"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:55:58 +0100, Roger
wrote:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?

What's the significance of 85 mph?

1.5 x the energy if you crash?
1.5 x the stopping distance at 70 mph?
The petitioners age?

In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

"Frank Erskine" wrote:

What's the significance of 85 mph?

1.5 x the energy if you crash?
1.5 x the stopping distance at 70 mph?
The petitioners age?

Also needed to spend as little time as possible
alongside that huge artic, or bus, doing 65+.

--
Tony Williams.

dennis@home wrote:


http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?
What's the significance of 85 mph?

1.5 x the energy if you crash?
1.5 x the stopping distance at 70 mph?

Same energy, since that is the speed the bulk of the traffic is moving
at now anyway.

Personally I would go for unlimited on decent sections of motorway.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

The message
from "dennis@home" contains these words:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?

What's the significance of 85 mph?

1.5 x the energy if you crash?

close - 1.47

1.5 x the stopping distance at 70 mph?

Not quite so close - 1.42 using the Highway Code figures as a guide.

The petitioners age?

No idea but I doubt it. By that age drivers should be considering very
carefully whether they should continue driving at all.

The calculations above of course contain v^2 and kinetic energy in
particular is a vital consideration in the seriousness of an accident.
Surprising therefore that the maximum speed of heavy commercial vehicles
is only marginally more restricted than that of cars. A 40 ton lorry at
56 mph has the same kinetic energy as a 2 ton car at 250 mph. If kinetic
energy was the major determining factor 40 ton lorries would have to be
restricted to a maximum speed of 16 mph to match the 2 ton car at 70.

--
Roger Chapman

On Fri, 11 May 2007 00:02:11 +0100, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Frank Erskine wrote:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:55:58 +0100, Roger
wrote:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?

What's the significance of 85 mph?

I would imagine that it is close to the 130km/h limit common in the rest
of Europe and that it is de facto the limit observed by most drivers in
the UK.

So by that argument, if the speed limit was raised to 85 mph, "most
drivers" would then do 100 mph, then there'd be campaigning for the
limit to be 100....

--
Frank Erskine

The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

Same energy, since that is the speed the bulk of the traffic is moving
at now anyway.

ISTR that it used to be the case before the Nanny State got serious that
the Authorities wouldn't countenance a speed restriction unless 85% of
the traffic was already going that slow. A courageous Government could
reverse this criterion and go for raising limits where more than 15% of
traffic habitually exceeded the limit outside camera zones. As far as
motorways are concerned I am not at all sure that 85 mph is actually
high enough to bring 85% within the law. 90 mph might.

Personally I would go for unlimited on decent sections of motorway.

Construction of a good proportion of our motorway network was actually
started before the blanket limit came into force and and I doubt if the
basic design concepts have changed since that temporary limit was
introduced so all motorways should be good for derestricted motoring.
Unfortunately by now we have 2 generations of motorists who are
habituated to restrictive limits and might go wild if the limits were
removed completely rather than gradually increased.

I did make a suggestion (not entirely tongue in cheek) a few years back
that in an effort to make drivers more responsible the Minister of the
day should enter into a pact with the car driving population that for
every year the accident rate on the various classes of rural roads
(single carriageways, dual carriageways and motorways) decreased the
rural limits should be raised by 5 mph as a reward for good behaviour.
Obviously accidents involving the criminal classes (joyriders and the
like) and police cars would have to be excluded as neither are going to
take any notice of speed limits whatever they are set at. Slow speed
accidents (the majority) have no bearing on speed limits either but the
idea was to provide an incentive to improve driving standards at all
speeds, not just the higher range.

--
Roger Chapman

Frank Erskine wrote:

On Fri, 11 May 2007 00:02:11 +0100, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Frank Erskine wrote:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:55:58 +0100, Roger
wrote:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?

What's the significance of 85 mph?

I would imagine that it is close to the 130km/h limit common in the rest
of Europe and that it is de facto the limit observed by most drivers in
the UK.

So by that argument, if the speed limit was raised to 85 mph, "most
drivers" would then do 100 mph, then there'd be campaigning for the
limit to be 100....

No, that's a strawman and a non sequitur in one. HTH.

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

Same energy, since that is the speed the bulk of the traffic is moving
at now anyway.

ISTR that it used to be the case before the Nanny State got serious that
the Authorities wouldn't countenance a speed restriction unless 85% of
the traffic was already going that slow. A courageous Government could
reverse this criterion and go for raising limits where more than 15% of
traffic habitually exceeded the limit outside camera zones. As far as
motorways are concerned I am not at all sure that 85 mph is actually
high enough to bring 85% within the law. 90 mph might.

A really corageous government would enforce the law better and get that 15%
off the roads.
This would get rid of most of the really bad drivers that ignore all the
rules and make life much easier for the rest of us.
More average speed cameras is what is need to do that.
Or in car monitoring.


Personally I would go for unlimited on decent sections of motorway.

Construction of a good proportion of our motorway network was actually
started before the blanket limit came into force and and I doubt if the
basic design concepts have changed since that temporary limit was
introduced so all motorways should be good for derestricted motoring.
Unfortunately by now we have 2 generations of motorists who are
habituated to restrictive limits and might go wild if the limits were
removed completely rather than gradually increased.

I did make a suggestion (not entirely tongue in cheek) a few years back
that in an effort to make drivers more responsible the Minister of the
day should enter into a pact with the car driving population that for
every year the accident rate on the various classes of rural roads
(single carriageways, dual carriageways and motorways) decreased the
rural limits should be raised by 5 mph as a reward for good behaviour.
Obviously accidents involving the criminal classes (joyriders and the
like) and police cars would have to be excluded as neither are going to
take any notice of speed limits whatever they are set at. Slow speed
accidents (the majority) have no bearing on speed limits either but the
idea was to provide an incentive to improve driving standards at all
speeds, not just the higher range.

See even you think 100% enforcement of the speed limits would be good as it
gets rid of the criminals.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?
What's the significance of 85 mph?

1.5 x the energy if you crash?
1.5 x the stopping distance at 70 mph?

Same energy, since that is the speed the bulk of the traffic is moving at
now anyway.

No it isn't.
Most of it is below 70.

On Fri, 11 May 2007 09:37:14 +0100, Tony Williams wrote:

Also needed to spend as little time as possible alongside that huge
artic, or bus, doing 65+.

The only time I come across an artic doing more than 60 is down hill and
then most will also be braking to control the speed. Only the very rare
one will thunder on at 60+. Bear in mind that on a motorway I have almost
invariably got the cruise set to 62mph (handy mark at 100kmh) as that is
the sort of speed my motor is happy to bowl along at. So I have a pretty
good idea at how fast the heavies are going...

Buses and coaches on the other hand seem to disregard any rules or speed
limits.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Roger wrote:

Construction of a good proportion of our motorway network was actually
started before the blanket limit came into force and and I doubt if the
basic design concepts have changed since that temporary limit was
introduced so all motorways should be good for derestricted motoring.

Unless things have changd in the past couple of years, the design limit
for motorways was 120mph. There are however a few motorways I know of
where even 70 would be too fast given the sight lines. So if the
national speed limit were raised then there would need to be some areas
with a local speed limit.

In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
As far as
motorways are concerned I am not at all sure that 85 mph is actually
high enough to bring 85% within the law. 90 mph might.

Obviously time and place matter. I don't do a lot of motorway driving
but I happened to do Manchester-Stirling and back recently. I trundled
along at my usual 77 mph (83 on the speedo), and I estimate that far
less than 5% of the traffic overtook me.

--
Mike Barnes

On Fri, 11 May 2007 10:35:47 +0100 Frank Erskine wrote :
I would imagine that it is close to the 130km/h limit common in the rest
of Europe and that it is de facto the limit observed by most drivers in
the UK.

So by that argument, if the speed limit was raised to 85 mph, "most
drivers" would then do 100 mph, then there'd be campaigning for the
limit to be 100....

Speaking purely for myself, if there was no speed limit on motorways I
would drive at 80-85 given free-flowing traffic. What ought to be picked up
and punished on motorways is following too close, overtaking and then
cutting in sharply, and cutting across several lanes to the slip road exit
at the last minute. The emphasis on speed cameras leaves these behaviours
(dangerous at any speed) unchecked.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:43:21 GMT, Tony Bryer wrote:

What ought to be picked up and punished on motorways is following too
close, overtaking and then cutting in sharply, and cutting across
several lanes to the slip road exit at the last minute.

You missed at least one: Driving in lane 2 when lane 1 is clear.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:06:08 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

motorways are concerned I am not at all sure that 85 mph is actually
high enough to bring 85% within the law. 90 mph might.

Obviously time and place matter. I don't do a lot of motorway driving
but I happened to do Manchester-Stirling and back recently. I trundled
along at my usual 77 mph (83 on the speedo), and I estimate that far
less than 5% of the traffic overtook me.

if the limit was 85, I would slow down from my habitual (good
conditions) 90 odd to save the effort of looking for talivans on
bridges. If it was 85 + 10% +2 = 97.5 I imagine everybody would drive
within it!
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:07:12 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

What ought to be picked up and punished on motorways is following too
close, overtaking and then cutting in sharply, and cutting across
several lanes to the slip road exit at the last minute.

You missed at least one: Driving in lane 2 when lane 1 is clear.

last weekend on the 4 lane M25 numerous vehicles drove in L3, leaving
two empty lanes :-(
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

The Reid wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:06:08 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

motorways are concerned I am not at all sure that 85 mph is actually
high enough to bring 85% within the law. 90 mph might.
Obviously time and place matter. I don't do a lot of motorway driving
but I happened to do Manchester-Stirling and back recently. I trundled
along at my usual 77 mph (83 on the speedo), and I estimate that far
less than 5% of the traffic overtook me.

if the limit was 85, I would slow down from my habitual (good
conditions) 90 odd to save the effort of looking for talivans on
bridges. If it was 85 + 10% +2 = 97.5 I imagine everybody would drive
within it!

And with half of them on the phone, that would be scary. Most people
can't concentrate on one thing, let alone two

On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:34:21 GMT, Stuart Noble
wrote:

if the limit was 85, I would slow down from my habitual (good
conditions) 90 odd to save the effort of looking for talivans on
bridges. If it was 85 + 10% +2 = 97.5 I imagine everybody would drive
within it!

And with half of them on the phone, that would be scary. Most people
can't concentrate on one thing, let alone two

i dont believe phoning and driving should be legal.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

The message
from "dennis@home" contains these words:

Same energy, since that is the speed the bulk of the traffic is moving
at now anyway.

ISTR that it used to be the case before the Nanny State got serious that
the Authorities wouldn't countenance a speed restriction unless 85% of
the traffic was already going that slow. A courageous Government could
reverse this criterion and go for raising limits where more than 15% of
traffic habitually exceeded the limit outside camera zones. As far as
motorways are concerned I am not at all sure that 85 mph is actually
high enough to bring 85% within the law. 90 mph might.

A really corageous government would enforce the law better and get that 15%
off the roads.

I am fairly confident that a bigger proportion of the electorate
regularly break at least some speed limits than actually voted Labour in
the last election. That is a very large constituency to really ****-off
which is why the Police in person are a good deal more circumspect in
their attitude to speeding than their speed camera arm (not least when
behind the wheel themselves).

This would get rid of most of the really bad drivers that ignore all the
rules and make life much easier for the rest of us.

The really bad drivers are the slow ones. They tend to survive the
accidents they cause far more often than those who drive too fast for
the conditions.

More average speed cameras is what is need to do that.
Or in car monitoring.

The Stalinist approach to policing that may well rebound on those that
advocate it. As a motorist I already look on the Police as the enemy.
The more restrictions there are, the less likely I am to offer offer
them any assistance.


Personally I would go for unlimited on decent sections of motorway.

Construction of a good proportion of our motorway network was actually
started before the blanket limit came into force and and I doubt if the
basic design concepts have changed since that temporary limit was
introduced so all motorways should be good for derestricted motoring.
Unfortunately by now we have 2 generations of motorists who are
habituated to restrictive limits and might go wild if the limits were
removed completely rather than gradually increased.

I did make a suggestion (not entirely tongue in cheek) a few years back
that in an effort to make drivers more responsible the Minister of the
day should enter into a pact with the car driving population that for
every year the accident rate on the various classes of rural roads
(single carriageways, dual carriageways and motorways) decreased the
rural limits should be raised by 5 mph as a reward for good behaviour.
Obviously accidents involving the criminal classes (joyriders and the
like) and police cars would have to be excluded as neither are going to
take any notice of speed limits whatever they are set at. Slow speed
accidents (the majority) have no bearing on speed limits either but the
idea was to provide an incentive to improve driving standards at all
speeds, not just the higher range.

See even you think 100% enforcement of the speed limits would be good as it
gets rid of the criminals.

You might think that but nothing I have written above says any such thing.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from "dennis@home" contains these words:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?
What's the significance of 85 mph?

1.5 x the energy if you crash?
1.5 x the stopping distance at 70 mph?

Same energy, since that is the speed the bulk of the traffic is moving at
now anyway.

No it isn't.
Most of it is below 70.

Only where it is congested.

Where traffic is flowing feely I find that the majority of cars and
vaans on motorways are doing between 70 and 90. I don't think raising
the speed limit on motorways will do much other than make a higher
proportion of motorists at least temporarily lawful.

--
Roger Chapman

On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:16:33 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

A really corageous government would enforce the law better and get that 15%
off the roads.

most people have enough sense to know that driving at 85 on a motorway
isnt a problem.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:33:29 +0100, Roger
wrote:

Where traffic is flowing feely I find that the majority of cars and
vaans on motorways are doing between 70 and 90. I don't think raising
the speed limit on motorways will do much other than make a higher
proportion of motorists at least temporarily lawful.

permanently I think, the current situation is that 70 is slow in a
modern car on a clear motorway so people speed, give them a sensible
limit and they will comply.

However, I think we should stop building ever faster cars that don't
suit reasonable speeds and think more about efficiency.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

Roger wrote:
The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

Same energy, since that is the speed the bulk of the traffic is moving
at now anyway.

ISTR that it used to be the case before the Nanny State got serious that
the Authorities wouldn't countenance a speed restriction unless 85% of
the traffic was already going that slow. A courageous Government could
reverse this criterion and go for raising limits where more than 15% of
traffic habitually exceeded the limit outside camera zones. As far as
motorways are concerned I am not at all sure that 85 mph is actually
high enough to bring 85% within the law. 90 mph might.

Personally I would go for unlimited on decent sections of motorway.

Construction of a good proportion of our motorway network was actually
started before the blanket limit came into force and and I doubt if the
basic design concepts have changed since that temporary limit was
introduced so all motorways should be good for derestricted motoring.
Unfortunately by now we have 2 generations of motorists who are
habituated to restrictive limits and might go wild if the limits were
removed completely rather than gradually increased.


The motorway network was designed with 100mph speeds in mind.


I did make a suggestion (not entirely tongue in cheek) a few years back
that in an effort to make drivers more responsible the Minister of the
day should enter into a pact with the car driving population that for
every year the accident rate on the various classes of rural roads
(single carriageways, dual carriageways and motorways) decreased the
rural limits should be raised by 5 mph as a reward for good behaviour.
Obviously accidents involving the criminal classes (joyriders and the
like) and police cars would have to be excluded as neither are going to
take any notice of speed limits whatever they are set at. Slow speed
accidents (the majority) have no bearing on speed limits either but the
idea was to provide an incentive to improve driving standards at all
speeds, not just the higher range.

dennis@home wrote:
"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from John Rumm contains these words:

Same energy, since that is the speed the bulk of the traffic is moving
at now anyway.
ISTR that it used to be the case before the Nanny State got serious that
the Authorities wouldn't countenance a speed restriction unless 85% of
the traffic was already going that slow. A courageous Government could
reverse this criterion and go for raising limits where more than 15% of
traffic habitually exceeded the limit outside camera zones. As far as
motorways are concerned I am not at all sure that 85 mph is actually
high enough to bring 85% within the law. 90 mph might.

A really corageous government would enforce the law better and get that 15%
off the roads.

If that happened, first of all comerce would grind to a halt.

secondly if every driver who ever exceeded a speed limit was banned,
there would either be no drivers left, or the roads would be one
perpetual traffic jam.

I have never ever known a single driver who kept within all speed limits
at all times.

Despite their protestations to the contrary, a glance across at the
speedo reveals that they are just the same as anyone else, apart from
their capacity for self delusion.

I suspect that if such a law were introduced, you would be one of the
first to be banned. with HUGE protestation of course.

This would get rid of most of the really bad drivers that ignore all the
rules and make life much easier for the rest of us.

No, itr would not,.

Most of te bad drivers commit their grosser errors well under the speed
limit.
More average speed cameras is what is need to do that.
Or in car monitoring.

Nightmare. It would be like commercial traffic, a nose to tail 70mph
queue of cars up and down the motorways, with no free road at all, and
highly dangerous. Even the police admit that.


Personally I would go for unlimited on decent sections of motorway.
Construction of a good proportion of our motorway network was actually
started before the blanket limit came into force and and I doubt if the
basic design concepts have changed since that temporary limit was
introduced so all motorways should be good for derestricted motoring.
Unfortunately by now we have 2 generations of motorists who are
habituated to restrictive limits and might go wild if the limits were
removed completely rather than gradually increased.

I did make a suggestion (not entirely tongue in cheek) a few years back
that in an effort to make drivers more responsible the Minister of the
day should enter into a pact with the car driving population that for
every year the accident rate on the various classes of rural roads
(single carriageways, dual carriageways and motorways) decreased the
rural limits should be raised by 5 mph as a reward for good behaviour.
Obviously accidents involving the criminal classes (joyriders and the
like) and police cars would have to be excluded as neither are going to
take any notice of speed limits whatever they are set at. Slow speed
accidents (the majority) have no bearing on speed limits either but the
idea was to provide an incentive to improve driving standards at all
speeds, not just the higher range.

See even you think 100% enforcement of the speed limits would be good as it
gets rid of the criminals.


Well if a 0,.001mph over the limit makes you a criminal yes, it would I
suppose.

However its as easy to get rid of those criminals by removing the speed
limits innit?

On 2007-05-11 07:42:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Steve Firth wrote:
Frank Erskine wrote:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:55:58 +0100, Roger
wrote:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?
What's the significance of 85 mph?

I would imagine that it is close to the 130km/h limit common in the rest
of Europe and that it is de facto the limit observed by most drivers in
the UK.
IIRC its 120 in belgium, 130 in france..some german roads are 140..ISTR
denmark/sweden is 110..or even 100..

Norway is 90 apart from a very few places. OTOH the roads often
don't allow for anything more.

On 2007-05-11 10:35:47 +0100, Frank Erskine
said:

On Fri, 11 May 2007 00:02:11 +0100, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Frank Erskine wrote:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:55:58 +0100, Roger
wrote:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?

What's the significance of 85 mph?

I would imagine that it is close to the 130km/h limit common in the rest
of Europe and that it is de facto the limit observed by most drivers in
the UK.

So by that argument, if the speed limit was raised to 85 mph, "most
drivers" would then do 100 mph, then there'd be campaigning for the
limit to be 100....

Then there are more draconian penalties such as confiscation of car.....

Roger wrote:
The message
from "dennis@home" contains these words:

Same energy, since that is the speed the bulk of the traffic is moving
at now anyway.
ISTR that it used to be the case before the Nanny State got serious that
the Authorities wouldn't countenance a speed restriction unless 85% of
the traffic was already going that slow. A courageous Government could
reverse this criterion and go for raising limits where more than 15% of
traffic habitually exceeded the limit outside camera zones. As far as
motorways are concerned I am not at all sure that 85 mph is actually
high enough to bring 85% within the law. 90 mph might.

A really corageous government would enforce the law better and get that 15%
off the roads.

I am fairly confident that a bigger proportion of the electorate
regularly break at least some speed limits than actually voted Labour in
the last election. That is a very large constituency to really ****-off
which is why the Police in person are a good deal more circumspect in
their attitude to speeding than their speed camera arm (not least when
behind the wheel themselves).

Well I followed a police car at 38mph in a 30 zone, and watched him
make two turns without indicating. I don't think he spotted me though -
too busy chatting to his mate. Not sure he used his rear view mirror at all.

I followed an unmarked car full of uniformed copper across country at
speeds of up to 130mph once..I couldn't keep up.

Anyway there are three sorts of drivers.
Those that break speed limits and admit it.
Those that break speed limits and claim they don't.
Those that break speed limits and delude themselves that they don't.

Roger at home falls into the latter category I suspect.



This would get rid of most of the really bad drivers that ignore all the
rules and make life much easier for the rest of us.

The really bad drivers are the slow ones. They tend to survive the
accidents they cause far more often than those who drive too fast for
the conditions.

More average speed cameras is what is need to do that.
Or in car monitoring.

The Stalinist approach to policing that may well rebound on those that
advocate it. As a motorist I already look on the Police as the enemy.
The more restrictions there are, the less likely I am to offer offer
them any assistance.

Precisely. They are appalling bigots for the most part. And traffic duty
is the lowest of the low, apart from the beat plod.

Mike Barnes wrote:
In uk.d-i-y, Roger wrote:
As far as
motorways are concerned I am not at all sure that 85 mph is actually
high enough to bring 85% within the law. 90 mph might.

Obviously time and place matter. I don't do a lot of motorway driving
but I happened to do Manchester-Stirling and back recently. I trundled
along at my usual 77 mph (83 on the speedo), and I estimate that far
less than 5% of the traffic overtook me.


Indeed. I tried once, as an experiment, to do Bristol to Cambridge on
the cruise control. Set to whatever the speed limit was. After nearly
being forced off the road a dozen times on the M4 and nearly having 3
accidents on the M25, I gave in and decided that I would rather be
alive, than street legal.

I drive by the conditions and what the traffic around me is doing, not
by the book. Tough **** if that makes me a criminal, so be it. I'd
rather be a live criminal than a dead law abiding citizen. Or worse,
alive and knowing I'd caused an accident by slavishly following speed
limits.

The Reid wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:06:08 +0100, Mike Barnes
wrote:

motorways are concerned I am not at all sure that 85 mph is actually
high enough to bring 85% within the law. 90 mph might.
Obviously time and place matter. I don't do a lot of motorway driving
but I happened to do Manchester-Stirling and back recently. I trundled
along at my usual 77 mph (83 on the speedo), and I estimate that far
less than 5% of the traffic overtook me.

if the limit was 85, I would slow down from my habitual (good
conditions) 90 odd to save the effort of looking for talivans on
bridges. If it was 85 + 10% +2 = 97.5 I imagine everybody would drive
within it!

Not really. There is a body of people who regularly do 100mph plus.

And if I was in a really tearing hurry, I'd be one of them if I still
had the car for it.

dennis@home wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?
What's the significance of 85 mph?
1.5 x the energy if you crash?
1.5 x the stopping distance at 70 mph?
Same energy, since that is the speed the bulk of the traffic is moving at
now anyway.

No it isn't.
Most of it is below 70.



Not on the planet I live on.

There are three basic bands..the 56mph artics and the like, the sub
70mph 'legals - usually doing 65mph who cause enormous tailbacks when
the overtake the 56mph lot at 59mph..and the 'sod this for a lark' third
who do whatever speed the conditions allow, or they feel like.

I vary between all three myself according to mood and urgency.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 09:37:14 +0100, Tony Williams wrote:

Also needed to spend as little time as possible alongside that huge
artic, or bus, doing 65+.

The only time I come across an artic doing more than 60 is down hill and
then most will also be braking to control the speed. Only the very rare
one will thunder on at 60+. Bear in mind that on a motorway I have almost
invariably got the cruise set to 62mph (handy mark at 100kmh) as that is
the sort of speed my motor is happy to bowl along at. So I have a pretty
good idea at how fast the heavies are going...

Buses and coaches on the other hand seem to disregard any rules or speed
limits.

They are not physically limited. Artics are, and they have a LOT of
drag, so that it is hard for them to do more than the 56mph they are
supposed to be set to.

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 00:02:11 +0100, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Frank Erskine wrote:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:55:58 +0100, Roger
wrote:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?
What's the significance of 85 mph?
I would imagine that it is close to the 130km/h limit common in the rest
of Europe and that it is de facto the limit observed by most drivers in
the UK.

So by that argument, if the speed limit was raised to 85 mph, "most
drivers" would then do 100 mph, then there'd be campaigning for the
limit to be 100....

I think there would be less pressure actually. 85 +10% is 90 and a
bit..and its probably more than adequate for most journeys. Its nice to
do 140mph down a deserted motorway but frankly one seldom gets the
chance, and anything more than 30mph faster than what is likely to pull
out in front of one is distinctly dangerous..with artics at 56mph, that
means 85mph is really the safe limit in company.

The fact of the matter is that in germany, where many autobahns are not
restricted at all, the bulk of the traffic is in the 70-90mph
range..fuel consumptions rockets at over 100mph, and its just a few
people with money to burn who are doing 100mph plus.

I've done it for the interest..but the nice thing about the Autobahns
are that when you come to a roadworks everybody DOES slow down to 60kph
or whatever because

1/. There is actually someone working on the road, and the cones are not
protecting 5 miles of empty carriageway

2/. you can always make up for lost time but doing 15 miles at 100mph...

In addition, congestion caused by Denniss' who have strayed from home
and who are sitting with their optimistic Ford Ka speedos reading 70mph
(in reality 63mph) firmly in the fast lane defying you to undertake them
(I always do, on principle)does not happen..since it is as illegal to BE
undertaken in Germany as it is to undertake. All traffic gives way to
anyone behind them, because that is the Law, and the Germans love being
Law Abiding. And because everyone does it, and there aren't speed
cameras everywhere, the law is respected far more. And you do not get
the huge trains of traffic behind someone who decides that they alone
are the arbiters of what is a safe or legal speed to do. In Germany it
is illegal to sit in the fast lane if someone faster comes up behind
you, period. Likewise people are far happier to let someone pull out in
front, because they know they will - must - pull in as soon as there is
room to do so. This results in far better road usage..all te
carriageways are full. Contrast a typical situation in te UK where
everybody sits in the fast lane, because there is a truck up ahead and
there is no way anyone will let you pull out to overtake it, because
stuck at 63mph by Dennis at the queue front, there is extreme pressure
to get to the front and hope the ******* will finally pull over and let
people with more accurate speedos get on their way.

In message , The Reid
writes
On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:16:33 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

A really corageous government would enforce the law better and get that 15%
off the roads.

most people have enough sense to know that driving at 85 on a motorway
isnt a problem.

Maybe.

If you change to that, what about other dual carriageway roads?

However an upper speed limit is always going to be a compromise. To an
extent the snow/fog/spray issues are covered by illuminated speed
reduction signs but you still have traffic density, inexperienced
drivers, elderly drivers, poorly maintained vehicles etc. creating
unexpected hazards on otherwise safe roads.

I think 70 is a sensible compromise: giving reasonable fuel economy,
within reach of most passenger vehicles currently on the road, realistic
journey time (I remember fuel emergency speed limits) and still giving
protected occupants a chance of survival in a *same direction* shunt.

I suppose I am too old to enjoy high speed and certainly never consider
speed as a factor in actual journey time. Would an extra 15 mph have a
significant impact on anything other than door to door motorway travel
after midnight?

I had begun to think that modern motorists had realised the futility of
selfish road use with less high speed tailgating and an increase in
courtesy. Railing against enforcement rather than campaigning for
sensible change causes doubt:-)

regards

--
Tim Lamb

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 10:35:47 +0100 Frank Erskine wrote :
I would imagine that it is close to the 130km/h limit common in the rest
of Europe and that it is de facto the limit observed by most drivers in
the UK.
So by that argument, if the speed limit was raised to 85 mph, "most
drivers" would then do 100 mph, then there'd be campaigning for the
limit to be 100....

Speaking purely for myself, if there was no speed limit on motorways I
would drive at 80-85 given free-flowing traffic. What ought to be picked up
and punished on motorways is following too close, overtaking and then
cutting in sharply, and cutting across several lanes to the slip road exit
at the last minute. The emphasis on speed cameras leaves these behaviours
(dangerous at any speed) unchecked.

Hear bloody hear.
I would drive at any speed between 45mph and 140mph that I felt the
conditions allowed.

When I had a luxurty sports coupe, and traffic was light, sometimes just
sitting on cruise control listening to a bunch of nice CDS at 60mph was
more relaxing and less fuel hungry than trying to beat records.

Conversely, sometimes at midnight plus getting home from afar, its nice
to simply say 'sod the cost' and do it at 120 mph.

In heavy traffic, the hazard is the man who wants to travel at a
radically different speed from anyone else..faster OR slower.

Which is why my 'stay legal: use cruise control' fell apart.. there were
times when everyone slowed to 55..and there were times when everyone was
doing 85..

The only safe course of action was to simply use the power to get into a
clear bit of road, and stay there as long as possible.

The Reid wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007 13:07:12 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

What ought to be picked up and punished on motorways is following too
close, overtaking and then cutting in sharply, and cutting across
several lanes to the slip road exit at the last minute.
You missed at least one: Driving in lane 2 when lane 1 is clear.

last weekend on the 4 lane M25 numerous vehicles drove in L3, leaving
two empty lanes :-(

Well there's your 'cannonball' lanes open then ;-)

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-05-11 07:42:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher said:

Steve Firth wrote:
Frank Erskine wrote:

On Thu, 10 May 2007 22:55:58 +0100, Roger
wrote:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/85-mph/?
What's the significance of 85 mph?

I would imagine that it is close to the 130km/h limit common in the rest
of Europe and that it is de facto the limit observed by most drivers in
the UK.
IIRC its 120 in belgium, 130 in france..some german roads are
140..ISTR denmark/sweden is 110..or even 100..

Norway is 90 apart from a very few places. OTOH the roads often don't
allow for anything more.


Hmm. I went across Denmark in a fit of temper one day at 110mph..thats a
90kph limit as well.

No one cared really.

Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , The Reid
writes
On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:16:33 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

A really corageous government would enforce the law better and get
that 15%
off the roads.

most people have enough sense to know that driving at 85 on a motorway
isnt a problem.

Maybe.

If you change to that, what about other dual carriageway roads?

However an upper speed limit is always going to be a compromise. To an
extent the snow/fog/spray issues are covered by illuminated speed
reduction signs but you still have traffic density, inexperienced
drivers, elderly drivers, poorly maintained vehicles etc. creating
unexpected hazards on otherwise safe roads.

I think 70 is a sensible compromise: giving reasonable fuel economy,
within reach of most passenger vehicles currently on the road, realistic
journey time (I remember fuel emergency speed limits) and still giving
protected occupants a chance of survival in a *same direction* shunt.

I suppose I am too old to enjoy high speed and certainly never consider
speed as a factor in actual journey time. Would an extra 15 mph have a
significant impact on anything other than door to door motorway travel
after midnight?

yes.

Its 20% off journey times directly, but more imnportant it would reduce
congestion. Unless you think that congestion is actually keeping the
vast majority of drivers off the road, and clearer roads would simply
attract more traffic..



I had begun to think that modern motorists had realised the futility of
selfish road use with less high speed tailgating and an increase in
courtesy. Railing against enforcement rather than campaigning for
sensible change causes doubt:-)


People have been campaigning for sensible change for years, but this
government is adept at doing the Right Thing for the Right Reasons and
achieving the exact opposite of what it said it was trying to do.

I have to date spent about two complete days sitting in the local
hospital while they filled in forms and buggered around, and wasted my
time, the doctors' time and my elderly mothers patience, for an
operation that took 5 people 25 minutes. I was invited in to theater to
watch it.

The overhead of management bureuacracy, to make sure she was 'risk
assessed' and 'prioritised', was about 10:1 on the doctors time. Frankly
they could have taken one look, whipped her in and jabbed her, removed
the little lump and sent her packing with about 1/3rd the manpower.

All these measures to measure efficiency mean that the system becomes
totally inefficient.

Same with speed limits. A sop to the road safety lobby, that results in
more accidents more congestions and more inefficiency. Simply because
driving on the dials all the time is stressful and places the drivers
concentration where it shouldn't be..inside the car.

Someone said that drivers cant do more than one thing at a time. If so
then *ipso facto*, strictly enforced speed limits that can ONLY be
checked by looking at the speedo take teh drivers attention FROM the
road TO the speedo just as much as a phone conversation.

And I don't believe people who say they know what speed they are doing
to within 2mph just by looking out the window either.






regards

On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:36:37 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

most people have enough sense to know that driving at 85 on a motorway
isnt a problem.

Maybe.

If you change to that, what about other dual carriageway roads?

no change, they have pedestrians, junctions, bicycles.......
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:15:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

if the limit was 85, I would slow down from my habitual (good
conditions) 90 odd to save the effort of looking for talivans on
bridges. If it was 85 + 10% +2 = 97.5 I imagine everybody would drive
within it!

Not really. There is a body of people who regularly do 100mph plus.

thats me for 100, but I would slow a bit to be legal, few do more than
100 all the time.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

The message
from Mike Barnes contains these words:

As far as
motorways are concerned I am not at all sure that 85 mph is actually
high enough to bring 85% within the law. 90 mph might.

Obviously time and place matter. I don't do a lot of motorway driving
but I happened to do Manchester-Stirling and back recently. I trundled
along at my usual 77 mph (83 on the speedo), and I estimate that far
less than 5% of the traffic overtook me.

The thing that I find difficult to judge is how much traffic is not
going much the same speed as me. I do find that if I happen to be doing
90 as I occasionally do (per gps) very little passes, 80 and there is
likely to be a constant stream (sometimes headed up by a police car)
passing at more than walking pace hence my thought that 85 might not be
high enough.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.