The 70 limit isn’t advisory. The 10% plus 2 mph talk about is ample leeway for those whose right feet outweigh their driving skills or those who believe the only laws they need adhere to are the ones which earn their specific ‘consent.’ It’s not about being happy with the speed limit, it is about the driver’s duty to respect and adhere to that law, the duty of care each motorist has to follow the rukes of the road, adhere to speed limits and show common courtesy to their fellow motorists.

Regards,

kev35

And soon they will have a new, higher, limit to adhere to, and you can still go 70 if you like!

You asked me the same question pages back and I answered it.

I don’t think 70 was random, I recall reading somewhere (Or on that BBC4 prog. about the history of motorways) it was related to the stopping distances of vehicles at the time. OK, we can stop in a shorter distance now, but that doesn’t justify an increase. What actually does justify it, 43 minutes in 5 hours? Bear in mind my earlier answer – presently 80 is possibly ignored on M/way if safely driven….but if 80 was law they will Police it with an Iron fist.
30 and 40 mph are equally up for debate (On here). 30 is clearly too fast for shopping / housing areas even with todays better brakes. Some housing streets have a a 20mph sign on them, as I understand it these are a neighbourhood request – not enforceable by Courts? Somebody will know this I’m sure.

There is no evidence to believe that will be the case. Actually, the most likely scenario is that they would continue to work under the current guidelines of 10% + 2mph before considering a prosecution. 70+10%+2=79mph btw, and so 80+10%+2 would mean prosecution would be considered at 90mph and above.

Sell it to China, period. They will have CVNs sooner or later, anyway, that means no huge harm done… now it’s the right time, they will easily pay four times its worth just to get it. 😉

They’ll get them quicker if they have one to copy 😉

CockneyJock,

I’m sad to hear you are leaving, it’s been great reading your posts in the ongoing debate on here, and I can genuinely understand how frustrating these forums can be at times. Furthmore I hope you will either reconsider, or at least drop in every now and again and give us your thoughts on the project!

-PPP

So you could be almost 3 times over the limit yet drive more ably than someone using their phone!….

Well, looking out the window of the car has some definite advantages 😉

Many deaths and serious injuries have occurred because the driver of the other vehicle involved was “on the phone” prior to or at the time of the accident.

It’s not just the phone though. It’s the phone, doing make-up, passengers talking, playing with the stereo ect! Oh, and the worst one of all, not even bothering to look (e.g when you see the back of the driver’s head at a junction!).

I think you’ll find that a large majority of motoring offences, that do not result in a mangled pile and bloodied bodies everywhere, falls into this description.
Not wearing a seat belt for example. Who, other than the driver, does not wearing a seat belt affect? Oh, the old excuse of the strain on the NHS is raised, but then what about the cyclist who don’t wear a helmet? I am sure many cyclists suffer serious head injuries (even death) because they refuse to stick a polystyrene ‘bowl’ on their neeps! That is a strain on the NHS.

The people in the front seat if those without a seatbelt are in the rear seat! Cycling helmets aren’t much good, IMO, though certainly better than nothing. Ideally they would wear motorbike helmets, but those are several times the weight. I’m not sure why people wouldn’t want to wear a seatbelt! On the subject of protective aids and the law, I think wearing a seatbelt or helmet should be a condition of retaining a licence (e.g you should get ~3 points for not wearing the belt), though since cyclists don’t have licences it would be hard to apply to them! Other items, such as reflective clothing should be optional.

If I had my way use of a mobile phone while driving would be an instant £1000 and 9 points (I’d even be happy with a six month ban) not the current paltry £60/3 points. That’s why people take the risk – the penalty is too low. Raise it and maybe they would think twice about a huge fine and losing their licence.

If you want to go down that route, you could eliminate nearly all crime by giving death as the penalty for any crime! All these huge fines you give out will just result in forcing many families into poverty and suffering, and quite possibly into ‘proper’ crime. Sitting in a traffic jam on a phone, for example, does not call for 9 points and a £1000 fine, at least for a car. However, IMO, if the driver is in a lorry, HGV, bus ect then they should lose their large vehicle entitlement until they have served a ban (they should probabaly be allowed to keep their car entitlement though). Since we have mentioned cyclists, they should be banned from using phones too!

Just three points from me,

1 A speed limit is just that, A LIMIT NOT A TARGET. Road conditions should dictate what speed you drive at. There is a 30 limit outside our local shools. Would anyone advocate driving at 30MPH when the children are coming out? especially as vision is obscured by the fat munters of Mothers are parked all over the place including zig zags incase their little soldiers might get wet in their half a mile walk home.

2 I would like to see more Traffic Officers in unmarked cars enforcing speed limits,nicking those on mobile phones, not wearing seat belts, driving without due care and attention, excess alcohol and no tax, insurance and MOT. That could fund this instead of the fines going to central Government.

3 I have two cars both capable of 150mph+ and yes I would be lying if I said i have not drifted over the speed limit on occasions but it is a very small margin and not often. You will more than likely sitting in the nearside of the Motorway with cruise control on doing 56mph(which I believe is the most economical speed for most cars)

Why am I so strong about clamping down on motorists? Have you ever seen two young chilren dead in a car because of speed in an inapropriate place?
I have and that image will haunt me as long as I live!

But experiences you found devestating personally are probably not a good basis for deciding the law for everyone. The law needs to give a good balance of the needs of drivers too.

Hi Paul,

….

I see, to remember reading that speeding is only responsible for 3% of uk road deaths, cant quite remember where though so my apologies.

Im not having a go chap, Id be lying myself if I said ive not broken speed limits before. Just trying to clear up a few misconceptions about your second point 🙂

Driving is all about risk assessment, If you’re a poor judge of risks then you’ll be a bad driver – simple 🙂

It was on Top Gear, or at least that’s where I heard it. It’s quite valid IMO, since “speed” (not the drug!) is unlikely to cause an accident in of itself.

Speed Cameras are all switched off in Somerset, Bristol Wilts and Glos. Its about saving money(aparantly)

Somerset being a prime example of blatant bad practice. I’ve seen those on the A37, one just around a corner and another hidden behind the speed sign where it changes from national to 30. No surprises then, looking on the crash map for Farrington Gurney, that right at the site of that GATSO hidden behind a sign, are two serious accidents, where as the rest of the A37 in that section has none! Here’s a quote from a newspaper report on the accident:

“A man was flown to hospital after a collision on the A37 near Farrington Gurney.
The driver of the only vehicle involved suffered head, chest and pelvis injuries in the incident just before midday on Wednesday.
He was trapped following the incident and firefighters had to free him from his vehicle.
Great Western Air Ambulance flew out to the incident on Rush Hill and a critical care crew anaesthetised the patient before carrying out a chest drain.
He was then flown to Frenchay Hospital for treatment.
Police shut the road and the stretch of the A37 was closed.”

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Air-ambulance-called-A37-crash/story-11292990-detail/story.html

So no other vehicles involved, just a car crashing on a straight bit of road right next to a speed camera that is hidden from view until the last moment. You’ve got to wonder just how many serious or fatal accidents the Police have been a major factor in the cause of through their speed enforcement.

Here is a website where you can see the crashes that have happened since 2005 at any location, and their seriousness, on a map!

http://www.crashmap.co.uk/

I am a car nut but I support the 70. If law is 80 then norm is 90. Over here the motorways are 130kph (80 in real money) and the ton is very often the norm.
And, the statistics above are unfair and misguiding. Car ACCIDENT deaths can’t be put alongside naturally (Even from smoking) occuring illnesses.

No I don’t think they are unfair or misguiding, they quite clearly show that roads deaths are an almost insignificant factor in death in the UK. It would be much better to continue working on cancer and heart disease! So another 20 or 30 people will die on the roads, but this will probably be offset by them spending less time inside their cars!