70 mph ON THE MOTOWAY

[captaincloser]

but blanket saying speed is the main course is wrong as the statistics proof otherwise.

Has anyone said that ? I think not. Only you in the above post.

I, for example, am simply saying that drivers are foolish and can they explain the need for speeding beyond legal limits ? Why not get out of bed an hour earlier and drive safely within legal linits ?

I was also suggesting repeat driving tests and a general toughening up on everything from using mobiles to bending round to chat to children.What the flip is wrong with these suggestions and why not address them instead of fiddling with semantics around the cost of life by speeding drivers ?

 

[captaincloser]

Im not in favor of boat racers like you rocking me all over the place when Im moored up, speeding past at 4mph

OMG ! DandD you have blown my cover...i'll have to repaint and rename the fleet. I have been warned about 'eroding the bank of the canal' too ! As for overtaking on the left...not giving way to someone with a blazer on a fibreglass boat...

 

[DuckingandDiving]

I have been warned about 'eroding the bank of the canal' too !

I was right about you - im always suspicious when the ''lady doth protest too much''

...not giving way to someone with a blazer on a fibreglass boat...

I dont either

 

[DotNetWebs]

Just noticed this on the BBC website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01785f2/Click_05_11_2011/ (first 10 mins)

Looks like we might all be driving around with aircraft-style 'black boxes' fitted soon!

It wouldn't be much of a leap in technology to automate safe-separation and braking for collision-avoidance etc.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Subbynet]

I think they will try that Dotty.

This is a capability of the new Galileo satellites they're putting in space now. There was a page about it on their website - but its gone now.

http://www.esa.int/esaNA/galileo.html

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

Driving too close to the vehicle in front is a major factor in most serious motorway collisions. The most effective road safety signs I have seen are on a part of the M56 where chevrons give the distance behind the vehicle in front that you should be. I think this should be extended to all motorways.

Barrie

 

[Surge Computers]

Like others, i'd say it was more to do with aggressive drivers that are on the UK roads. When its dry and warm, i'll drive happily at 80 on the duel carriageways, but obviously when its wet, and cold, things are a lot dangerous and that's what most people do not realise. What caused the crash on friday night was probably the combination of fog, mist and fireworks, and people driving aggressively. I can't honestly say that raising the speed limits will cause road deaths to rise.

I read in an article, in South Korea, the maximum limit is 60 there, however they have more road deaths than Germany, where some of the roads don't even have speed restrictions.

 

[DotNetWebs]

Interesting article on the BBC website tonight:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15620146

The bottom line:

A report by the Transport Research Laboratory found that if the motorway speed was increased by 10mph, the change could cause an extra 18 deaths per year.

I guess the question is: does the extra benefits the increased speed limit would be justify 18 extra deaths on our roads? (a 1% increase).

Ironically one of the links in the sidebar is How dangerous is firing a gun into the air?

Regards

Dotty

 

[DuckingandDiving]

It wouldn't kill you as terminal velocity is 125 mph iirc, so when they drop down they would be hitting the ground at 125 mph not the over 400 mph fired from a gun

A bullet, in free fall, hitting your head at 125mph, will give you a little bit more than a simple headache I think!

 

[Subbynet]

Interesting article on the BBC website tonight:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15620146

The bottom line:



I guess the question is: does the extra benefits the increased speed limit would be justify 18 extra deaths on our roads? (a 1% increase).

Ironically one of the links in the sidebar is How dangerous is firing a gun into the air?

Regards

Dotty

1% is well within the error margin of such calculations, so I'm sceptical of these findings.

 

[DotNetWebs]

1% is well within the error margin of such calculations, so I'm sceptical of these findings.

IMO we can't really say that without looking at the detailed way the calculation was made.

Unfortunately they have got the cheek to ask for £35.00 for a copy of the report!

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r...on_of_options_for_road_safety_beyond_2010.htm

Regards

Dotty

 

[Subbynet]

I know it's wrong Dotty... You can find the yearly total of deaths widely publicised and available on-line, and then remember that most deaths happen on urban roads, and you can quite clearly see that if you were to take just deaths on motorways, that it would be much lower than 1%.

 

[DotNetWebs]

I know it's wrong Dotty... You can find the yearly total of deaths widely publicised and available on-line, and then remember that most deaths happen on urban roads, and you can quite clearly see that if you were to take just deaths on motorways, that it would be much lower than 1%.

It was me that said "on our roads" (I didn't read it close enough - it doesn't actually say that on the BBC website).

Perhaps what they mean is an extra 1% increase in Motorway fatalities.

Unfortunately we can't know for sure without looking at the report.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Subbynet]

I've just read that page again, and it does mention about motorway speed adding an extra 18 deaths per year. But again, look at the number of total deaths per year, if this adds 1% to fatal accidents, then they must be calculating from the total number of accidents on all roads, and not just the motorways.

Say on average 2500 deaths (All Road types).

6% (Motorway deaths) of 2500 is 150.. Now add a one percent rise, and you have 1.5 extra deaths per year. Much less that the 18 deaths given on the BBC site, but this makes sense if you account for all road deaths.

If you add 18 deaths to the 150 already accounted for, you'd have an increase of around 7%. But remember between the years of 2008 to 2009, we had a reduction in road deaths of over 10%.

So it's well within any error margins. IMO. So I'm going to doubt these findings right now, because the numbers don't add up properly.

60 per cent of reported fatalities occurred on rural roads, with a further 34 per cent on urban roads. Only 6 per cent of fatalities occurred on motorways.
•
The decrease in fatalities was despite increases in traffic. Motorway fatalities decreased by 9 per cent from the 1994-98 average, however traffic on motorways increased by 28 per cent over the same period (Chart 4).
•
48 per cent of car and HGV fatalities occurred on rural A roads, compared to only 33 per cent of pedal cycle and 17 per cent of pedestrian fatalities. 69 per cent of pedestrian fatalities happened on urban roads. This is accounted for both by the greater population in urban areas and also the fact that those living in urban areas tend to walk further, on average.

Details from a 2008 report - it's worth noting that 2009 and 2010 seen decreases in deaths, with 2010 being the lowest on record.

http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statisti...bar/suppletablesfactsheets/fatalities2008.pdf

 

[DotNetWebs]

...So it's well within any error margins...

I still don't think we can say that without looking at the report which should show how the calculations were obtained and the error margins involved.

But anyway does the precise number actually matter?

Common sense would say that deaths are likely to increase rather than decrease.

Even is speed is not the CAUSE of any new accidents the EFFECTS of having accidents at in increased average speed will make average consequences more dangerous.

As you say road deaths on the whole are decreasing so we just have to decide whether the slight increase in risk by raising the speed limit is justified by the benefits it may bring.

Regards

Gavin

 

Details from a 2008 report - it's worth noting that 2009 and 2010 seen decreases in deaths, with 2010 being the lowest on record.

http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statisti...bar/suppletablesfactsheets/fatalities2008.pdf

The reason for the lower accident rate is that drivers are driving less miles at lower speeds owing to the high price of fuel.

Earl

 

[Subbynet]

I still don't think we can say that without looking at the report which should show how the calculations were obtained and the error margins involved.

Well, the numbers are widely available. We don't really need to know what their report says, when we have the published death figures (Death is binary - it's ever true or false), and we have their findings (Extra 18 deaths - 1% rise!). We can do the calculations ourselves to see if it matches up - and it doesn't, it doesn't even come close. Do the calculations yourself, you can easily see it's based on "all roads", and not "motorways". Maybe bad reporting by the BBC is to blame.

But anyway does the precise number actually matter?

Yes. Of course they do otherwise you wouldn't have tried using them yourself. 18 when your dealing with around 2500 is within any error margin in the calculation. Like I showed above, if it was based on motorways deaths then a 7% rise would matter - if that's what the figures showed, but they don't.

Common sense would say that deaths are likely to increase rather than decrease.

Even is speed is not the CAUSE of any new accidents the EFFECTS of having accidents at in increased average speed will make average consequences more dangerous.

Simply not true. Speed (And congestion) have increased from the time the 70mph limit was introduced in 1965, yet year in year out accidents and deaths have fell - virtually every year. (On all roads!)

This statement completely ignores the advances in car and road safety measures, otherwise, we would have been seeing year in increases in deaths - not reductions.

 

[Subbynet]

The reason for the lower accident rate is that drivers are driving less miles at lower speeds owing to the high price of fuel.

Earl

But the numbers are based on 2008 figures Earl. There was a sharp fall in deaths and accidents for 2010, which could be down to the price of fuel.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...Simply not true. Speed (And congestion) have increased from the time the 70mph limit was introduced in 1965, yet year in year out accidents and deaths have fell - virtually every year. (On all roads!)

This statement completely ignores the advances in car and road safety measures, otherwise, we would have been seeing year in increases in deaths - not reductions.

Yes of course my statement ignores everything else.

All I have said is that all other things being equal, if you have an accident at an average higher speed (for whatever reason) then then on average the consequences of those accidents is going to be worse.

In other words, I think that due to modern safety measures fatalities will continue to fall even if we do have a increase in Motorway speed - it's just that they will not fall *quite* as far as they would have done had the speed limit remained the same.

Regards

Dotty

 

[quikshop]

I was in support of the goverment plan to raise the speed limit to 80 I feel that I am more than qualified to have a veiw. I however now do not want to see the limit being raised to 80 now 70 is fast enough .

Like you I was initially in favour of raising the limit to 80mph but I have changed my mind for different reasons than yours.

I do up to 30,000 miles a year with my consultancy, the vast majority of that is motorway driving.

Most drivers have a good awareness, experience and skill level to travel at "motorway speeds", that is, anywhere between 70mph and 85mph.

I typically pass Police and Traffic Officers at 80mph and they rightly let me and others continue without incident.

Most lesser skilled, old age, newbie and lower IQ drivers tend to drive closer to the 70mph limit.

By raising the limit to 80mph you immediately set an expectation of lesser skilled drivers to travel at that speed. Tail-gating by impatient commuters will increase because an old driver has had to pull out into the fast lane and is not doing the maximum speed allowed.

The speed differential of the faster seasoned commuters and slower vehicles will increase (you set the limit at 80mph, commuters travel at 90mph), increasing the potential for incidents at speed.

If the motorways were not so busy an increase in the limit would make sense. But they are typically crammed with all manner of drivers, vehicles and skill levels and in my opinion dangerous enough with the current official and unofficial speed limit.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...Maybe bad reporting by the BBC is to blame.
...

Yes that's why I say I would like to see the report - to compare what it actually says to what is reported on the BBC website.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Subbynet]

In other words, I think that due to modern safety measures fatalities will continue to fall even if we do have a increase in Motorway speed - it's just that they will not fall *quite* as far as they would have done had the speed limit remained the same.

Yeah, but it's simply based on too small a margin to really tell - and it's worth noting many people drive at or over 70mph already. Motorways only account for 6% of all deaths. This could be offset by the introduction of better rural and urban road safety measures - the places where many more pedestrians are killed.

Of course if we kept lowering the speed limits you'd expect deaths to drop, but there has to be a realistic speed limit in place that people obey - and they just don't obey the 70mph limit in place right now.

It's a speed limit, not a speed target.

 

[DotNetWebs]

...Of course if we kept lowering the speed limits you'd expect deaths to drop, but there has to be a realistic speed limit in place...

Yes that is the only point I have been trying to make

It's a cost/benefit calculation - a 'realistic' speed limit that will ensure maximum efficiency of our roads and enforcement systems VS an 'acceptable' accident rate.

Regards

Dotty

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

It makes little difference whether you kill yourself at 70 or 80 mph, but it could make a difference to others who are driving slower. Also there is the cost of extra fuel and vehicle maintenance to consider.

Barrie

 

Just to add to the debate there is a huge fuel usage in increasing the speed limit to 80mph.

We are running out of oil and as far as I know they won't be making anymore for a few million years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles#Physics

Earl

 

[captaincloser]

as i have said i regularly travel nearing 100mph and i am far from the only one.

Given it's such a great thing to do and loads of people will love you for being such a cheeky chappie can you post your name and address ?

Thought not. Graveyards are full of 100mph idiots and those kiled by idiots like you...I bet they are cheering you along..

 

[Esk247]

it's just another load of government nonsense.

think of the costs of increasing to 80mph. all the books have got to be rewritten, all the signs have got to be changed, all the calculations redone for stopping distances, it's a farce.

it's not that 10mph that is slowing everything down, it's the ghost roadworks, they spring up all over the place and push everyone in to single file traffic.

all very well fixing potholes but does it take 3 weeks to fix one of them on a busy road? apparently so.

increasing by 10mph means this...you'll get to the roadworks faster.

 

[90DC]

it's just another load of government nonsense.

think of the costs of increasing to 80mph. all the books have got to be rewritten, all the signs have got to be changed, all the calculations redone for stopping distances, it's a farce.

it's not that 10mph that is slowing everything down, it's the ghost roadworks, they spring up all over the place and push everyone in to single file traffic.

all very well fixing potholes but does it take 3 weeks to fix one of them on a busy road? apparently so.

increasing by 10mph means this...you'll get to the roadworks faster.

But the government will claim it is creating or securing hundreds of new jobs in changing all the '70' signs to '80' and thus brainwashing the population into believing it's such a good idea anyway.

80 MPH legally means you can drive at 89 MPH. So it's not 80, it's 90.

 

[SneakSMS]

80 MPH legally means you can drive at 89 MPH

No, it doesnt.

 

[Esk247]

its not something i am alone in otherwise i would not get past the car in front. why would i post my name and address

I drive at Warp Factor 15....beat that.

 

[mit74]

change what signs from 70 to 80? I've never seen a 70 or 60 mph in my life... they don't exist.

 

[I Love Spreadsheets]

I spent a number of years as a rep covering the whole of the UK, most of my days were spent on the motorways and my nights in Travelodges. (Horrible life).

During this period I spent most of my time breaking the speed limits up and down the motorways of the UK, however I only did this if I could maintain a safe distance from the car in front.

I dont understand why tailgating isnt treated more seriously or why the police havent come up with automated cameras to capture people doing it (not a massive problem for todays technology)

One day whilst travelling down the outside lane at a fair bit over 80mph a van shot off the slip road and across the lane in front of me in to the barrier. I didnt stand a chance, I went straight in to them and rolled my car 3 times.

Would it have made any difference if I was travelling at 70 or even 60? Not in the slightest, I didnt even get a chance to hit the brakes before the impact.

However it would have made a hell of difference to the guy travelling less than 20 yards behind me.

I'm still for the increase in the motorway speed with a couple of conditions.

1. Areas around schools are reduced to 20mph 24/7 and not just at set times
2. More controls are put in to place to control tail gaters and other dangerous driving
3. When you pass the driving test you shouldnt get automatic access to the motorways. You should go on to do lessons on the motorway before sitting a motorway test.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Would it have made any difference if I was travelling at 70 or even 60? Not in the slightest, I didnt even get a chance to hit the brakes before the impact.

Lower speeds aren't just about avoiding accidents. They're about limiting the damage when accidents occur. Even with a 10mph increase, there's far more kinetic energy which the structure of the vehicle has to resist to keep you alive. It all comes down to maintaining the integrity of the shell around you.

Eventually though, when you get fast enough, that specially-designed chassis and those crumple zones do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGLr72G0dOo

 

[90DC]

No, it doesnt.

Well I thought you could do 10% over the speed limit + 1mph before being pulled over or have a camera flash.

10% of 80 = 8 + 1 = 9 + 80 = 89

So, legally, you cannot be told off for driving at 89 in an 80 speed limit, almost a whole 10mph more, on an 80 speed limit.

Besides, most speedos don't actually register the real speed of the vehicle either, so you could probably get your vehicle to register 95 and not get done for it.

But don't sue me and don't try it on a motorway, or the B road home, there is a risk I am wrong.

I always drive through 30MPH speed cameras at 34ish. Rebel I know, but 30 is slower than walking pace.

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

Well I thought you could do 10% over the speed limit + 1mph before being pulled over or have a camera flash.

10% of 80 = 8 + 1 = 9 + 80 = 89

So, legally, you cannot be told off for driving at 89 in an 80 speed limit, almost a whole 10mph more, on an 80 speed limit.

Besides, most speedos don't actually register the real speed of the vehicle either, so you could probably get your vehicle to register 95 and not get done for it.

But don't sue me and don't try it on a motorway, or the B road home, there is a risk I am wrong.

I always drive through 30MPH speed cameras at 34ish. Rebel I know, but 30 is slower than walking pace.

That's the minimum tolerance of a speed camera. However, even 1mph over the limit is very much illegal, and a police officer is well within his power to give you a ticket for going 71mph in a 70mph zone.

As you've said though, speedometers often read a few MPH above the real speed, and somtimes as high as 10%.

 

[Subbynet]

Well I thought you could do 10% over the speed limit + 1mph before being pulled over or have a camera flash.

It's more discretion than law. But as things are sometimes wrong, they allow a margin of error. Mainly because when speed camera's/guns were introduced, car speedo's were not very accurate.

Today they're a bit better.

10% of 80 = 8 + 1 = 9 + 80 = 89

This assumes the same discretion would apply at the higher speed of 80mph. We don't know if this will apply.

So, legally, you cannot be told off for driving at 89 in an 80 speed limit, almost a whole 10mph more, on an 80 speed limit.

Well, it's 10% + 2mph.. So you would actually be doing 80 + 8 + 2. 90mph.

Besides, most speedos don't actually register the real speed of the vehicle either, so you could probably get your vehicle to register 95 and not get done for it.

Most cars these days are calibrated (loosely!) to be around 3mph over your actual speed. This can be higher or lower depending if you change the wheels of the car.

You can find information here - http://www.wmsafetycameras.co.uk/hottopics.php?hottopic=2

 

Just to remind people that the car manufactures design to make a 40mph crash survivable.

Earl

 

[I Love Spreadsheets]

Scott, Fully appreciate your point that lower speeds are not just to prevent accidents they are to reduce injuries, which was kind of my point.

Because of the nature and speed of my accident, I was going to have an impact regardless of my speed. Would my car have rolled less if I was 10mph less? probably. My point was the idiot behind me who was within 10-20 yards of me at the point of impact. If he had been travelling at the same speed as me but at a safer distance he wouldnt have written his car off and a very expensive insurance claim

 

[SneakSMS]

It's more discretion than law.

It's entirely discretion and not law

Do 71mph on the motorway (actual speed, not necessarily your speedometer speed) and you're liable to get a ticket if the BiB decide to.

Plenty of tickets have been given out for 73mph on motorways etc - well within the guidelines of 10% +2.

Granted, most forces will stick to the 10% +2 most of the time, but that doesn't mean it's legal to speed at all.

 

[trebor8]

It's entirely discretion and not law


Plenty of tickets have been given out for 73mph on motorways etc - well within the guidelines of 10% +2.

I find that rather hard to believe! unless of course they were driving like an idiot