus courtesy, threat avoidance, defensive driving and failing on aggressive (as opposed to proper assertive) attitude to driving.
Engine capacity limits for new drivers (regardless of age on pasing the test) for 2 years or unless they pass an advanced driver test.
Combined Car Tax, basic 3rd Party Insurance and license renewal - indicated on the number plate (as in Germany) and instant car seizure if not up to date. They can have it back if they pay 4 times the normal cost - that will pay for some of the cost of dealing with them.
Car crushing for breaching SORN once and that plus an escalating fine for doing it again.
MOT standards bringing older cars up to the minimum standards required of modern cars.
Police with the power to order a further MOT in between if a qualified copper identifies that the vehicle no longer appears to meet the standard. (Smokey exhaust etc)
Swingeing punishement (but don't waste money on jail) for dangerous, careless or even plain discouretous driving.
Live cameras on every single red light that will catch: red light jumpers, seat-belt avoiders, phone clutchers, map-readers, dog/child-on-lap people. Again swingeing punishments for all.
A zero-value alcohol limit is hard to prove or avoid, but a much MUCH lower limit than now making it impossible to pass a b-test if you have had even 1 drink within 2 hours. That way no-one has the excuse that they thought that one/2/3 drink was ok.
More life-time bans - certainly for any behaviour that injures other people.
Driving is not a right - it is a privilage dearly bought with effort and cost - unless you are a speedy-boy in a crappy cra with a stupidly big exhaust in which case it seems to be a matter of 'who cares, get out of MY way, I am the king of the road'.
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
and the money comes from where foxy to put these ideas into practise?
if you think that drivers at 80 will now do 90, then maybe the limit should be lowered to say 40 on a motorway? that should stop peeple from driving to fast eh?
So you think 50 is too fast? That's your choice of course, but I don't. I think the current 70 limit is fine in normal conditions, and accept that a percentage of drivers will be over that speed at any time.
It's already average 50 on many stretches of the motorway. Annoying but effective.
It would be safer if the moron element actually lowered their speed from 80+ in fog, driving rain, roadworks etc. But they don't. As I say, let's deal with them, before simply saying - go faster, you'll be fine because most people aren't morons. Sadly the morons often drive away from the carnage.
The money? Most of my suggestions won't cost any more than now - a £1000 fine doesn't cost any more to process than a £60 fine. Taking an idiot driver's car and selling it brings money in - crushing it costs money. The extra revenue raised by increased fines pays for the rest.
very valid and good reesons foxy. but we live in 2011 UK and you know these things will never happen.
80mph is fine for the majority of sensible drivers. why penalise the majority by a few idiots? the majority are fine with that speed, would you advocate that the minority dictate what the majority have to do just for a few morons?
80mph is fine for the majority of sensible drivers. why penalise the majority by a few idiots? the majority are fine with that speed, would you advocate that the minority dictate what the majority have to do just for a few morons?
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
very valid and good reesons foxy. but we live in 2011 UK and you know these things will never happen.
80mph is fine for the majority of sensible drivers. why penalise the majority by a few idiots? the majority are fine with that speed, would you advocate that the minority dictate what the majority have to do just for a few morons?
No, as I have said more than once - the morons make 80 mph more dangerous than it would be without them and getting rid of them is the first step to making the roads safe enough to increase the limit. Just because the majority are ok with it doesn't mean they won't be killed by that small number of morons. I just feel we are tackling this the worng way round.
Sex God
for me the biggest danger on the roads hails from lorry drivers i must admit in the last 3 months I've had more near misses (where lorry drivers are not checking mirrors properly or driving too fast to go around round abouts properly )than i care to remember
i think its these professional drivers that should be tested regularly
i think its these professional drivers that should be tested regularly
I am with foxy on this one.
Cars kill and maim an awful lot of people. quote]good points made on both sides for and against
truth is the roads are so busy that to raise the limit would be useless as though its 70 now, 90% of the time overhead signs bring it down to 40mph
we all drive above the 70 limit so why raise it
one accident during rush hour will cost up to £1/2 million in lost income- ---- potental income that is . it takes three hours to sort longer if a death
I was unlucky to get stopped for speeding and went on a course though annoyed at being caught, im happy to see both sides of this arguement
remember though 90% of accidents are on A roads and are more deadly (lower speeds too)
Cars kill and maim an awful lot of people. quote]good points made on both sides for and against
truth is the roads are so busy that to raise the limit would be useless as though its 70 now, 90% of the time overhead signs bring it down to 40mph
we all drive above the 70 limit so why raise it
one accident during rush hour will cost up to £1/2 million in lost income- ---- potental income that is . it takes three hours to sort longer if a death
I was unlucky to get stopped for speeding and went on a course though annoyed at being caught, im happy to see both sides of this arguement
remember though 90% of accidents are on A roads and are more deadly (lower speeds too)
Quote by 4playinc
I am with foxy on this one.
Cars kill and maim an awful lot of people. quote]good points made on both sides for and against
truth is the roads are so busy that to raise the limit would be useless as though its 70 now, 90% of the time overhead signs bring it down to 40mph
we all drive above the 70 limit so why raise it
one accident during rush hour will cost up to £1/2 million in lost income- ---- potental income that is . it takes three hours to sort longer if a death
I was unlucky to get stopped for speeding and went on a course though annoyed at being caught, im happy to see both sides of this arguement
remember though 90% of accidents are on A roads and are more deadly (lower speeds too)
not all of us do, i certainly dont !
Quote by Ben_Minx
Cars kill and maim an awful lot of people. You only have to look at the UK death statistics to realise they are the main cause of death amongst human beings under 50. I think society has tolertaed the carnage for far to long.
ben maybe you should have a look at this site.
it clearly states in there " The number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police fell by 16 per cent from 2,222 in 2009 to 1,857 in 2010. This the lowest figure since national records began in 1926."
now not all of those tragic deaths were for peeple under 50. i think we would agree that some were over 50?
now where do you get the facts from to say that it is the main cause of deaths for under 50s?
as a guess you can start driving on the roads at 17, so 17 to 50 is 33 yeers. now from 50 to 83 is also 33 yeers. now there are loads of peeple driving on our roads that are over 83 so the death figures could be split 50/50 with peeple over 50 and under 50. at a guess of course at the figuers do not seem to use peeples ages on death figures.
if we take that as an average figure then the 2010 figures would possibly be 1111 peeple under 50 killed on the roads.
without bothering to find figures ben i am sure there are many other causes of deaths that exceed road deaths to under 50s than car accidents do.
i would say strokes kill more than 1111 peeple a yeer under 50. i would say more than 1111 peeple are killed each yeer under 50 from heart attacks. see where i am going with this one ben?
so i think that your coment holds no grounds for accuracy.
but if we move aside from that how many journeys are made each yeer? now not wanting to google again here but i would guess that there are billions yes i would say billions of journeys made by car every yeer. just myself i must make thousands every yeer. from the quick nip to the shops and then trips everyday to work etc. the mother taking her kids to school everyday and doing the shopping.
now we have established these things then work out how many peeple use there cars every day. there are millions of peeple every day, making millions of journeys every day, and we have a figure of 2222 deaths each yeer? of course any death is tragic but as a percentage of journeys made and usage of car per yeer, then as a figures it probably would be about %. that does not seem very high now does it?
every journey can be a potential disaster, all those millions and millions of journeys every yeer and only 2222 peeple killed per yeer? i would say there are more peeple killed per 100 peeple from cancers or many other things than cars.
cars are a very safe and good means of travel, the proper stats from the link above shows this. do you never travel by car then ben? for if you do surely you should be traveling every where by train or bus.
if you have been in a car in the last couple of yeers which you must have done then surely your coments cannot be taken seriusly as you cannot make the coments you have and then travel or use a car yourself surely? surely that would be just a little bit hypocritical?
cars are safe and car journeys are safe and whilst i agree that there are peeple out there who act very silly on our roads that is a small amount of peeple. raising the speed limit i beleeve will have no impact on road deaths on our motorways and the peeple who make the decisions obviously agree with that by raising them. time will tell though ben, time will tell.
see ben actually they are on the whole a very safe meens of transport.:thumbup:
Sex God
The simple question is do you think by the limit going from 70 mph to 80 mph the death rate on Motorways will drop? I dont, therefore I think it should not be done. As someone who has driven several jobs that included extensive motorway journeys and someone who drives a 600 mile journey every year nearly all Motorway I can safely say the % of idiots is not small. Every Monday moring sees a line of Mercs and BMW's in the fast lane doing 80 mph nose to tail, they will as Foxy says now be doing 90 mph nose to tail. The amount of time one of those breaks the one behind swerves and its the guy in the middle lane who swerves and ends on on the hard shoulder. I would over take in the fast lane doing 70 the limit and they simply drive up your ass flashing the lights 
80mph would be ok for bright sunny days so I agree the limit needs fixing to conditions or no 80mph.
80mph would be ok for bright sunny days so I agree the limit needs fixing to conditions or no 80mph. Sex God
The impact on safety is the most obvious area of concern and there will be those who find it hard to accept that raising the speed limit would not have a detrimental effect. International comparisons, however, show no correlation between motorway speed limits and accident rates. Evidence from the United States indicates that overall accident rates and insurance claims fell when freeway speed limits were raised, contrary to the predictions of many.
An interesting snippet from here;
An interesting snippet from here;
Sex God
Quote by Bluefish2009
The impact on safety is the most obvious area of concern and there will be those who find it hard to accept that raising the speed limit would not have a detrimental effect. International comparisons, however, show no correlation between motorway speed limits and accident rates. Evidence from the United States indicates that overall accident rates and insurance claims fell when freeway speed limits were raised, contrary to the predictions of many.
An interesting snippet from here;
Only read the first paragraph and that was a joke.
since drivers have never been offered effective training in judging speed and distance within the unique visual environment of a motorway.
Great! Lets let them go faster.
A 70 mph speed limit imposed in good conditions could not and has not prevented these accidents. The report on the 70 mph 'experiment' attempted to justify its continuation but provided no valid evidence that accidents had reduced.
Maybe try slower
But properly enforced. Dont forget we are talking safety not convenience.Drivers have become much more accustomed to motorway driving, even though training is still inadequate.
Fantastic, self taught speeders a recipe for success.
In 1965, 70 mph represented more than 80% of the maximum speed of average cars. Now it represents only 60%.
Where do they dig this shit up from? Ive been driving 20 years and nver owned a car that could not exceed 70 mph and Ive owned a Mini 850 :lol:
The widespread lack of compliance with the 70 mph speed limit is an indication of its irrelevance to modern conditions and is detrimental to respect for speed limits in general.
People fight every weeke down the town centre on an evening. Let them get on with it the law obviously isnt needed as people choose to break it.
Other adverse effects of the outdated speed limit are the creation of traffic bunching
No thats caused by people not obiding by the speed limit, if they did no traffic bunching.
Thats just from the first paragraph so fecked if I am reading any further than that. Enforcing the current speed limit would be easy. Average spped cameras at every junction, job done. Exceed by 2 miles an hour get a fine, exceed again get a huge fine, exceed again banned, car seized. Problem solved.
I dont disagree that cars cant do 80mph on the right day right conditions but a straight change to 80mph is no good.
Quote by Danne
[quote="4playinc
not all of us do, i certainly dont !
sorry I shouldnt laugh, danne, your'e telling me that you have never broken the speed limit you may not have driven over the max 70 but what about the 20s and 30s i think they are actually harder to keep to do to the power of modern cars even in low gearsjust my thoughts
i apreciate your reply to me ben in a private pm, but i am sure that everyone on here would like to see that reply.
why you sent it to me i cannot answer but if we are talking on the forum and you have some thing to add then by all means add it. it helps everyone else to under stand why you made the comments you did in the first place. :thumbup:
why you sent it to me i cannot answer but if we are talking on the forum and you have some thing to add then by all means add it. it helps everyone else to under stand why you made the comments you did in the first place. :thumbup:
I was hoping not spam the thead with trivua and get into the usual drivel debate about validity of sources.
The Association of British Insurers have a massive database of teh causes of death. they have to, its how they make money. Cars kill most of the people who die before they reach the age of 50. A horrible fact but a true one. Oh suicide comes second I recall.
The Association of British Insurers have a massive database of teh causes of death. they have to, its how they make money. Cars kill most of the people who die before they reach the age of 50. A horrible fact but a true one. Oh suicide comes second I recall.
Quote by Ben_Minx
I was hoping not spam the thead with trivua and get into the usual drivel debate about validity of sources.
do not know why you see it that way ben. why would giving peeple the information on a web site or a link if it can prove what someone says is indeed fact
Quote by Ben_Minx
The Association of British Insurers have a massive database of teh causes of death. they have to, its how they make money. Cars kill most of the people who die before they reach the age of 50. A horrible fact but a true one. Oh suicide comes second I recall.
sorry ben but i cannot see where this is said on this web site.
my figures i have given above i stand by but the ABI website i can find no figures at all. would you care to show me the way.
Quote by i
" The number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police fell by 16 per cent from 2,222 in 2009 to 1,857 in 2010. This the lowest figure since national records began in 1926."
those figures were from the department of transport web site. i stand by the fact that there are many other causes of death much higher than the figures quoted above.
Quote by Ben_Minx
I have no interest in banging on about trivia. Believe me or if you disbelieve me go find the information that is in the public domain and make your own mind up. A good starting point would be the NSO website.
i have said nothing about trivia ben i simply asked you to supply evidence regarding your claim that road deaths kill more under 50s than any thing else, and i said i could not find it from your source.
i can only beleeve someone who supplys valid facts like i did with my link.
i am not googling something for myself so unless you can produce facts to back up your claim then i am not going on a fact finding mission with you giving me lead after lead.
just supply the facts is all that i asked. :notes:
i did read some where that the biggest causes of deaths on motorways is ether driving without due care and attention or ether falling asleep at the wheel or the effects of driving for to long, in other words tiredness.
speed is not the main reeson. i will have to see if i can find where i saw that. if that is true then speed is not the biggest killer on the motorways and if you look at german roads where in parts there is NO speed limits, the death rates are suprisingly very low.
whatever we may say the speed limit is going up to 80.
my opinion that it is impossible not to speed and sometimes you do not even know if it is a 30 or a 40 that is not the debate here it is about motorways and if the major reeson for deaths on motorways is not speeding then the increase is justifyable in the right conditions..
speed is not the main reeson. i will have to see if i can find where i saw that. if that is true then speed is not the biggest killer on the motorways and if you look at german roads where in parts there is NO speed limits, the death rates are suprisingly very low.
whatever we may say the speed limit is going up to 80.
my opinion that it is impossible not to speed and sometimes you do not even know if it is a 30 or a 40 that is not the debate here it is about motorways and if the major reeson for deaths on motorways is not speeding then the increase is justifyable in the right conditions..
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
I have no interest in banging on about trivia. Believe me or if you disbelieve me go find the information that is in the public domain and make your own mind up. A good starting point would be the NSO website.
i have said nothing about trivia ben i simply asked you to supply evidence regarding your claim that road deaths kill more under 50s than any thing else, and i said i could not find it from your source.
i can only beleeve someone who supplys valid facts like i did with my link.
i am not googling something for myself so unless you can produce facts to back up your claim then i am not going on a fact finding mission with you giving me lead after lead.
just supply the facts is all that i asked. :notes:
i must admit ben you often ask for other to back their claims
so it would only be courteous to do the very same when asked
Quote by Ben_Minx
Nar, its get to the point where the thread ends up trying to prove that the sky is blue based on wiki quotes which is ridiculous.
have i quoted wiki at all? i quoted official DOT figures ben.,
Quote by Ben_Minx
Going back to undisputed facts, 2000+ deaths a year is 7 or 8 every day. Imagine the outcry if booze or drugs or football or shaggin caused that many deaths eh?
yes ben imagine the outcry indeed!!
now per year is 41 deaths per day.
now peeple may scoff at this but read the link and i have not quoted wiki ben but a proper source which took me five seconds to find. so sorry but again your coments are not factual.
or just in case you do not like that link ben what about this one?
there are plenty and i have not even started on other illnesses like cancer or stroke figures.
sorry but your coment about under 50s deaths is not correct ben. not a case at all that i do not beleeve you, it is just not factual.:notes:
you said 7 0r 8 deaths per day on the roads but they are not all under 50 ben. but now compare your figures of 7 or 8 with 41 deaths through alchol.
care to comment on that ben? give me some facts ben.
or as another fact ben these figures do not say what ages peeple were at death but you have quoted the whole figures for road deaths. so what about these official figures ben of deaths per year through strokes?
there are a lot of other things that are causing more deaths per 1000 peeple than road deaths ben. and all this found without a wiki link in site ben.:thumbup:
also you did not answer my orignal question ben about you travelling in a car in the last three yeers?
