# 80mph limit on Motorways - Gov Proposal



## weltweit (Sep 29, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15116064


> The Department of Transport is to launch a consultation on increasing the speed limit on England and Wales' motorways from 70mph to 80mph. Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said the current limit, introduced in 1965, was out of date due to "huge advances in safety and motoring technology". The consultation begins this year with a view to raising the limit in 2013.


----------



## Voley (Sep 29, 2011)

Sounds good to me. You can drive safely at 80 these days.


----------



## Wilson (Sep 29, 2011)

sounds like a shit idea to me


----------



## weltweit (Sep 29, 2011)

NVP said:


> Sounds good to me. You can drive safely at 80 these days.



I tend to agree, back when I was a salesperson the default speed was 90.

Since I started paying for my own petrol and tyres I slowed down a lot but 80 is imho as safe as 70. And most motorists are doing it anyhow.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 29, 2011)

Yeah, that'll sort out the nation's transport problems - why didn't I think of that ?


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 29, 2011)

Everyone drives faster than 70 any way. People then end up slowing down dangerously when there is a police car or something that looks lik it might be a police car.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 29, 2011)

and next year we can raise it to 90 cos ...



joustmaster said:


> Everyone drives faster than 80 any way. People then end up slowing down dangerously when there is a police car or something that looks lik it might be a police car.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 29, 2011)

It won't be as much fun on the Paddington-Penzance 125 down train in the Collumpton area cruising past the M4 motorway and leaving the cars behind.


----------



## spawnofsatan (Sep 29, 2011)

Works fine on the Autobahn


----------



## Crispy (Sep 29, 2011)

Everybody does 80 already. Not because it's 10mph faster than the limit, but because it's a safe speed to do in a modern car. Stupidly inefficient, mind but hey


----------



## salem (Sep 29, 2011)

Cars are much safer with better stopping distances etc then they were when the 70 limit was increased and motorways are the safest of roads so seems like a good idea to me.


----------



## agricola (Sep 29, 2011)

Hammond's time would be better spent sorting out the mess on the railways, rather than coming up with "consultations" (where of course their mind is already made up) of this kind.  I do like the comment at the end of the OP from the RAC bod, though:



> "This is an empty gesture that in the end would not benefit anyone."


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 29, 2011)

> "And the current limit has lost its legitimacy. We all know that many, many motorists who are otherwise law-abiding citizens routinely ignore the 70 miles per hour limit."



Hmm.

I see that laws only "lose their legitimacy" when it's middle class tory voting types who break them in quantity.

Same argument from the tories about (say) recreational drug use?  Somehow I doubt it...


----------



## two sheds (Sep 29, 2011)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Hmm.
> 
> I see that laws only "lose their legitimacy" when it's middle class tory voting types who break them in quantity.
> 
> Same argument from the tories about (say) recreational drug use? Somehow I doubt it...



Well it's completely different - nobody dies because of speeding, remember .... oh wait ...


----------



## T & P (Sep 29, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Everybody does 80 already. Not because it's 10mph faster than the limit, but because it's a safe speed to do in a modern car. Stupidly inefficient, mind but hey


In the right conditions and with the right vehicle, around 80mph it often feels as the appropriate speed. Plenty of other times, even in the same journey and similar conditions, a lower speed seems more adecuate. While limits and laws are necessary, most drivers are actually capable of judging the maximum adequate speed without the help of laws and limits.

Of course that's quite separate from the environmental and economic impact. I found the claims of some government minister today that increasing the speed limit will bring significant economic benefits through shorter journey times laughable. In other countries the exact opposite measures (temporarily reducing the national speed limit) was adopted to save money.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Sep 29, 2011)

Only time I see people near the speed limit is when there's a lot of traffic or a cop car somewhere, most times people do anywhere from 80-100 on the motorway ime...


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2011)

If they must fiddle with things -- which no doubt will end up costing us a fortune, but heigh-ho --  I would rather seem them take the approach of many of our Continental cousins: 80mph on sunny days, 65mph when it's pissing with rain.  Or something like that, anyway (130kph and 110kph, isn't it?)


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 29, 2011)

It should be less at night, too, surely. 90 and 70 sound about right.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2011)

I'll compromise at 85 and 65.  Make it so.


----------



## OneStrike (Sep 29, 2011)

Weirdly i've found people driving slower on clear motorways lately.  I used to hover around 100 on the M1 when it was clear but nobody was overtaking me at 75 on the last few trips.  Maybe it's down to fuel consumption?  This should be good for the treasury, i believe fuel consumption jumps a fair bit on most cars between 70 and 80.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 29, 2011)

kabbes said:


> If they must fiddle with things -- which no doubt will end up costing us a fortune, but heigh-ho -- I would rather seem them take the approach of many of our Continental cousins: 80mph on sunny days, 65mph when it's pissing with rain. Or something like that, anyway (130kph and 110kph, isn't it?)


It's already like that, isn't it? Don't they put up signs reducing the speed limit in bad weather?

I don't drive and know nothing of driving, btw. I know nothing of these things really - I'm just grateful to have a lift whenever I'm in a car on the motorway.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 29, 2011)

VSLs are only doable on stretches of motorway with complicated digital kit, which is a fraction of the whole network.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2011)

Some motorways have variable limits, but it's on an ad-hoc basis dependent on dot-matrix signs.  In France, for example, the bog-standard road signs on motorways have one number for sun and a different number for rain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 29, 2011)

Well that certainly seems very sensible. And doable!

In terms of fuel consumption, I believe that doddering along at 56mph is optimum. 

Coincidentally, that's about the speed I dared to go at when I was taken on the dual carriageway in my second, and final, driving lesson. It felt mightily fast to me.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 29, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> VSLs are only doable on stretches of motorway with complicated digital kit, which is a fraction of the whole network.



In Germany they often have signs on the autobahn saying "80 beim nass" which means 80kmh when it is wet. When I was there it was not really enforced though, they have spates of enforcement but then months of doing nothing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 29, 2011)

What's Germany's safety record?

ETa: just looked it up and it's pretty good. This is actually one area that the UK is pretty good on - 2000 a year, which is fuck-loads, really, the equivalent of 10 plane disasters every year, but is better than most.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 29, 2011)

When I drive at 70mph on UK motorways the only thing slower than me is HGVs, pretty much all the cars come past. When I drive at 80 I usually flow in harmony with the traffic.

Of course there is the argument that the limit is 70 so people do 80, if the limit is 80 will people just do 90? It is possible. When I was in sales I did 90 in a 70 limit. But 100 is usually a banning speed, get caught doing 100 or more and usually you lose your licence. It seems a limit at which things are taken more seriously and that should stay even if the limit rises to 80.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 29, 2011)

Night is a tricky one, because in some ways it is more dangerous (lower visibility, tired drivers) but in other ways safer (a lot less cars on the road).  I suspect, for example, that the hours between 8pm and 10pm may well be more dangerous, with 10pm to midnight being less dangerous, and then midnight to 4am being more dangerous again.  That's only a guess, but you get the idea.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 29, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Everybody does 80 already. Not because it's 10mph faster than the limit, but because it's a safe speed to do in a modern car. Stupidly inefficient, mind but hey


Indeed.

I've been driving slower of late and saved a heap of money.  But, yes, I agree, in the right conditions 80 is a safe enough speed these days.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 29, 2011)

I'd guess that the early hours are probably very safe, just because of the empty roads. It's counterintuitive to most people, but the safest time to walk around the streets of a city is about 4am. All the muggers are in bed.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 30, 2011)

But from midnight to 4am is the point at which we are most tired, which is about the most dangerous thing for driving bar being wasted.  It's a tricky one to fathom out alright.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd guess that the early hours are probably very safe, just because of the empty roads. It's counterintuitive to most people, but the safest time to walk around the streets of a city is about 4am. All the muggers are in bed.



So what speed should I be doing on the M25 to be safest from muggers and highwaymen?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> But from midnight to 4am is the point at which we are most tired, which is about the most dangerous thing for driving bar being wasted. It's a tricky one to fathom out alright.


Yeah, that's true. you can still walk when you're tired. tbh this is the thing that kind of makes me pleased I don't drive. It can be annoying sometimes, but there's mostly a way around it, and I'm glad I don't have that responsibility. A friend of mine killed someone on the road. Fucking horrible thing to happen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 30, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> So what speed should I be doing on the M25 to be safest from muggers and highwaymen?


Well, I'll chase after you on my bike. I can get up to 25mph I reckon. Any less than that and your arse is mine.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

Does anyone remember Rowan Atkinson doing a sketch about road accidents in which he says about fatalities on the continent that THEY ARE JUST NOT HIGH ENOUGH there are millions of those ....

I am trying to find it on youtube.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 30, 2011)

80's a good compromise, and is effectively what the limit begins to be enforced at now anyway.

in efficiency terms, cars with 6 speed gear boxes are around the same efficiency at 75-80 as 5 speed gearbox cars are at 65-70, as the actual efficiency level is more down to where the engine is on it's efficiency curve than the air/tyre friction losses. Particularly so if people actually drive smoothly, anticipating problems and gaps etc instead of constantly braking and accelerating because they're shit motorway drivers.

be good if they could also start enforcing the driving in the left hand lane rule as well. IMO the vast majority of tail backs on the motorway are ultimately caused by middle lane hogging idiots forcing other traffic to pass in the outside lane, and effectively turning a 3 lane motorway into a single lane road for anyone wanting to go faster than them. Self fullfilling prophecy as well as they'll middle lane hog because they'er scared of getting blocked in on the inside lane, but their actions cause traffic to back up behind them, which makes it far harder for them to pull out when they actually do want to, so they get it into their heads not to pull in, and spend their lives driving in the middle lane with traffic backing up behind them instead... some enforcement on this would be nice please.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Sep 30, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_megaprojects

Another few years and we will be able to lift all restrictions on motorway speeds. More people trying to buy slightly less oil. If the economy does not crater the invisible hand will deal with our petrol emissions.


----------



## OneStrike (Sep 30, 2011)

Sorry that i don't have a link as i'm on a phone, but greenpeace believe a typical car burns 20% more fuel/creates 20% more emitions when doing 80 instead of 70mph. I personally support the change but if they are correct it doesn't fit in with the green govt agenda.

Motorways have enough screens advising drivers now, get them up to date in real time and punish those who ignore the signs imo.  It is often safe to be doing 80, it is often pointless doing 40 because there was a tailback 2 hours ago and the screens haven't been updated.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

So that's a mandate for more pollution and more fuel used it up in the name of...er... what exactly?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> So that's a mandate for more pollution and more fuel used it up in the name of...er... what exactly?



People are already driving as if 80 was the limit.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Sep 30, 2011)

Oh good.  They've decided to go for populism already.  That means they must really be worried about getting a 2nd term.  Sure, there's going to be more crashes, fuel use will go up, insurance premiums will rise...but fuck it, now we can all go at 88 without worrying about a ticket.

I wonder how long till we see similar consultations* over other genius policies such as bringing back the birch, national service, hanging and so on.

* i.e. scanning the readers forums of the Sun and Daily Mail, and asking people in the pub what they think (20 minutes prior to closing)


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 30, 2011)

I'd rather it was unlimited/variable but its a step in the right direction.

Also needs a lot more 20 limits in urban areas.


----------



## Big Gunz (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> So that's a mandate for more pollution and more fuel used it up in the name of...er... what exactly?



A nice boost to the economy, more fuel consumption = more money back in the government coffers.


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 30, 2011)

Higher speed limits
Weekly bin collections promised as well

Glad to see the Tories grappling all the important issues just before their conference!


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

Big Gunz said:


> A nice boost to the economy, more fuel consumption = more money back in the government coffers.


= more people suffering pollution related illnesses = more non-renewable resources being needlessly burned up = more safety risks.



> Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said: 'There are good reasons for making 80 the new 70, and good reasons not to.
> 
> 'Drivers travelling that 10mph quicker might reach their destination sooner, but will use about 20 per cent more fuel and emit 20 per cent more CO2.
> 
> ...


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 30, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It should be less at night, too, surely. 90 and 70 sound about right.


Daftys that have to drive slower at night   - I don't see why it has to be slower at night at all, motorways being generally wide with no sudden twists and turns, and often even having lights.

I'm pretty sure if your eyes are that much worse at night then you shouldn't be driving then at all....


----------



## kabbes (Sep 30, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Daftys that have to drive slower at night  - I don't see why it has to be slower at night at all, motorways being generally wide with no sudden twists and turns, and often even having lights.
> 
> I'm pretty sure if your eyes are that much worse at night then you shouldn't be driving then at all....


Tiredness is MOAR dangerous even than murder.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Tiredness is MOAR dangerous even than murder.


Who are you to judge when other people may be tired? We are not some sort of backwards animal that falls asleep as soon as it's dark.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 30, 2011)

I'm surprised they haven't adopted a market based approach to accidents to eliminate all the bureaucracy involved with accident reports, EU safety requirements, etc. Get rid of the laws altogether and people who go round killing people in car accidents are going to find it increasingly difficult to get reasonably priced insurance and so will be automatically forced off the roads.


----------



## Big Gunz (Sep 30, 2011)

My own observation from someone who drives up and down the M40 everyday for work is I would say I have noticed people are driving a lot slower these days as someone else said earlier. You get the occassional person doing over 80 but more people are driving around the 70-75mph mark than say 5 years ago. Probably more an economic decision than anything else. The cost of fuel has shot up frighteningly in the last 2-3 years.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 30, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Who are you to judge when other people may be tired? We are not some sort of backwards animal that falls asleep as soon as it's dark.


Oh I judge.  I judge all.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 30, 2011)

the hours between midnight and 4 a.m. have the highest number of fatalities when calculated as a percentage of the amount of people on the road, according to AAA. During that time, statistically speaking, 5.87 per 100 million people on the road will be killed.

US data, therefore barely acceptable as applying to modern humans.  But there it is.


----------



## no-no (Sep 30, 2011)

Sounds like a vote winner to me not sure what the benefits will be though. I got into the habit of driving at 70 when I had a campervan, the vans gone now but I still drive at 70 in my car, it's much more relaxing, you don't need to worry about changing lanes all the fucking time to overtake(except for lorries)

Most people don't drive at 80, a lot do but there is plenty of traffic sticking to 70 still. Once the limit is raised there will still be a lot of slower traffic on the road so we'll have a much larger difference in velocity and therefore worse accidents.

Remember lorries and caravans go as slow as 50, couple that with people regularly doing 90-100 (which is what's going to happen) and you've a very intimimidating road, I don't think uk drivers are up to the task.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

We should be making private car travel _less_ attractive, not more so.


----------



## turing test (Sep 30, 2011)

Yeah, exactly & people will just continue to drive 10k or whatever regardless of the posted limits.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 30, 2011)

turing test said:


> Yeah, exactly & people will just continue to drive 10k or whatever regardless of the posted limits.


Ah, so they should put spying boxes in all the cars should they?


----------



## no-no (Sep 30, 2011)

Some actual cops on the road would be nice, camera don't catch all the twats tailgating and undertaking.


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> We should be making private car travel _less_ attractive, not more so.



Now, your not paying attention!

We need more people driving more places at a faster rate.  Driving has to be cheaper with less traffic jams.  There must be fewer pointless speed cameras and bigger, safer roads.  This war on the motorists has to end - and this is where Hammond and Pickles declare a truce on the hapless driver!

(sorry - I had a dose of the Daily Mail yesterday)


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 30, 2011)

no-no said:


> Some actual cops on the road would be nice, camera don't catch all the twats tailgating and undertaking.


This, these should be more of an offence than speeding. Lots of dangerous divers about and a lot of them don't speed.

If we have to have a police they should be working for their money instead of just harassing people.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 30, 2011)

BigPhil said:


> Now, your not paying attention!
> 
> We need more people driving more places at a faster rate. Driving has to be cheaper with less traffic jams. There must be fewer pointless speed cameras and bigger, safer roads. This war on the motorists has to end - and this is where Hammond and Pickles declare a truce on the hapless driver!
> 
> (sorry - I had a dose of the Daily Mail yesterday)


Nasty, are you still contagious?


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> We should be making private car travel _less_ attractive, not more so.


Our new tory local council has just issued cards to all local residents that give you 30 minutes free parking in any of the borough's car parks and metered bays.  Brilliant so thats free parking for all those that live just around the corner, exactly the sort of people who should be encouraged to walk.  Got to hand it to the torys they are really on the ball with environmental issues.

As for the 80mph its just populist irrelevent nonsense, the justification seems to be bringing those outside an outdated law back into legality, I look forward to them applying the same logic to the misue of drugs act.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 30, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> This, these should be more of an offence than speeding. Lots of dangerous divers about and a lot of them don't speed.
> 
> If we have to have a police they should be working for their money instead of just harassing people.



I drive quite a few miles with work and on a long journey I will pass someone on their phone (or texting) about every 10 minutes.  Young, old, male, female, expensive car or complete shed it doesnt matter, everyones at it.  The widespread flouting of this law worries me greatly because I can now spot someone driving whilst on the phone a miles off, their driving standard falls dramatically.

Of course you actually need traffic officers rather then cameras to stop this problem, but theres not many of them about these days.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> We should be making private car travel _less_ attractive, not more so.



I don't see that 80 rather than 70 is any more or less "attractive". Ed your prejudice is showing


----------



## ExtraRefined (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> We should be making private car travel _less_ attractive, not more so.



Perhaps, but increasing taxation would be a better way of achieving that end than aimlessly wasting people's time by setting the speed limit too low.


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 30, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Nasty, are you still contagious?



Definatley not!  But I remain unsure if my chance of catching cancer has increased or decreased.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

It is possible that if they changed the limit to 80 from 70 peoples actual driving habits may not change a jot, it would just mean all of a sudden most people would not be breaking the law, as at the moment they are.

It cannot be a good thing that people ignore a law, yet presently on motorways people flaut the 70 limit with impunity.

I already know that if I cruise relaxedly at 65 I use less fuel and tyres etc than if I blast along at 90, but it takes me longer to get to my destination.


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> It is possible that if they changed the limit to 80 from 70 peoples actual driving habits may not change a jot, it would just mean all of a sudden most people would not be breaking the law, as at the moment they are.



Using that logic 20 mph limits should be raised to 30 mph, 30 mph ... etc.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

BigPhil said:


> Using that logic 20 mph limits should be raised to 30 mph, 30 mph ... etc.



hmm .. perhaps ...


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

When they set the motorway limit at 70, back I think in 1965, in many cars the speedo only went to 70 and many if not most cars could not achieve 70.

Now 2011 we have a rather different situation, pretty much all the cars on the road can achieve 70, most can do 70-80 easily, and in fact those speeds are more common on the motorway network.

I wonder how we compare with the continent, are their limits not in the main 130kph on motorways with the exception of the Germans of course?


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> When they set the motorway limit at 70, back I think in 1965, in many cars the speedo only went to 70 and many if not most cars could not achieve 70.
> 
> Now 2011 we have a rather different situation, pretty much all the cars on the road can achieve 70, most can do 70-80 easily, and in fact those speeds are more common on the motorway network.
> 
> I wonder how we compare with the continent, are their limits not in the main 130kph on motorways with the exception of the Germans of course?



I'm not particularly fussed either way on this - in my mind it's a popular distraction. That said I agree we really are in a rather different situation to 1965:

We are aware that oil is becoming increasingly scarce. We know more about the local polluting impacts of traffic fumes and their impact on pubic health. We also know more about the global pollution issues.

I don't know for sure but I think at these kind of speeds any increase in speed has a big effect on efficiency. Maybe due to drag as much as 20% increase in fuel consumption when speed increases from 70 to 80 mph. Treat my figures as internet facts, but I think it's about right.

It's easy to dismiss this concerns as loony green nonsense but you'd be crazy not to look at this proposal in terms of overall fuel consumption - and the impacts of that.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> When they set the motorway limit at 70, back I think in 1965, in many cars the speedo only went to 70 and many if not most cars could not achieve 70.
> 
> Now 2011 we have a rather different situation, pretty much all the cars on the road can achieve 70, most can do 70-80 easily, and in fact those speeds are more common on the motorway network.
> 
> I wonder how we compare with the continent, are their limits not in the main 130kph on motorways with the exception of the Germans of course?



Our _fatalities per billion km_ rate is amongst the lowest in the world, but there's so many factors to consider it's very difficult to identify the effect of speed limits. Germany's accident rate is fairly low too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 30, 2011)

I think its a bit of a red herring to discuss whether a limit is to high or to low, it should be appropriate for the road conditions, therefore comparing what other countries have is not that useful as roads differ.  I think 70mph on the motorway is probably not realistic but I also think the 60mph on many 'A' roads is also unrealistic mainly because its just not safe enough.

Lots of speed limits in the UK don't seem to make sense because they are based on blankett assumptions rather then detailed analysis of the road itself.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 30, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> Our _fatalities per billion km_ rate is amongst the lowest in the world, but there's so many factors to consider it's very difficult to identify the effect of speed limits. Germany's accident rate is fairly low too.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate



Interesting list that.  The US is worryingly high.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> Perhaps, but increasing taxation would be a better way of achieving that end than aimlessly wasting people's time by setting the speed limit too low.


So increase taxation _and_ increase pollution, fuel consumption and safety risks? Doesn't seem too much of a winning strategy to me.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I don't see that 80 rather than 70 is any more or less "attractive". Ed your prejudice is showing


Really. So why are they proposing it, Einstein?


----------



## rover07 (Sep 30, 2011)

Ironically this will lead to slower overall motorway speeds as the main cause of traffic jams are phantom traffic jams caused by speeding drivers braking excessively and constantly changing lanes.

i dont drive for work anymore so fuck em...enjoy your new delays.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

Aside from the serious environmental issues, the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety found that raising the limit to 80mph will increase casualties by between 5 and 10 per cent.

Feel free to justify why this increase should still go ahead.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Sep 30, 2011)

Wilson said:


> sounds like a shit idea to me


I like your argument


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

Oh, and while you're mulling over the predicted increase in casualties, remind me why we should now start encouraging people to burn up more polluting, non renewable resources just so they can save a few minutes?




> At 80mph fuel consumption is up to 20 per cent higher than at 70mph.





> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...80mph-shorten-journey-times-help-economy.html


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> We should be making private car travel _less_ attractive, not more so.


Indeed.
Unfortunately it's unlikely to happen when driving is cheaper than using public transport (/me avoids OOT rant on rail privatisation).
Similar (at least in places) on the continent, my sis drives from brussels to paris every week for work, because it's cheaper than taking the train.


stuff_it said:


> Nasty, are you still contagious?


I believe there is no cure for this.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> When they set the motorway limit at 70, back I think in 1965, in many cars the speedo only went to 70 and many if not most cars could not achieve 70.
> 
> Now 2011 we have a rather different situation, pretty much all the cars on the road can achieve 70, most can do 70-80 easily, and in fact those speeds are more common on the motorway network.
> 
> I wonder how we compare with the continent, are their limits not in the main 130kph on motorways with the exception of the Germans of course?


For the iones I know in Europe it's:
130 in good weather, 110 in rainy/bad weather on paying motorways. 110 on free motorways.

On a 100 miles trip increasing the speed from 70 to 80mph will save 18 minutes on the journey. Except that this is in that mythical perfect world with no other traffic or obstruction on your way.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 30, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> As for the 80mph its just populist irrelevent nonsense, the justification seems to be bringing those outside an outdated law back into legality, I look forward to them applying the same logic to the misue of drugs act.



I think it's mostly a sweetener for the motoring lobby given the 20mph limits coming into force in other areas.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> When they set the motorway limit at 70, back I think in 1965, in many cars the speedo only went to 70 and many if not most cars could not achieve 70.
> 
> Now 2011 we have a rather different situation, pretty much all the cars on the road can achieve 70, most can do 70-80 easily, and in fact those speeds are more common on the motorway network.


And we also have huge traffic congestion, global warming and diminishing fuel supplies since those halycon days of Austin Allegros pootling along empty newfangled motorways.


----------



## Pingu (Sep 30, 2011)

if they remove the speed limit completely on the M6 toll it would be much more fun. always wanted to see what my bike would do given a smooth surface and no risk of dibble interupting the fun.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

Pingu said:


> if they remove the speed limit completely on the M6 toll it would be much more fun. always wanted to see what my bike would do given a smooth surface and no risk of dibble interupting the fun.


Yeah, because speeding superbikes are extra safe, aren't they?


----------



## sim667 (Sep 30, 2011)

Id forgotten they were planning on bumping up speed limits on motorways..... I for one welcome it.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 30, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Ironically this will lead to slower overall motorway speeds as the main cause of traffic jams are phantom traffic jams caused by speeding drivers braking excessively and constantly changing lanes.
> 
> i dont drive for work anymore so fuck em...enjoy your new delays.



Sort of but not really.  Whilst suddon breaking does cause 'shockwaves' which result in queues there is no reliable data to suggest that the limits themselves have any impact on this.  The shockwave is caused by people doing different speeds, ideally everyone would drive at exactly the same speed but in the real world that is never going to happen.  So its reasonable to suggest that people going way below the speed limit are just as likely to cause shockwaves as people who go to fast.


----------



## Pingu (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Yeah, because speeding superbikes are extra safe, aren't they?



never said they were.  just said it would be "fun" - and tbh short of flying a jet fighter there is no more fun to be had (transport wise) than riding a motorcycle fast on open smooth roads. It is an experience though when you are doing 140+ * and you get overtaken... makes you think about your lane discipline a bit more. (*autobahn).

bit like crossing the road in rush hour in london. more "fun" to see if you can dodge all the cars but probably safer to do it at a proper crossing place.


----------



## Cid (Sep 30, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Nasty, are you still contagious?



Not if he's been eating plenty of red fruit and drinking dark chocolate. Immigrants out.


----------



## Cid (Sep 30, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well that certainly seems very sensible. And doable!
> 
> In terms of fuel consumption, I believe that doddering along at 56mph is optimum.
> 
> Coincidentally, that's about the speed I dared to go at when I was taken on the dual carriageway in my second, and final, driving lesson. It felt mightily fast to me.



Surely, since our road signs basically just say 'national speed limit applies' all you'd need to do is change what 'national speed limit' is. Although I suppose we'd have to create a new category within that for motorways (currently only separates dual/single carriageway).


----------



## Blagsta (Sep 30, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Who are you to judge when other people may be tired? We are not some sort of backwards animal that falls asleep as soon as it's dark.


We do have a natural circadian rhythm, influenced by light and dark.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 30, 2011)

What's needed is a fairly comprehensive sort out of all road limits/behaviour, not just motorways.

Motorways - Variable limits on all of the network, from unlimited down to as little as 30 if need be. There also needs to be a ban on trucks overtaking each other at variable times depending on conditions and traffic flow. Much more stringent policing of tailgaters, middle lane hoggers etc.

A roads - need to be looked at on a per road basis a lot more. Some are fine at 60, some not. Same with the 70 limit on dual carriageways.

Local/urban roads - A lot more 20 limits needed, even maybe something like 15 maximum within 100 yards either side of a school. Get rid of speedbumps.

Get rid of all speed cameras, replace them with a _lot_ more traffic police, enforcing the highway code more than they do at present. Stuff like driving while using a mobile to result in an instant, on the spot, one year ban.

Insurance needs to be addressed as well, there's too many people out there that don''t have any. Increase car tax (double it even) but include a basic, state provided, third party cover with it.


----------



## Cid (Sep 30, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> A roads - need to be looked at on a per road basis a lot more. Some are fine at 60, some not. Same with the 70 limit on dual carriageways.



Indeed, one car width with ridiculous numbers of blind corners and high hedges (most of Devon) is not safe at 60.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 30, 2011)

Cid said:


> Indeed, one car width with ridiculous numbers of blind corners and high hedges (most of Devon) is not safe at 60.


Good fun though


----------



## Pingu (Sep 30, 2011)

a lot of a roads have been reclassified as 50 mph zones.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article5864847.ece

most that i use that were once 60 or national speed limit seem to have been done already


----------



## Cid (Sep 30, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Good fun though



Fuck yeah...


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Sep 30, 2011)

First good tory policy?


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 30, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Insurance needs to be addressed as well, there's too many people out there that don''t have any. Increase car tax (double it even) but include a basic, state provided, third party cover with it.



People who don't buy insurance tend not to buy tax either.  The state should not be getting involved with third party insurance, anyway the third party aspect is the most exposed.


----------



## Pingu (Sep 30, 2011)

its certainly a popularist one... (outside of here)

however i do have a sneaking suspicion it could be a sweetener for the car lobby in preperation for something shitty a bit down the line...


----------



## Pingu (Sep 30, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> People who don't buy insurance tend not to buy tax either. The state should not be getting involved with third party insurance, anyway the third party aspect is the most exposed.



in some countries (IIRC it used to be like this in SA) there was a tax on fuel that provided a basic 3rd party insurance cover. this makes a lot os sense to me. you cant avoid paying it, means everyone has it, the more you drive the more you pay...

downside is some may see it as an excuse to drive like a dick


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 30, 2011)

Global Stoner said:


> First good tory policy?



Its an irrelevent and largly pointless policy.  If it costs as much as £1 to implement it'd be a waste of money.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 30, 2011)

Pingu said:


> in some countries (IIRC it used to be like this in SA) there was a tax on fuel that provided a basic 3rd party insurance cover


The state needs to be exposed to third party motor claims like I need to be exposed to Phillip Hammond naked.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 30, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> People who don't buy insurance tend not to buy tax either



This fits in with my "more police on the roads" bit. They already have equipment that can tell them if a car is taxed. If someone drives past without any you pull them over, impound their car there and then and crush it.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 30, 2011)

Pingu said:


> in some countries (IIRC it used to be like this in SA) there was a tax on fuel that provided a basic 3rd party insurance cover. this makes a lot os sense to me. you cant avoid paying it, means everyone has it, the more you drive the more you pay...


IIRC you get 3rd party cover with the road tax in Australia.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 30, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This fits in with my "more police on the roads" bit. They already have equipment that can tell them if a car is taxed. If someone drives past without any you pull them over, impound their car there and then and crush it.



Oh I agree with the more traffic police required and I agree that no insurance should mean a crushed car, but (without enticing Kabbes onto the thread) the cost of paying third party claims is so astronomical that the state would lose money hand over fist.  Leave it to the professionals who can offset their liabilities to other areas of their business.


----------



## Pingu (Sep 30, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Oh I agree with the more traffic police required and I agree that no insurance should mean a crushed car, but (*without enticing Kabbes onto the thread*) the cost of paying third party claims is so astronomical that the state would lose money hand over fist. Leave it to the professionals who can offset their liabilities to other areas of their business.



you have done it now...

its kinda like the godwins law of transport threads


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Oh, and while you're mulling over the predicted increase in casualties, remind me why we should now start encouraging people to burn up more polluting, non renewable resources just so they can save a few minutes?



Thing is, I just don't believe this claim of 20% more fuel consumption at 80 rather than 70. My car does 400 miles per tank of fuel. It does this in town on motorway, cruising at 60 on A roads or driving on motorways either gently or faster. It just does 400miles per tank of fuel that it its modus operandi.

And anyhow, the speed limit is the upper limit, it does not say that you have to drive at 80, just as a number of drivers don't do 70 at the moment. However many driver already do 80 and are already paying the fuel consumption relevant to 80mph.

On another line, it could be said that the present 70mph limit is an ass because no one obeys it. It is not good to have laws that are flouted so widely, increasing the maximum limit to 80 and we might have a chance that most motorists would abide by the new limit.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 30, 2011)

Oh, there needs to be a minimum limit on motorways as well. If trucks are overtaking you you need to get the fuck off the road.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> .... Get rid of all speed cameras, replace them with a _lot_ more traffic police, enforcing the highway code more than they do at present. Stuff like driving while using a mobile to result in an instant, on the spot, one year ban. ....



If you drive often on the continent you will probably have noticed that Britain already has many more road traffic police than pretty much any other European country. Personally I dislike this constant "being watched over" of the traffic cops here. In Germany and Holland and France they pretty much let you get on with it. After all we are all adults so why not.

A good quality driving test, good quality roads, cameras on 30 limits, regular MOT tests and leave qualified drivers to drive on the roads in peace.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Thing is, I just don't believe this claim of 20% more fuel consumption at 80 rather than 70. My car does 400 miles per tank of fuel. It does this in town on motorway, cruising at 60 on A roads or driving on motorways either gently or faster. It just does 400miles per tank of fuel that it its modus operandi.
> 
> And anyhow, the speed limit is the upper limit, it does not say that you have to drive at 80, just as a number of drivers don't do 70 at the moment. However many driver already do 80 and are already paying the fuel consumption relevant to 80mph.
> 
> On another line, it could be said that the present 70mph limit is an ass because no one obeys it. It is not good to have laws that are flouted so widely, increasing the maximum limit to 80 and we might have a chance that most motorists would abide by the new limit.


Firstly, you car must be magic if it's consumes the same amount of fuel regardless of what speed you drive it. Mine certainly doesn't. Secondly, it's pretty roundly acknowledged that motorists inclined to speeding generally go a few mph over whatever the speed limit happens to be. You only have to drive at the actual speed limit to notice that people generally want to go a little bit faster than whatever the law says regardless of circumstances. That includes 30 limits in built-up areas, which are probably already too high. So, I don't think it's very likely that people would obey the 80mph rule anyway.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 30, 2011)

Actuary sense... tingling...


----------



## Pingu (Sep 30, 2011)




----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> And we also have huge traffic congestion, global warming and diminishing fuel supplies since those halycon days of Austin Allegros pootling along empty newfangled motorways.



Nothing about an Austin Allegro could be described as "idyllically happy"


----------



## kabbes (Sep 30, 2011)

We had an Allegro estate.  Bright, bright blue it was.  I was told that I was being picked up from my friend's birthday disco in "our new car" -- I was well excited.  At the allotted time, me and my friends went to admire the new motor and a 7 year-old bright blue Allegro estate turns up.  Happy days.

It was a good car in the end though, I have to admit.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Firstly, you car must be magic if it's consumes the same amount of fuel regardless of what speed you drive it. Mine certainly doesn't.



My car's consumption I am sure varies, but not by 20% is my point. In urban driving it is always running going slowly changing gears etc etc and not very efficient, then fast motorways perhaps at 90 it may also be pushing its maximum efficiency and may be down a bit, I would expect it to be most efficient at perhaps a constant 60mph but seeing as even on A roads that is just not possible it is either going inefficiently on the motorways or inneficiently on urban trips, so its mileage per tank just seems to usually be about 400 miles.



Lo Siento. said:


> Secondly, it's pretty roundly acknowledged that motorists inclined to speeding generally go a few mph over whatever the speed limit happens to be. You only have to drive at the actually speed limit to notice that people generally want to go a little bit faster than whatever the law says regardless of circumstances. That includes 30 limits in built-up areas, which are probably already too high. So, I don't think it's very likely that people would obey the 80mph rule anyway.



When I was a salesperson trying to get to appointments on time, I would drive motorways at 90. Below the evil 100 where you get banned from most courts but faster enough than 70 that I would save time. Assuming the banning speed of 100 remains, sales people will probably drive as they always did.

But yes, your point that people drive a bit over the limit is broadly true, I agree with you. So the question is, will people who used to do 80 in a 70 in future do 90 in an 80? Perhaps they may I don't know.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Yeah, because speeding superbikes are extra safe, aren't they?



How about if everyone on it has to go on the organ donor register?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't think the organs are going to be much use after they have disintegrated in a 140mph crash.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> We had an Allegro estate. Bright, bright blue it was. I was told that I was being picked up from my friend's birthday disco in "our new car" -- I was well excited. At the allotted time, me and my friends went to admire the new motor and a 7 year-old bright blue Allegro estate turns up. Happy days. It was a good car in the end though, I have to admit.



I am glad someone has something good to say about them  My first car was an Allegro 1500 in sort of poo brown with furry seat covers which folded down into a sort of double bed - I hoped I might have use for that where romance was concerned. However it basically never worked and slowly bankrupted me with a series of things like CV joints failing. It was always very reluctant to start from cold, something I would have thought was a basic requirement in a car.

When I went to sell it, I valetted it, prewarmed it before the prospective buyer arrived, then I put in the tape player Fleetwood Mac The Chain, (the Formula One theme tune) timed to start at the right point as soon as they pushed the cassette in. They came back grinning ear to ear and pressed £400 clean new tenners into my sweaty mit. Did I feel dishonest? Yes a bit. I went and bought a boring Fiesta (without the indoor bed) which turned out to be reliable and well ... a great little car!


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Thing is, I just don't believe this claim of 20% more fuel consumption at 80 rather than 70.


Oh right, sorry. I didn't realise that this discussion was based around your personal belief system rather than facts.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 30, 2011)

That's awesome sales technique, weltweit.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I don't think the organs are going to be much use after they have disintegrated in a 140mph crash.



Motorcyclists are quite handy that way, I'm told - you get quite few cases of brain death with plenty of salvageable parts.  It's because they slide unlike car drivers where everything pretty much has to stop at once.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Oh right, sorry. I didn't realise that this discussion was based around your personal belief system rather than facts.



It depends quite a lot on the car. It's probably more than that in my car (which is why I don't often go over 65).


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Oh right, sorry. I didn't realise that this discussion was based around your personal belief system rather than facts.



There is no need to be sarcastic. I always set the trip to zero when I fill my tank and I monitor how many miles I get from a tank. Basically I get 400 from driving around town, and I get 400 from motorway work. Probably both of these conditions are less than ideal for maximum mileage, probably something like a constant 56 would be most economical but it is rare that this happens in real life.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> There is no need to be sarcastic.


Then try a grown up argument. Here's some facts for you:



> Speed Kills MPG
> 
> Unfortunately, it's true. Your car's gas mileage decreases once it gets past its optimal speed. For most cars, this is around 55-60 mph. This means that every time you go over this speed, you're essentially wasting gas and money - and creating unnecessary greenhouse gases.













http://www.mpgforspeed.com/


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 30, 2011)

I'd like all national speed limit signs replaced with a number, so many people don't seem to have a clue what the national speed limit is, so you get people doing 70mph where they shouldn't and also get caught behind muppets doing 40.

I think generally you do see a lot of people going slower these days anyway with the cost of fuel.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 30, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> What's needed is a fairly comprehensive sort out of all road limits/behaviour, not just motorways.
> 
> Motorways - Variable limits on all of the network, from unlimited down to as little as 30 if need be. There also needs to be a ban on trucks overtaking each other at variable times depending on conditions and traffic flow. Much more stringent policing of tailgaters, middle lane hoggers etc.
> 
> ...



My additions would be to introduce shared space driving in towns and cities and make it a legal requirement for everyone to ride some sort of motorbike/scooter (about 125cc) for 2 years before they are allowed to take a driving test. (unless the have a medical reason why they cant).


----------



## kabbes (Sep 30, 2011)

Something weird happens to the C180K's graph at about 115mph.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 30, 2011)

sim667 said:


> My additions would be to introduce shared space driving in towns and cities and make it a legal requirement for everyone to ride some sort of motorbike/scooter (about 125cc) for 2 years before they are allowed to take a driving test. (unless the have a medical reason why they cant).


My parents would have freaked if I had ridden a motorbike.  My Dad lost his best friend and cousin when he was 18 and my Dad was 17 to a motorcycle crash and it made him totally paranoid about them.  I'd have broken his heart.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Then try a grown up argument. Here's some facts for you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But that graph just proves my point, I get about the same mileage around town as I do on motorways.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> My parents would have freaked if I had ridden a motorbike. My Dad lost his best friend and cousin when he was 18 and my Dad was 17 to a motorcycle crash and it made him totally paranoid about them. I'd have broken his heart.



Yeah but making everyone riding one as a requirement would improve bike sense for all drivers, and having more bikes on the road would cut down on pollution, maybe increase safety aqnd would create less traffic.

I do know they can be dangerous though, me, my best mate, best mates dad and my dad all ended up hospitalised within a 2 month period. All 4 of us were found to be not at fault insurance wise, hence i think motorists awareness of bikes should be increased by forcing them to ride one.


----------



## Kanda (Sep 30, 2011)

Global Stoner said:


> First good tory policy?



It's just wanky spin...



> Mr Hammond said England and Wales' roads "should be the arteries of a healthy economy".
> He added: "Now it is time to put Britain back in the fast lane of global economies and look again at the motorway speed limit which is nearly 50 years old, and out of date thanks to huge advances in safety and motoring technology.
> "Increasing the motorway speed limit to 80mph would generate economic benefits of hundreds of millions of pounds through shorter journey times."


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> But that graph just proves my point, I get about the same mileage around town as I do on motorways.


If you spin any faster you'll be able to achieve 80mph on your own.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

sim667 said:


> Yeah but making everyone riding one as a requirement would improve bike sense for all drivers, and having more bikes on the road would cut down on pollution, maybe increase safety aqnd would create less traffic.
> 
> I do know they can be dangerous though, me, my best mate, best mates dad and my dad all ended up hospitalised within a 2 month period. All 4 of us were found to be not at fault insurance wise, hence i think motorists awareness of bikes should be increased by forcing them to ride one.


And superbike-toting bikers should stop fucking recklessly speeding.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> If you spin any faster you'll be able to achieve 80mph on your own.


----------



## Voley (Sep 30, 2011)

Given that everyone's driving at this sort of speed already, I doubt that changing the limit will have much environmental impact.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

Anyhow, this is just a consultation at the moment.

I don't know why they have announced it now rather than at another time.

But I wonder if anyone thinks it has any chance of getting through.

Against it are safety campaigners, fuel shortage campaigners, and pollution campaigners.. for it are who? a few motorists perhaps but by no means all motorists.

Personally I don't really care, I do 80 or 85 even on the motorway when I am in a hurry or have a mind to already, how is this change going to seriously affect people like me?


----------



## Kanda (Sep 30, 2011)

NVP said:


> Given that everyone's driving at this sort of speed already, I doubt that changing the limit will have much environmental impact.



This ^^


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

NVP said:


> Given that everyone's driving at this sort of speed already, I doubt that changing the limit will have much environmental impact.


All the more reason to make car journeys less attractive then.


----------



## Kanda (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> All the more reason to make car journeys less attractive then.



There's an easy way to do that, buy a 4L Jeep that does 14MPG... it moves once in a blue moon 

(and is going in January, pointless bloody thing )


----------



## Pingu (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> All the more reason to make car journeys less attractive then.



or to make public transport\mass transit options more attractive...

Getting to London (for Example) by train for me is v expensive. If it wasnt for the parking it would be cheaper to drive down.. stay over somewhere the night before and then drive back. I get a good 45 to the gallon on the motorway at a steady 70 (ish) in my big heavy and yet fastish car. can leave home when I want to.. stop off if I want to etc etc

a quick cost estimate if i drove there and back in a day - doable but not really advisable as would be tired is it costs me more than double the amount to take thre train. Whilst this situation exists driving will always be my favoured option where possible


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> All the more reason to make car journeys less attractive then.



It is all very well for an urban animal like you editor to say that, but many suburban and rural folk simply rely on their cars. Indeed it could be argued that some rural communities could become unviable if the private car became economically exclusive.


----------



## Kanda (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> It is all very well for an urban animal like you editor to say that, but many suburban and rural folk simply rely on their cars. Indeed it could be argued that some rural communities could become unviable if the private car became economically exclusive.



Even less urban cities. Milton Keynes for instance has a near non-existent bus service. It takes my mother approx 90 minutes to get into the City Center. It takes 10 mins by car.

3 hours travel to do 20 mins of shopping 

London public transport is amazing.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> It is all very well for an urban animal like you editor to say that, but many suburban and rural folk simply rely on their cars. Indeed it could be argued that some rural communities could become unviable if the private car became economically exclusive.


At no point have I suggested banning cars. This is about opposing the proposal to  _increase motorway speeds to 80mph_ which is an entirely different matter.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

Kanda said:


> It takes my mother approx 90 minutes to get into the City Center.


Does she live in the US?


----------



## Kanda (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Does she live in the US?



It tells you in the post where she lives.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 30, 2011)

I pay £270 for a monthly train ticket that gets me 25 miles each way.  And for that, I get crammed into conditions that would be considered unacceptable for the transportation of cattle.  Train ticket prices are a joke.


----------



## Voley (Sep 30, 2011)

I wonder if everyone will start driving at 90 if this goes through then? I doubt it would tbh - 90 feels uncomfortably fast to me unless the road's totally clear.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

Kanda said:


> It tells you in the post where she lives.


"Center"?


----------



## Kanda (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> "Center"?



Typo?


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

Kanda said:


> Typo?


Humour?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 30, 2011)

I like to think your whole name is a typo and you're actually trying to say "thank you" in German.


----------



## Kanda (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Humour?



Pot.Kettle.Black


----------



## no-no (Sep 30, 2011)

90 is fuck all in an audi,merc,beemer,fast thing.  All the twats that drive along the fast lane in a road train will drive even faster. Matter of male pride.

Plus the next generation is going to grow up with 80 as the default, it'll blatantly push up the average driving speed.


----------



## Voley (Sep 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I pay £270 for a monthly train ticket that gets me 25 miles each way. And for that, I get crammed into conditions that would be considered unacceptable for the transportation of cattle. Train ticket prices are a joke.


I think that's half the problem with transport in our country - public transport would have to be a lot cheaper and reliable than it is atm to tempt people out of their cars.


----------



## Santino (Sep 30, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I like to think your whole name is a typo and you're actually trying to say "thank you" in German.


Cabbage


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 30, 2011)

NVP said:


> I wonder if everyone will start driving at 90 if this goes through then? I doubt it would tbh - 90 feels uncomfortably fast to me unless the road's totally clear.



Depends what car you have, some wont even do 90mph.  Most cars feel very twitchy and unsafe at 90 or over, its the big 2ltr plus ones that feel like you're doing about 50 which are the worry.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

no-no said:


> 90 is fuck all in an audi,merc,beemer,fast thing. All the twats that drive along the fast lane in a road train will drive even faster. Matter of male pride.
> 
> Plus the next generation is going to grow up with 80 as the default, it'll blatantly push up the average driving speed.



But most road users at the moment know..
70 is the limit - drive at this and you will probably never need the fast lane - no fear of police.
80 is acceptable to drive at and you may need to use the fast lane to overtake 70s and trucks
90 is starting to push it and you may be stopped by the police and get points and a fine
100 is a banning speed in most counties, get caught at 100 or more and you lose your licence.

Assuming 100 remains the banning speed, the faster cars will still be limited in their excesses.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 30, 2011)

Santino said:


> Cabbage



Krauta?


----------



## Voley (Sep 30, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Depends what car you have, some wont even do 90mph. Most cars feel very twitchy and unsafe at 90 or over, its the big 2ltr plus ones that feel like you're doing about 50 which are the worry.


Yeah that's probably right. I've only got a wee Ford Fiesta. Approaching 90 in that is a bit like attempting this:


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 30, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Depends what car you have, some wont even do 90mph. Most cars feel very twitchy and unsafe at 90 or over, its the big 2ltr plus ones that feel like you're doing about 50 which are the worry.



If we are going down hill our Smart car can just about reach 75mph!  We both have a flourish of pride if it manages to break the speed limit.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Depends what car you have, some wont even do 90mph. Most cars feel very twitchy and unsafe at 90 or over, its the big 2ltr plus ones that feel like you're doing about 50 which are the worry.



Generally German cars are designed with high speeds in mind because of the autobahn.

A couple of posters have mentioned middle and right lane hogging in Britain, lane hogging hardly occurs in Germany (or at least when I was last there) people overtake then they pull in to the right as soon as they are done getting past.


----------



## no-no (Sep 30, 2011)

lane hogging is a bit of an issue with me, I confess to hogging the middle lane a lot when I'm on the motorway.

I drive at 70, I don't like pulling over into the slow lane as it's usually full of lorries. There's the fast lane to my right so if anyone needs to get past they can, even though they'd be breaking the speed limit. I don't understand the irritation with people hogging lanes as long as they are going at least 70.

It seems some people think it's ok to drive faster than 70 but it's somehow a much worse crime to sit in the middle lane.

(if anyone posts some shit about "it's actually the overtaking lane,blah,blah fuckng bleuurhg.....", just don't ok?)


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

Here's the kind of thing we should be doing.


> Spain will lower motorway speed limits, cut train prices and use more biofuel in a bid to combat rising oil prices due to Libya unrest
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/25/spain-speed-limit-oil-prices


And here's the science behind we should be reducing speeds, not increasing them:


> In summary, whereas heavy goods vehicles speed limits in motorways are in line with the optimum speed in terms of energy and CO2 reductions per vehicle-km (80–90 km/h), decreasing car passenger speed limits in motorways could lead to substantial benefits.
> 
> The modelling results also suggest that speed limitations of 80–90 km/h on motorways when entering cities and on city ring roads could significantly reduce both fuel consumption and pollutants emitted, in addition to delivering safety benefits.
> 
> http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/transport/speed-limits


----------



## Kanda (Sep 30, 2011)

Driving in Spain is one of the scariest road experiences I've had. Speed limits are just ignored from what I have seen....


----------



## gavman (Sep 30, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It should be less at night, too, surely. 90 and 70 sound about right.


rubbish. it's much safer to drive faster at night, there's less than 1% of the traffic than during the day and you can see car's headlights long before you would normally see the car


----------



## discokermit (Sep 30, 2011)

no-no said:


> lane hogging is a bit of an issue with me, I confess to hogging the middle lane a lot when I'm on the motorway.
> 
> I drive at 70, I don't like pulling over into the slow lane as it's usually full of lorries. There's the fast lane to my right so if anyone needs to get past they can, even though they'd be breaking the speed limit. I don't understand the irritation with people hogging lanes as long as they are going at least 70.
> 
> ...


well done. you've reduced the motorway to a dual carriageway.


----------



## no-no (Sep 30, 2011)

not really, the middle lane is still there, I haven't stopped and closed the lane. If you want you can drive behind me at the legal speed or you're welcome to use the overtaking lane.

I see a lot of drivers that fly along at 80+ swinging out to the right lane to overtake then swinging all the way back over to the left lane just to pull out again all the way to the right. Great lane discipline, shame it's all executed at illegal speeds.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 30, 2011)

no-no said:


> not really, the middle lane is still there, I haven't stopped and closed the lane. If you want you can drive behind me at the legal speed or you're welcome to use the overtaking lane.
> 
> I see a lot of drivers that fly along at 80+ swinging out to the right lane to overtake then swinging all the way back over to the left lane just to pull out again all the way to the right. Great lane discipline, shame it's all executed at illegal speeds.



Why don't you drive in the outside lane at 70? Or maybe try swinging into the outside lane right in front of any car approaching at more than 80 mph, that'll show the fuckers. It's been proven that passive-agressive driving results in greatly reduced numbers of deaths and serious injuries.


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 30, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Depends what car you have, some wont even do 90mph. Most cars feel very twitchy and unsafe at 90 or over, its the big 2ltr plus ones that feel like you're doing about 50 which are the worry.


I have a post-2003 diesel micra, it is fine up to 110 handling wise, and it's so eco that if I decide to be norty an drive at a ton the mpg goes all the way down to 49mpg.

My mum has a diesel vectra, on short journeys it's not great, but on the motorway at just under 80 it gets about 48mpg, not bad for a big car.

Point being that the handling on smaller cars is rapidly improving, my last car which was an L-reg skoda didn't like going fast handling wise or fuel wise, and the one before which was relatively modern (02) wasn't great after about 90 for handling but fuel consumption was ok...also a lot of the larger cars you see about are diesels, even the audis and that - a bigger diesel engine is actually more efficient at a reasonable clip.

I'd like to see a mpg limit imposed, so that really thirsty motors have to stay in the slow lanes, with the lorries. Would make some people rethink their chelsea tractors.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 30, 2011)

everyone does 80 now, so then everyone will do 90 as a default...

can't wait another 80 years til we're allowed to drive at 100...


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't think most people can afford to do 90.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 30, 2011)

no-no said:


> lane hogging is a bit of an issue with me, I confess to hogging the middle lane a lot when I'm on the motorway.
> 
> I drive at 70, I don't like pulling over into the slow lane as it's usually full of lorries. There's the fast lane to my right so if anyone needs to get past they can, even though they'd be breaking the speed limit. I don't understand the irritation with people hogging lanes as long as they are going at least 70.
> 
> ...


by hogging the middle lane you're creating tailbacks behind you, forcing cars that are only doing 75 or so into the outside lane when they could have just over taken you on the middle lane, which then forces other cars to brake, which can cause the stop start thing that happens on motorways sometimes when a traffic jam just develops for no apparent reason, or ends up as something akin to a rolling stop start traffic jam.

Please give it a try making an effort to pull into the inside lane where possible, and see if you can tell the difference in terms of traffic building up behind you. It really does make a big difference on average, and this means you should then find it far easier to actually pull out to over take when you need to do it as there's not a backlog of pissed off drivers behind you all the time.

I've seen this effect both modelled, and observed, and it's a very real effect. unfortunately it's one that almost locks itself in to a drivers behaviour because they always find it hard to pull out on motorways, so they stick to the middle lane to avoid having to pull out, which causes traffic to build up behind them that makes it harder for them to pull out, which reinforces the behaviour.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 30, 2011)

no-no said:


> not really, the middle lane is still there, I haven't stopped and closed the lane. If you want you can drive behind me at the legal speed or you're welcome to use the overtaking lane.
> 
> I see a lot of drivers that fly along at 80+ swinging out to the right lane to overtake then swinging all the way back over to the left lane just to pull out again all the way to the right. Great lane discipline, shame it's all executed at illegal speeds.


that'd be me and others like me trying to make the point to you that the inside lane was available, and you've just forced them to pull across 3 lanes to overtake you and pull back in again.


----------



## rover07 (Sep 30, 2011)

Constant lane changing and breaking is what causes traffic jams and crashes. 70mph middle lane cruising is the only sensible way to drive.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Then try a grown up argument. Here's some facts for you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


actually, thats some pretty dubious reading of a graph going on there


> Regardless of your vehicle, engine, or size, the numbers hold true.


this is obviously bullshit, as the blue line for the mercedes clearly shows. Between 50-80mph there's a miniscule drop in efficiency, almost certainly due to the fact that this car has a 6 speed gearbox, as I pointed out earlier.

in 5 speed cars, with the gear ratios set so that the peak efficiency is at 55 or so in 5th gear, the efficiency drops off a cliff beyond this as engine efficiency is rapidly reducing just as air resistance and rolling resistance are increasing, whereas in 6 speed cars it's only the air and rolling resistance that are increasing until much higher speeds.

there are also interesting effects on efficiency at higher speeds from the turbo's in diesel engines etc. that also mean that statement's crap.

Someone driving along smoothly at 80mph in a 6 speed car, can easily be driving at a much lower MPH than someone driving smoothly at 70 in a 5 speed car, and far more so than someone who's constantly slowing down and accelerating as many who stick to 70 or below tend to end up doing on the motorways.


----------



## rover07 (Sep 30, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Sort of but not really.  Whilst suddon breaking does cause 'shockwaves' which result in queues there is no reliable data to suggest that the limits themselves have any impact on this.  The shockwave is caused by people doing different speeds, ideally everyone would drive at exactly the same speed but in the real world that is never going to happen.  So its reasonable to suggest that people going way below the speed limit are just as likely to cause shockwaves as people who go to fast.



Changing lanes in traffic causes braking because invariably the fast lane driver will cut in between two evenly spaced cars in the middle lane. Causing the rear to driver to slow down to create a safe distance. These ripples cause the jams. 

The 'fast' lane is problematic because speeds vary so much 80 - 100 mph with the slow 80 mph drivers being tailgated and hassled out the way.

There should be a 3 lane discipline 56/70/90.

Stick to one-lane.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 30, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Constant lane changing and breaking is what causes traffic jams and crashes. 70mph middle lane cruising is the only sensible way to drive.


bollocks.

well, yes to the braking bit, but this occurs far more if a middle lane hogger is forcing everyone into the single lane to overtake them. If you leave 2 clear lanes for anyone wanting to overtake you then there would be far less of a problem.

put simply, you're endangering yourself and everyone around you by creating the conditions around you in which an accident is far more likely to happen. You're forcing someone who's driving on the inside lane as they should be to pull across into the outside lane, then back again to get around you just because you 'don't want to get stuck behind a truck' or similar rationale.


----------



## rover07 (Sep 30, 2011)

Yes, the Mercedes C180k has shit mpg whatever speed you drive it at.


----------



## rover07 (Sep 30, 2011)

The inside lane is taken by HGV's doing 56mph.


----------



## rover07 (Sep 30, 2011)

Your solution would have the middle-lane drivers dodging in and out of the inside lane too...causing even more braking.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

However you want to spin it the fundamental facts remain the same. More speed = more fuel consumption + more pollution + increased risk of accidents.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

I already do 80mph on the motorway, have done for years, won't affect me either way.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 30, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Your solution would have the middle-lane drivers dodging in and out of the inside lane too...causing even more braking.


why?

if you time your overtaking correctly there should be no need for anyone to brake in most cases.

tbh, it does depend what time of day and traffic conditions you're talking about. If you're talking rush hour in London, then I think it's debatable, my ire is directed at drivers who carry this behaviour on through the rest of the day on relatively uncongested motorways even when the inside lane is clear for as far ahead as can be seen.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I already do 80mph on the motorway, have done for years, won't affect me either way.



Worse than Hitler, you are.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 30, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Yes, the Mercedes C180k has shit mpg whatever speed you drive it at.


I didn't design the study. If they'd had a more fuel efficient 6 speed car in the study then the results would have been the same, but they didn't, so I was left to use the exception that was in the study to demonstrate my point.


----------



## Garek (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I already do 80mph on the motorway, have done for years, won't affect me either way.



Same. Well, tbh I often do more. So an increase would nice as it makes my speeding less severe.

As for pollution, I think what's worse is city driving. Stop/start, poor fuel consumption etc.

For the record I think motorways are hideous things and I am strong believer that transport policies should focus on the public rather than private. However if we are not going to tear up the motorways then we should at least have a sensible limit on the speed and I think 70 is too low.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> However you want to spin it the fundamental facts remain the same. More speed = more fuel consumption + more pollution + increased risk of accidents.


erm no.

driving behaviour that involves lots of accelerating and braking = more fuel consumption, more pollution + increased risk of accidents. That's a fact.

The impact of speed on all those factors is far more variable, depends on the specific car involved and circumstances that it's being driven in. This is also a fact.

your statement is not a fact, it's an opinion, and one that is only right in certain circumstances.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

free spirit said:


> erm no.


Erm yes. Please read the research I've already referred to.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Erm yes. Please read the research I've already referred to.


I've read it, it's not research, it's an opinion piece based on some fairly flimsy research, and even their own graphs don't back up their claims.

I've been reading the research on this stuff for 15 years - the actual research, not the opinions drawn from the research, and not the crap spouted by the various lobby groups, and the picture is far more complex than the lobby groups make out.

On a side issue, but related one to your point, did you know for example that speed bumps more than double localised pollution levels from vehicles, and more than double fuel consumption of the vehicles driving over them?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 30, 2011)

<buys shares in deckchairs>


----------



## jakethesnake (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> However you want to spin it the fundamental facts remain the same. More speed = more fuel consumption + more pollution + increased risk of accidents.


And more noise. The faster cars go the noisier they are. It is easy to forget when travelling on them, but motorways exist within an environment where people aren't just passing through at maximum speed but may actually be walking about, cycling... the noise from a busy road blights the surrounding area for miles around. I'd actually lower the limit to 60 if I had my way!


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

free spirit said:


> I've read it, it's not research, it's an opinion piece based on some fairly flimsy research, and even their own graphs don't back up their claims.


In just about every case imaginable, if a regular car is going 80mph it is using up more fuel and creating more pollution that if it was going at 60mph, or 70mph. Are you really arguing differently?

I hate speed bumps, but they're only there because fucking reckless drivers won't fucking slow down.


----------



## no-no (Sep 30, 2011)

free spirit said:


> by hogging the middle lane you're creating tailbacks behind you, forcing cars that are only doing 75 or so into the outside lane when they could have just over taken you on the middle lane, which then forces other cars to brake, which can cause the stop start thing that happens on motorways sometimes when a traffic jam just develops for no apparent reason, or ends up as something akin to a rolling stop start traffic jam.
> 
> Please give it a try making an effort to pull into the inside lane where possible, and see if you can tell the difference in terms of traffic building up behind you. It really does make a big difference on average, and this means you should then find it far easier to actually pull out to over take when you need to do it as there's not a backlog of pissed off drivers behind you all the time.
> 
> I've seen this effect both modelled, and observed, and it's a very real effect. unfortunately it's one that almost locks itself in to a drivers behaviour because they always find it hard to pull out on motorways, so they stick to the middle lane to avoid having to pull out, which causes traffic to build up behind them that makes it harder for them to pull out, which reinforces the behaviour.


 
tbh i do pull over,I'm not a complete cunt. this theory of yours though, it's only needed because people are breaking the speed limit.

also if i pull into the inside lane that'll probably mean me dropping my speed to 60 or even 50. So what you're saying is that i should move over so you can drive above the limit?


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

This is from the pro-car RAC Foundation who describe themselves as a "motoring advocacy group that 'explores the economic, environmental, mobility and safety issues relating to roads and motor vehicles and campaigns to secure a fair deal for responsible road users'.


> Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said: “Drivers travelling that 10mph quicker might reach their destination sooner, *but will use about 20% more fuel and emit 20% more CO2. There is also likely to be a slight increase in road casualties. *


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

no-no said:


> ... So what you're saying is that i should move over so you can drive above the limit?



If everyone treated the right two lanes as overtaking lanes everyone would be better off. If you have a clear road ahead and are not catching anyone up you should be in the left hand lane, imho..

If you are on a clear motorway, no one in front or behind you, imho you should be in the middle lane.


----------



## editor (Sep 30, 2011)

The feeblest argument thus far for the increase:


> Brian Mooney, of the Association of British Drivers, said: "If you are able to do an extra 10 miles an hour it might mean a faster journey time and less accidents due to tiredness as well."
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15123169


----------



## no-no (Sep 30, 2011)

but there is ALWAYS a lorry in the left hand lane.At least on the m25 there is.....


----------



## no-no (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> The feeblest argument thus far for the increase:



he may as well say if you drive faster you have less time to have a crash!


----------



## 8ball (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> The feeblest argument thus far for the increase:



That _is_ pretty feeble.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 30, 2011)

no-no said:


> but there is ALWAYS a lorry in the left hand lane.At least on the m25 there is.....


not all of the world lives or drives in London.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 30, 2011)

I think a better argument is that presently the law is an ass, everyone is doing 80 and perhaps the limit should be changed to reflect that.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 30, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think a better argument is that presently the law is an ass, everyone is doing 80 and perhaps the limit should be changed to reflect that.



Well, yes.  This extra fuel consumption/accidents/pollution argument seems to be based on a world where people aren't already driving as if the real limit was 80 (allegedly, since when I'm out on the motorways, which isn't very often, people seem to stick roughly to the speed limit aside from the odd big Merc zooming by).


----------



## no-no (Sep 30, 2011)

free spirit said:


> not all of the world lives or drives in London.


fucking seems like it


----------



## free spirit (Sep 30, 2011)

no-no said:


> tbh i do pull over,I'm not a complete cunt. this theory of yours though, it's only needed because people are breaking the speed limit.
> 
> also if i pull into the inside lane that'll probably mean me dropping my speed to 60 or even 50. So what you're saying is that i should move over so you can drive above the limit?


what?

no, you should maintain a constant speed that you're comfortable with as far as possible, and move into the inside lane when the inside lane is clear, then when approaching a slower moving vehicle look for a gap in the traffic on the lane outside you behind you, prepare to move into it as it approaches you, then smoothly move into the gap with no need for either acceleration or braking most of the time.

This is the text book method of driving on a motorway safely, economically and without causing massive tail backs, as taught to anyone who actually has a motorway driving lesson after passing their test. It's not some far out theory I've just invented.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Here's the kind of thing we should be doing.
> 
> And here's the science behind we should be reducing speeds, not increasing them:


tbf bio diesel is a plague on all houses and shouldn't be used at all if were going down the alt fuel route the ethanol is the way forward... or hydrogen (if we could produce and store it) bio diesel is a filthy and awrful product with causes more damage to produce in soya growing than we get back in carbon emission reduction


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 30, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> I don't think most people can afford to do 90.


how can they afford not to more like


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 30, 2011)

I love these thread a group of people all braying and hollering about their rights be it peace niks or hippies road ragers or boy racers the 'perfectly normal' or the under represented pedestrian...

I wonder how many would say yes if i was going your way and offered you a life... what ecological / safety / health concern would you place on the acceptance of that lift...

I reckon the editor is the only one who'd say no out of principal  and that's nothing to do with the car but the driver


----------



## free spirit (Sep 30, 2011)

editor said:


> In just about every case imaginable, if a regular car is going 80mph it is using up more fuel and creating more pollution that if it was going at 60mph, or 70mph. Are you really arguing differently?


that's a different statement to the one you made before.

I think that statement probably is true, however for many 6 speed vehicles with a higher top gear ratio, the difference between 70-80mph is relatively minor, and certainly nowhere near the 20-25% figures the RAC are quoting.

On most 5 speed cars, other than those with higher than standard top gear ratios, the 20-25% figure could be accurate, but I'd think the average would be more like 15-20%, as would seem to be the case in the graph you posted.

Driving habits that lead to regular rapid acceleration however will often have a greater impact on fuel consumption than an extra 10 miles an hour of smooth driving.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 30, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Changing lanes in traffic causes braking because invariably the fast lane driver will cut in between two evenly spaced cars in the middle lane. Causing the rear to driver to slow down to create a safe distance. These ripples cause the jams.
> 
> The 'fast' lane is problematic because speeds vary so much 80 - 100 mph with the slow 80 mph drivers being tailgated and hassled out the way.
> 
> ...


all this does is end up with a long line of tightly packed cars driving at roughly the same speed, with a long stretch of open road ahead of the lead car.

What then happens is an effect known as a shock wave, or compression wave, whereby one car brakes, the car behind brakes a bit more, the car behind that brakes a bit more still, until eventually you end up with the entire line of traffic at a stand still, until the front cars pull away again.

so, if you want rolling random traffic jams for no apparent reason when there could have been free flowing traffic, then you'd be right. If you don't, then this isn't a sensible policy.

this paper attempts to explain this phenomenum, although it doesn't make the best fist of the explanation bit. http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/software/dracula/downloads/Paper9-Wang-TRB.pdf


----------



## turing test (Sep 30, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> Ah, so they should put spying boxes in all the cars should they?


Sure why not?


----------



## no-no (Sep 30, 2011)

free spirit said:


> what?
> 
> no, you should maintain a constant speed that you're comfortable with as far as possible, and move into the inside lane when the inside lane is clear, then when approaching a slower moving vehicle look for a gap in the traffic on the lane outside you behind you, prepare to move into it as it approaches you, then smoothly move into the gap with no need for either acceleration or braking most of the time.
> 
> This is the text book method of driving on a motorway safely, economically and without causing massive tail backs, as taught to anyone who actually has a motorway driving lesson after passing their test. It's not some far out theory I've just invented.



that'd be a great way to drive but in reality it's more dangerous imo. Cars coming up from behind are usually traveling too fast and due to congestion gaps in the left hand lane are few and not very long either.

If you've got an underpowered vehicle (like me most of the time) it's not practical.

slow down, take it easy, going 20mph faster doesn't shave that much time off your journey anyway.


----------



## Pingu (Sep 30, 2011)

I am going to make myself unpopular here...

I dont actually care that much about the environment. A bit maybe but overall it doent feature high on my list of things that I get concerned about  any eco benefits that occur becasue of me are most likely a by product of something else rather than the primary aim. I like a car that does decent MPG becasue it saves me money.. not cos it is more enviromentaly friendly. Any anyhow the number of trees we have and have planted probably means my carbon offset or whatever the current fashion ecobollocks is is probably better than most peoples anyhow. We have solar panels.. not cos its going to save the ice caps but becasue it means we pay less for our leccy. the bunny hugging element is a nice byproduct though i will grant you.

Humanity has fucked up this planet so much that I dont think we can undo what has been done. and saving a ittsy bitsy bit of fuel by doing 70 rather than 80 (experiment tonight showed that over a 5 mile stretch of the M53\M56 my mpg consumption dropped by about 2 mpg by increasing my speed to 80 (averaged 46 at 70 and 44 at 80))


----------



## Garek (Sep 30, 2011)

Pingu said:


> I am going to make myself unpopular here...
> 
> I dont actually care that much about the environment. A bit maybe but overall it doent feature high on my list of things that I get concerned about any eco benefits that occur becasue of me are most likely a by product of something else rather than the primary aim. I like a car that does decent MPG becasue it saves me money.. not cos it is more enviromentaly friendly. Any anyhow the number of trees we have and have planted probably means my carbon offset or whatever the current fashion ecobollocks is is probably better than most peoples anyhow. We have solar panels.. not cos its going to save the ice caps but becasue it means we pay less for our leccy. the bunny hugging element is a nice byproduct though i will grant you.
> 
> Humanity has fucked up this planet so much that I dont think we can undo what has been done. and saving a ittsy bitsy bit of fuel by doing 70 rather than 80 (experiment tonight showed that over a 5 mile stretch of the M53\M56 my mpg consumption dropped by about 2 mpg by increasing my speed to 80 (averaged 46 at 70 and 44 at 80))



Also China and India...


----------



## Pingu (Sep 30, 2011)

no-no said:


> slow down, take it easy, going 20mph faster doesn't shave that much time off your journey anyway.



does when the journey is 400 miles.


----------



## Pingu (Sep 30, 2011)

Garek said:


> Also China and India...



couldnt really give a shit about saving them either


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 30, 2011)

turing test said:


> Sure why not?


----------



## Garek (Sep 30, 2011)

Pingu said:


> couldnt really give a shit about saving them either



My point was what ever bollocks we try we're fucked anyways because of where the emerging economies are going.


----------



## Pingu (Sep 30, 2011)

Garek said:


> My point was what ever bollocks we try we're fucked anyways because of where the emerging economies are going.



i know. add into the mix the destruction of the rainforrests etc and lets face it a bit extra pollution from doing 10mph more on the motorway when conditions permit is like pissing in the ocean.

in fact.. there is probably an arguament for giving china (the industrailised bits) and india (ditto) a dose of instant sunshine.. ok immidiate effect will be nasty but from a purely ecologial pov longer term it may actually do less harm to the environment. - obv it will have a MUCH bigger localised effect but globaly?


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 1, 2011)




----------



## free spirit (Oct 1, 2011)

no-no said:


> that'd be a great way to drive but in reality it's more dangerous imo. Cars coming up from behind are usually traveling too fast and due to congestion gaps in the left hand lane are few and not very long either.
> 
> If you've got an underpowered vehicle (like me most of the time) it's not practical.
> 
> slow down, take it easy, going 20mph faster doesn't shave that much time off your journey anyway.



It does depend to some extent on the traffic conditions, but if I can manage it in a fully laden knackered old transit, I don't see the problem outside of peak rush hour.

actually, it's the only sensible way to drive in underpowered vehicles, as it means that when you do need to overtake there's an extra lane on the outside for other vehicles to pull into to allow you to pull out, and there's not a load of pissed off people stuck behind you. Obviously I'm not saying you should pull in to every little gap between the trucks, but pulling in to the inside lane when it's available will ease the congestion around you and make it easier for you to overtake when you actually need to. The knock on effect across the entire motorway network if everyone did it as much as possible would be immense.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 1, 2011)

I haven't read much of the thread other than the first few pages, but I wanted to say to drivers who like higher limits and think that everyone else does:
Don't Assume All Drivers Are Like You!
I see this assumption a lot and it irks me to no end.
I, for the most part, wish people would slow the f*** down and stop being in such a hurry all the time. It makes driving really unpleasant for me, and for a lot of other people I know.
Do you have any idea how many people have anxiety/panic symptoms on the highway, mostly due to speed-crazed irresponsible drivers? Or how many people are timid young/new drivers? Or are tired/sick but have to get to where they are going anyway?
How many people might be trying to deal with screaming kids in the back seat, or the fact that they just lost their job or found out they have cancer?

So, I say: Chill the fuck out racecar Johnny! It's not all about you, and we all don't want to be driving 100 mph in order to get home in time for (insert mindless tv show title here). Thanks.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 1, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


>



of course i am not being serious about this ... but if india, china, USA etc suddenly stopped pumping shite into the atmosphere and consuming vast quantities of fossil fuels then eccohippy wise the world would be much better off. morally dubious to be sure but...

actually taking this a bit further: uk ecconomy would benefit as call centre etc jobs would need to revert to the uk and software piracy rates would drop off significantly. Time it right and you would also wipe out loads of twats on gap years "discovering themselves".

So leaving aside the morally dubious aspect of turning several million people into glass the concept has a lot going for it.


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 1, 2011)

I feel so lucky I haven't had to drive a car for nearly 3 years now.
I found learning to drive very easy - took me an hour or two to learn the basics - but was never able to just get in the car and drive 200 miles to the beach without wanting to nod off. I'm in much better condition after cycling 30-something miles with my tent.

Every time I go on cycle rides within earshot of the M5 or other main roads, I feel a pang of guilt that my own tyre noise would have contributed to the din a couple of times a year.

I'm a hypocrite because I benefit from living in one of the richest countries in the world, but I find that after cycling in the countryside in company, at an average 10mph, passing Bristol's out of town shopping areas reminds me of how lucky I am not to have bought into that lifestyle.


----------



## Cid (Oct 1, 2011)

A car isn't a lifestyle, it's just a tool for getting around... I drive regularly and cycle regularly, no contradiction for me. Two different things, love the kick on a good turbo, love the feeling of getting to the top of a tough bit of cycling to see a long singletrack descent. Equally, on a practical level, cycling into work is quick, cheap, environmentally friendly and wakes you up, but it's not so easy if I need to go somewhere with my tools.

This legislation is clearly pathetic vote hunting though.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 1, 2011)

Cid said:


> ...This legislation is clearly pathetic vote hunting though.



It isn't legistlation yet, at the moment it is just a consultation.

It may well never make it to legistlation.


----------



## Cid (Oct 1, 2011)

The proposed legislation then if you're going to be a pédanté.


----------



## Giles (Oct 1, 2011)

weltweit said:


> When I drive at 70mph on UK motorways the only thing slower than me is HGVs, pretty much all the cars come past. When I drive at 80 I usually flow in harmony with the traffic.
> 
> Of course there is the argument that the limit is 70 so people do 80, if the limit is 80 will people just do 90? It is possible. When I was in sales I did 90 in a 70 limit. But 100 is usually a banning speed, get caught doing 100 or more and usually you lose your licence. It seems a limit at which things are taken more seriously and that should stay even if the limit rises to 80.



It has seemed to me for ages that, especially in clear, dry conditions, a big majority of drivers cruise along at 80 - 90 and you don't generally see police penalising people for this.

They were talking about raising the limit to 80mph when I started driving (1987) on the grounds that everyone was already doing it, and that brakes, handling etc were wayyy better even then than when the 70 limit was set.

At that time, this was of theoretical interest only to me, driving a late 50s  Moggie Minor, which would only have exceeded 70 if I'd driven it off a cliff. Back then, the idea seemed to be to raise the limit to 80, and then increase enforcement of anyone breaking that, on the grounds that this was more "reasonable."

Is this still the idea? If they change a limit that is very widely ignored, and don't then make any effort to do more enforcement, it won't make much difference to how fast most people drive.

I don't buy this "if you up the limit, everyone will go 10mph faster." As you go quicker, especially in a bog standard car, it starts to feel dangerous and out of people's comfort zone for driving, and people don't like to be "thrashing" their cars. And the British lack of lane discipline often prevents anyone from bombing along really fast like they do in Germany anyway.

Giles..


----------



## Giles (Oct 1, 2011)

no-no said:


> he may as well say if you drive faster you have less time to have a crash!



He'd be right, but he should also then point out that if you DO have a crash, it will be more spectacular, with debris and body parts strewn over a wider area.

Giles..


----------



## kabbes (Oct 2, 2011)

Indeed, the limits were set in the first place according to the 80th percentile of what people felt comfortable driving at (i.e. 80% of people naturally drove slower than that).  Part of the problem is that 70mph no longer feels as fast as it did then, so the 80% mark has shifted.  Given that, it isn't clear that 10mph on the speed limit leads to people going 10mph faster.


----------



## fredfelt (Oct 3, 2011)

Charlie Brooker did a piece on this subject.  There's not really much more to say on the subject

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/02/charlie-brooker-80mph-speed-limit


----------



## weltweit (Oct 3, 2011)

BigPhil said:


> Charlie Brooker did a piece on this subject. There's not really much more to say on the subject
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/02/charlie-brooker-80mph-speed-limit


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/02/charlie-brooker-80mph-speed-limit[/quote

tbh If Brooker is against it - that just makes it sound like a better idea to me!


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2011)

weltweit said:


> It isn't legistlation yet, at the moment it is just a consultation.
> 
> It may well never make it to legistlation.


Let's hope so because it's a terrible, pointless, dangerous and wasteful idea.


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Part of the problem is that 70mph no longer feels as fast as it did then, so the 80% mark has shifted. Given that, it isn't clear that 10mph on the speed limit leads to people going 10mph faster.


Then there's nothing to be gained by increasing it, apart from needlessly indulging a few people who want to hurtle around at high speed.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 3, 2011)

editor said:


> Let's hope so because it's a terrible, pointless, dangerous and wasteful idea.



But editor do you not agree that it is bad to have laws that people simply ignore?


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2011)

weltweit said:


> But editor do you not agree that it is bad to have laws that people simply ignore?


I'm all for officers exercising a certain latitude in the application of the law, but any twat speeding recklessly should expect to be fined or banned.


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 3, 2011)

I half buy it as a means of sweetening the blanket 20MPH in built-up areas pill .. - something that costs silly money putting up pointless signs when you still have roads where 30mph is permitted ..


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> I half buy it as a means of sweetening the blanket 20MPH in built-up areas pill ..


That shouldn't have to "sweetened" in the first place, really.


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 3, 2011)

Sadly, a large chunk of the motoring public are that selfish and stupid ...


----------



## fredfelt (Oct 3, 2011)

I like Charlie Brooker's alternative idea to kick start the economy:



> If Hammond honestly thinks "shorter journey times" are the key to fixing the economy, why hasn't he kickstarted a campaign encouraging us to take bigger, brisker strides?



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/02/charlie-brooker-80mph-speed-limit


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 3, 2011)

BigPhil said:


> Charlie Brooker did a piece on this subject. There's not really much more to say on the subject
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/02/charlie-brooker-80mph-speed-limit


Yeah, I'd certainly listen to the views of _someone who doesn't even drive_ on this issue.


----------



## fredfelt (Oct 3, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yeah, I'd certainly listen to the views of _someone who doesn't even drive_ on this issue.



Perhaps you need someone who doesn't drive to highlight that increasing the motorway limit by 10 mph is going to do fuck all to help the economy - which seems to be one of Hammond's claims to support this change.

As CB says, if it's really going to help then why not tell everyone to hurry the fuck up.


----------



## editor (Oct 3, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yeah, I'd certainly listen to the views of _someone who doesn't even drive_ on this issue.


Or you could try arguing his point.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 3, 2011)

popcorn time.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 3, 2011)

gentlegreen said:


> Sadly, a large chunk of the public are stupid ...



fixed for you


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 3, 2011)

Pingu said:


> fixed for you



But I think it's more significant when you allow them to take to the roads in a 1 tonne killing machine ...


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 3, 2011)

8ball said:


> (allegedly, since when I'm out on the motorways, which isn't very often, people seem to stick roughly to the speed limit aside from the odd big Merc zooming by).



I used to drive faster than 70 and was under the impression that everyone else did too but I've only just got a car after 4 yrs without and drive at around 70 moving from outer to middle lane accordingly and I find many other people do to. I'm not stuck in the slow lane with the lorries, so I don't think it's the case that everyone does 80. I'm constantly pissed off by the amount of people that overtake me only to pull in too soon causing me to brake so I've got a gap I'm comfortable with - if they were going significantly faster than me it wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 3, 2011)

editor said:


> Or you could try arguing his point.


In all fairness if they don't drive theres not really a point to argue


----------



## weltweit (Oct 3, 2011)

If they just changed the limit to 80 and did not change anything else, I doubt speeds would rise much because it would still be a fine and points to exceed 90 and a ban to exceed 100.


----------



## fredfelt (Oct 3, 2011)

sim667 said:


> In all fairness if they don't drive theres not really a point to argue



BigPhil makes a note to refuse to accept any point of view from sim666 unless he has had direct personal experience of the subject under discussion.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Oct 3, 2011)

editor said:


> So increase taxation _and_ increase pollution, fuel consumption and safety risks? Doesn't seem too much of a winning strategy to me.



If you increase taxation, the number of drivers goes down, decreasing the total accident rate amd total fuel consumption. That's the point.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 3, 2011)

BigPhil said:


> BigPhil makes a note to refuse to accept any point of view from sim666 unless he has had direct personal experience of the subject under discussion.



*Sim667 decides to not accept anyone's point of view unless try get his name right.


----------



## fredfelt (Oct 3, 2011)

sim667 said:


> *Sim667 decides to not accept anyone's point of view unless try get his name right.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2011)

editor said:


> That shouldn't have to "sweetened" in the first place, really.



Tories, remember...


----------



## XR75 (Oct 3, 2011)

10mph extra?What a storm in a teacup.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 4, 2011)

Miss Caphat said:


> Do you have any idea how many people have anxiety/panic symptoms on the highway, mostly due to speed-crazed irresponsible drivers? Or how many people are timid young/new drivers? Or are tired/sick but have to get to where they are going anyway?
> How many people might be trying to deal with screaming kids in the back seat, or the fact that they just lost their job or found out they have cancer?


these people shouldn't be on the road. i got shunted by someone who'se only excuse was they had turned round to shout at the kids. how is that an excuse? dozy twat should have realised they were supposed to be in control of a car and fucking concentrated.


----------



## Red Cat (Oct 4, 2011)

They were probably shouting at the kids to get them to shut up so they could concentrate.


----------



## T & P (Oct 4, 2011)

This is why children should be banned from travelling in anything other than police meat wagons


----------



## denniseagle (Oct 7, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> Sort of but not really. Whilst suddon breaking does cause 'shockwaves' which result in queues there is no reliable data to suggest that the limits themselves have any impact on this. The shockwave is caused by people doing different speeds, ideally everyone would drive at exactly the same speed but in the real world that is never going to happen. So its reasonable to suggest that people going way below the speed limit are just as likely to cause shockwaves as people who go to fast.



The simple solution would be to reduce the speed limit to 56 mph so that every vehicle would be travelling at the same speed.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I can hear Clarkson et al screaming immediately but it is quite logical really .
At present LGV's are restricted to 56mph on motorways so they are an immediate potential barrier to vehicles that are permitted to exceed that speed.
The result is that almost every other type of vehicle use the OVERTAKING lanes i.e. lanes 2 and 3 exclusively, and only ever return to lane 1 when exiting the motorway (usually crossing from lane 3 to lane 1 within the 300m countdown markers) so poor lane discipline or simple poor driving is also a factor.
I have just travelled back from Liverpool and witnessed cars driving at 70mph sat in lane 2 with absolutely nothing in lane 1 to overtake resulting in cars having to overtake them in lane 3 only to pull back into lane 2 and then just sit there themselves.
One particular red Skoda Fabia entered the M6 at junction 19 Knutsford  went straight into lane 2 and did not leave that lane for its entire journey seeing as it was still sat there when I exited at junction 9 M5 turn off. At no time did I travel at less than 70mph I overtook numerous other vehicles returning to lane 1 every time yet it stayed stuck in lane 2  approximately 1/2 mile behind me during my entire journey.

Just a simple question any one can ask of themselves and honest answers please

'What do most people call the inside lane of a motorway?'

Answer all together now!!!

 THE SLOW LANE!

Why??  The speed limit on a motorway is 70mph in EVERY LANE for vehicles permitted to travel at that speed so which is the slow lane again??

It is  because LGV's are only allowed to use lanes 1 and 2 and normally travel in lane 1 at 56mph that this common 'idea' of a slow lane exists.
If everyone was restricted to 56mph people might, just might, remember the correct way to drive on motorways ,fuel economy would vastly increase,potentially fewer  accidents and increadibly journey times might, just might ,actually lessen because there would not be any phantom hold ups due to sudden bunching of vehicles having to reduce speed  to match the speed of the vehicle in front.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 7, 2011)

Difficult to judge 56mph, mind.  I dom't havew a 56mph mark on my speedo.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 7, 2011)

If Germany is anything to go by, there they have a greater variety of speeds on the autobahn, lane discipline is much better because the slower cars have to move over, they have no right to slow down the faster cars by blocking the lanes.

In Britain, if the 80mph rule went through, if you were doing less than 80 in the outside lanes, faster cars would be within their rights to flash you to move over - assuming you could.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 7, 2011)

denniseagle said:


> At no time did I travel at less than 70mph I overtook numerous other vehicles returning to lane 1 every time



so you were breaking the law the whole way back, eh.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 8, 2011)

two sheds said:


> so you were breaking the law the whole way back, eh.



I bet he smoked a spliff afterward too, the brute!!


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 8, 2011)

denniseagle said:


> It is because LGV's are only allowed to use lanes 1 and 2 and normally travel in lane 1 at 56mph that this common 'idea' of a slow lane exists.
> If everyone was restricted to 56mph people might, just might, remember the correct way to drive on motorways ,fuel economy would vastly increase,potentially fewer accidents and increadibly journey times might, just might ,actually lessen because there would not be any phantom hold ups due to sudden bunching of vehicles having to reduce speed to match the speed of the vehicle in front.



If I'm overtaking a lorry that's doing 53, I don't want to creep along in its blind spot


----------



## two sheds (Oct 8, 2011)

8ball said:


> I bet he smoked a spliff afterward too, the brute!!



Some people are so rebellious


----------



## rover07 (Oct 8, 2011)

denniseagle said:


> I have just travelled back from Liverpool and witnessed cars driving at 70mph sat in lane 2 with absolutely nothing in lane 1 to overtake resulting in cars having to overtake them in lane 3 only to pull back into lane 2 and then just sit there themselves.
> One particular red Skoda Fabia entered the M6 at junction 19 Knutsford  went straight into lane 2 and did not leave that lane for its entire journey seeing as it was still sat there when I exited at junction 9 M5 turn off. At no time did I travel at less than 70mph I overtook numerous other vehicles returning to lane 1 every time yet it stayed stuck in lane 2  approximately 1/2 mile behind me during my entire journey.



So you were constantly accelerating and braking, changing lanes and weaving about on the motorway.

Without making any progress relative to the Red Skoda. 

Who is the better driver?


----------



## denniseagle (Oct 8, 2011)

two sheds said:


> so you were breaking the law the whole way back, eh.


 
How exactly? not once did I have to go faster than 70mph to overtake any vehicle that was correctly positioned in lane 1


----------



## two sheds (Oct 8, 2011)

denniseagle said:


> How exactly? not once did I have to go faster than 70mph to overtake any vehicle that was correctly positioned in lane 1



You said you travelled no less than 70mph. So you travelled at exactly 70mph all the way, no slower and no faster, whether up/down hills or overtaking/returning to lane 1? (a) I don't believe you and (b) your eyes must have been fixed on the speedometer - I'd say that was driving without care and attention. Dangerous even.


----------



## denniseagle (Oct 8, 2011)

rover07 said:


> So you were constantly accelerating and braking, changing lanes and weaving about on the motorway.
> 
> Without making any progress relative to the Red Skoda.
> 
> Who is the better driver?



Where did it state that I ever had to accelerate to overtake??

Why would I have to be constantly braking??? 
Funnily enough I tend to be able to anticipate overtaking vehicles in plenty of time to be able to complete the action without recourse to having to brake.

Where did it state that I was constantly changing lanes??
As I clearly stated  I overtook  numerous other vehicles travelling correctly in lane 1  by the simple act of utilising the second lane, having completed my overtaking I returned to lane 1 , most of my journey was in lane 1.
I am unsure as to how you could even remotely consider that as weaving about the motorway.

Why would I need to make any progress on the Skoda? 
It wasn't a race.
I was travelling at 70mph as was the Skoda because it made absolutely no progress on me despite being in lane in which it could overtake me.
Now who is the better driver???


kabbes said:


> Difficult to judge 56mph, mind. I dom't havew a 56mph mark on my speedo.



My point was quite clear the Skoda driver was not driving correctly .
He/she was not overtaking vehicles constantly yet would not utilise the motorway correctly.


----------



## denniseagle (Oct 8, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Difficult to judge 56mph, mind. I dom't havew a 56mph mark on my speedo.



Neither do LGV's they have limiters fitted so they cannot go any faster  perhaps the same should be fitted to all vehicles.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 8, 2011)

rover07 said:


> So you were constantly accelerating and braking, changing lanes and weaving about on the motorway.
> 
> Without making any progress relative to the Red Skoda.
> 
> Who is the better driver?


Dennis is.

But his 56mph argument is a crock of shit. Sort out lane discipline (the HA have a current campaign about it), not turn it into a US freeway.

I don't really care whether it's 70 or 80 - the status quo of 70 but not prosecuting people driving at 80 is fine IMO.


----------



## denniseagle (Oct 8, 2011)

two sheds said:


> You said you travelled no less than 70mph. So you travelled at exactly 70mph all the way, no slower and no faster, whether up/down hills or overtaking/returning to lane 1? (a) I don't believe you and (b) your eyes must have been fixed on the speedometer - I'd say that was driving without care and attention. Dangerous even.


Ever heard of cruise control?
I may be fortunate but my car has such a device fitted to it, funnily enough it seems to work quite well. I utilise it when I feel that road conditions allow me to do so.


----------



## denniseagle (Oct 8, 2011)

mauvais said:


> Dennis is.
> 
> correct thank you.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 8, 2011)

It must be something British - you don't get the same problem elsewhere, where the general standard of driving is often much lower. It's possibly made worse by higher typical traffic densities and more lanes, but it's still really poor on almost empty dual carriageways. The worst I've seen is someone driving in L2 on an empty road with no upcoming exits/branch, being flashed, moving over to L1 and then moving back to L2 after being passed. Just... why?

Like I said, the Highways Agency are putting messages on the matrix signs, like 'Don't hog the middle lane' and 'Keep left unless overtaking', but it still doesn't work.

For other peculiarly British failures, see also 'merge in turn'.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 8, 2011)

denniseagle said:


> Ever heard of cruise control?
> I may be fortunate but my car has such a device fitted to it, funnily enough it seems to work quite well. I utilise it when I feel that road conditions allow me to do so.



that's cheating


----------



## weltweit (Oct 8, 2011)

mauvais said:


> The worst I've seen is someone driving in L2 on an empty road with no upcoming exits/branch, being flashed, moving over to L1 and then moving back to L2 after being passed. Just... why? ....



If there is no traffic, the middle lane is the safest, it gives you maximum room for manouver should something happen, a blowout for example.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> If there is no traffic, the middle lane is the safest, it gives you maximum room for manouver should something happen, a blowout for example.


May I be the first to extend a hearty fuck you, and further render it freely available to all who sail in you. I doubt very much that your middle lane moron has enough presence of mind to competently handle the gradual passage of time, never mind any situation that requires an actual input of a level beyond gawking into the middle distance. Not driving at all is far a safer way to avoid a dangerous situation on the road, and I would like to encourage this.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> If there is no traffic, the middle lane is the safest, it gives you maximum room for manouver should something happen, a blowout for example.


that would be fine if the driver had any awareness of cars approaching from behind and moved over in good time but they rarely do, proving that safety is the last thing on their mind.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 8, 2011)

mauvais said:


> It must be something British - you don't get the same problem elsewhere, where the general standard of driving is often much lower. It's possibly made worse by higher typical traffic densities and more lanes, but it's still really poor on almost empty dual carriageways. The worst I've seen is someone driving in L2 on an empty road with no upcoming exits/branch, being flashed, moving over to L1 and then moving back to L2 after being passed. Just... why?
> 
> Like I said, the Highways Agency are putting messages on the matrix signs, like 'Don't hog the middle lane' and 'Keep left unless overtaking', but it still doesn't work.
> 
> For other peculiarly British failures, see also 'merge in turn'.


I think the problem is that one person's overtaking is another person's 'hogging the middle lane'. I'm often in lane 2 doing around 70 because there's slower traffic in lane 1 ahead that I'll be ready to pass in the next 30 to 60 seconds or so, (and on most daytime motorways that's going to be the norm). Coming up behind me is someone who'd like me to pull into lane 1 so that they can break the speed limit, but if I do, apart from then being too close to the slower vehicle in front, I'll then have to pull out again very soon afterwards... _if_ I can find a space. So more often than not I'll stay in lane 2.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 8, 2011)

If you're still significantly gaining on traffic in L1, that's at least a legitimate overtake, so you're not a true moron (one who sits there with an empty road ahead). However 60 seconds for an overtake with a closing speed of typically 14mph is a very long time - count it - and distance, so if there's space in L1 then that's where you should be, IMO. The other points you raise are other people's speed, which it's not your role to police, and not being let back out, which I admit can happen but would be greatly reduced by other people's improved lane discipline and smoother flowing traffic.

It varies, but for example having passed a truck with another ahead, I'll probably move into L1 if it's going to mean I spend more than ten seconds there - and sometimes less.

Another slightly unusual way of looking at it is that if you ever allow yourself to be passed on your left in free flowing traffic, you have failed at lane discipline.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 8, 2011)

mauvais said:


> If you're still significantly gaining on traffic in L1, that's at least a legitimate overtake, so you're not a true moron (one who sits there with an empty road ahead). However 60 seconds for an overtake is a very long time - count it - and if there's space in L1 then that's where you should be, IMO. The other points you raise are other people's speed, which it's not your role to police, and not being let back out, which I admit can happen but would be greatly reduced by other people's improved lane discipline and smoother flowing traffic.
> 
> It varies, but for example having passed a truck with another ahead, I'll probably move into L1 if it's going to mean I spend more than ten seconds there - and sometimes less.


If not 60 seconds, and baring in mind that most drivers habitually drive far too close to the vehicle in front anyway, how much would you consider a reasonable time? And I'm not "policing" other drivers, I'm just not always prepared to carry out the risky manoeuvre of changing lanes twice in a few seconds to allow someone to break the law, after all, it's they that are the "moron" as you put it.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 8, 2011)

mauvais said:


> May I be the first to extend a hearty fuck you, and further render it freely available to all who sail in you. I doubt very much that your middle lane moron has enough presence of mind to competently handle the gradual passage of time, never mind any situation that requires an actual input of a level beyond gawking into the middle distance. Not driving at all is far a safer way to avoid a dangerous situation on the road, and I would like to encourage this.



twat


----------



## mauvais (Oct 8, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> If not 60 seconds, and baring in mind that most drivers habitually drive far too close to the vehicle in front anyway, how much would you consider a reasonable time? And I'm not "policing" other drivers, I'm just not always prepared to carry out the risky manoeuvre of changing lanes twice in a few seconds to allow someone to break the law, after all, it's they that are the "moron" as you put it.


As above - between (a) moving into L1 after safely clearing the passed vehicle, and (b) returning to L2 shortly before reaching a safe distance (~2 seconds away) from the vehicle to be overtaken, about ten seconds but maybe down to four e.g. if someone clearly wants to overtake on a DC. Probably not less than that. This gives following traffic a chance to overtake you and doesn't involve you appearing to swerve all over the road for no reason. Naturally this all depends on context.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 8, 2011)

weltweit said:


> twat


Please direct your feedback here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelA...CID=TAT&PLA=url_mon&CRE=highwaycode_motorways


----------



## weltweit (Oct 8, 2011)

mauvais said:


> Please direct your feedback here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelA...CID=TAT&PLA=url_mon&CRE=highwaycode_motorways



No need thanks - you are a twat.. that is quite clear.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 8, 2011)

mauvais said:


> As above - between (a) moving into L1 after safely clearing the passed vehicle, and (b) returning to L2 shortly before reaching a safe distance (~2 seconds away) from the vehicle to be overtaken, about ten seconds but maybe down to four, probably not less. This gives following traffic a chance to overtake you and doesn't involve you appearing to swerve all over the road for no reason. Naturally this all depends on context.


My god, it sounds like you're expecting me to travel far too close. I'm not talking two chevrons here, but I'd like to keep a good juggernaut length between me and the vehicle in front at the very least, and If the vehicle in front is going only marginally slower than me then it's going to take _at least_ 30 seconds I would've thought.

And If I'm doing around 70 anyway, wouldn't I be encouraging others to break the law by pulling over?


----------



## mauvais (Oct 8, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> My god, it sounds like you're expecting me to travel far too close. I'm not talking two chevrons here, but I'd like to keep a good lorry length between me and the vehicle in front at the very least, and If the vehicle in front is going only marginally slower than me then it's going to take _at least_ 30 seconds I would've thought.
> 
> And If I'm doing around 70 anyway, wouldn't I be encouraging others to break the law by pulling over?


Try it and see. I _am_ talking roughly two chevrons, but without them which is most of the time, watch for the rear of the vehicle in front passing some reference point, and count two seconds (0...1...2) before the front of your vehicle passes that point. 70mph = 31m/sec, so 62 metres. Chevrons are 40m apart, so 80 metres, thus you might want a bit more time than that.

It doesn't really matter about your closing rate, just how long you spend in L2 when you could safely be in L1.

As for encouraging the others, again not your problem or job to regulate. What they do is their own responsibility, and whilst it might not be legal, neither is blocking their overtake without reason.

Edit: To look at it in terms of distance, and wrongly assuming chevrons are enough, I need 160m between two vehicles to safely fit in the middle at all. If the truck in front is doing 56mph and I'm doing 70mph, the closing rate is 6.25m/sec, so if we say a minimum of 10 secs safely in L1, I'd be looking for a separation of maybe 220m (5.5 chevrons) between the two before I decided it was worth moving in. That's a long way so I suspect my ten seconds is quite high.

Some chevrons, yesterday: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=m6+...=uBLsLemhrVkAKJLAOrD-Bg&cbp=11,167.54,,0,6.02


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 9, 2011)

mauvais said:


> Try it and see. I _am_ talking roughly two chevrons, but without them which is most of the time, watch for the rear of the vehicle in front passing some reference point, and count two seconds (0...1...2) before the front of your vehicle passes that point. 70mph = 31m/sec, so 62 metres. Chevrons are 40m apart, so 80 metres, thus you might want a bit more time than that.
> 
> It doesn't really matter about your closing rate, just how long you spend in L2 when you could safely be in L1.
> 
> ...



But I'm not regulating either, I'm just looking after my own interests and safety by not changing busy lanes twice in a short period, just to accommodate someone else's excesses.

What if the vehicle in front is doing 67, which is just below my cruising speed? I maintain that it would take far longer than 10 seconds for me to catch up, overtake and then pull into the lane a safe distance in front of it.

But I'll do as you suggest next time the situation arises and I'll count the seconds in my head, then I'll get back to you.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 9, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But I'm not regulating either, I'm just looking after my own interests and safety by not changing busy lanes twice in a short period, just to accommodate someone else's excesses.


Fair enough - not suggesting you should change lanes excessively - quite the opposite - just where it facilitates others.



> What if the vehicle in front is doing 67, which is just below my cruising speed? I maintain that it would take far longer than 10 seconds for me to catch up, overtake and then pull into the lane a safe distance in front of it.


Not bothered about the time to actually pass - that's not time you could safely spend in L1, that's time necessarily in L2 actually overtaking. I think I misunderstood your thirty seconds as being the time hanging out in L2 until you would need to overtake again, which is what I'm on about. FWIW to safely pass a 19m truck at 70mph it should take you about 28 seconds from start to finish, although only about 3 seconds of that is alongside the truck.

I should point out that if you overtake at a difference of 3mph, you're in their blind spot for a long time, so frankly I would [IAM answer] not bother or [honest answer] speed up a little to minimise the risk.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 9, 2011)

For clarity:







What I'm saying is if the duration of the orange line is going to be a minimum of around 4-10 seconds, I'll move into L1. How long the whole lot takes doesn't really come into it.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 9, 2011)

Seriously!!! You will move into the middle lane for 4 seconds? Why exactly? Why risk being caught in that lane and forced to brake to 56mph. Then having to accelerate out into L2 probably causing cars in L2 to brake to maintain a safe distance.

If you are doing 70mph then just stay in L2 FFS.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 9, 2011)

mauvais said:


> Fair enough - not suggesting you should change lanes excessively - quite the opposite - just where it facilitates others.
> 
> Not bothered about the time to actually pass - that's not time you could safely spend in L1, that's time necessarily in L2 actually overtaking. I think I misunderstood your thirty seconds as being the time hanging out in L2 until you would need to overtake again, which is what I'm on about. FWIW to safely pass a 19m truck at 70mph it should take you about 28 seconds from start to finish, although only about 3 seconds of that is alongside the truck.
> 
> I should point out that if you overtake at a difference of 3mph, you're in their blind spot for a long time, so frankly I would [IAM answer] not bother or [honest answer] speed up a little to minimise the risk.



Yes that was what I was originally talking about, the time it would take to catch up with a vehicle ahead in the lane to my left, that's going marginally slower, and weighing up whether or not it's worth changing lane twice in that time _and_ in doing so, finding myself uncomfortably close behind the vehicle, just to accommodate someone who...I say again....wants to exceed the speed limit.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 9, 2011)

denniseagle said:


> Ever heard of cruise control?
> I may be fortunate but my car has such a device fitted to it, funnily enough it seems to work quite well. I utilise it when I feel that road conditions allow me to do so.



You drove 10 junctions on the M6 without ever taking your car out of cruise control. It must have been pretty empty that day.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 9, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Seriously!!! You will move into the middle lane for 4 seconds? Why exactly? Why risk being caught in that lane and forced to brake to 56mph.


I'll make the judgement based on context. For instance if I'm being aggressively tailgated, but there's no other traffic behind them, I'll move over for the time it takes them to pass which is probably about four seconds. I don't particularly enjoy it but nothing particularly brilliant is going to come of holding up an angry idiot.





> Then having to accelerate out into L2 probably causing cars in L2 to brake to maintain a safe distance.


Same answer. Causing other people to slow unnecessarily would fail you a driving test, so you don't do that do you? - anticipate & plan in a way that makes sure that doesn't happen. As I said way up there in all this bollocks, it depends on context - if I think it actually means I get stuck in L1, which is rare, I would assess that time to be much longer.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 9, 2011)

mauvais said:


> For clarity:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I hope that's not to scale!

Your'e assuming you could pull back out quickly and safely, that's never easy in busy traffic. Rover07 is right, it's safer to stay where you are.


----------



## rover07 (Oct 9, 2011)

Sadly, aggressive tailgating and causing others to brake is exactly what the Lane-hoppers usually do. 

Its shit driving IMO.

If you want to go faster than 70mph use L3. Its pretty simple.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 9, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I hope that's not to scale!
> 
> Your'e assuming you could pull back out quickly and safely, that's never easy in busy traffic. Rover07 is right, it's safer to stay where you are.


Course it's not to scale 

I don't know what motorways & DCs you use but I find it works easily enough. Again, forward planning. Don't take this as dogma - adjust it to fit.


rover07 said:


> Sadly, aggressive tailgating and causing others to brake is exactly what the Lane-hoppers usually do.
> 
> Its shit driving IMO.
> 
> If you want to go faster than 70mph use L3. Its pretty simple.


It's pretty stupid.


----------



## denniseagle (Oct 9, 2011)

mauvais said:


> Fair enough - not suggesting you should change lanes excessively - quite the opposite - just where it facilitates others.
> 
> Not bothered about the time to actually pass - that's not time you could safely spend in L1, that's time necessarily in L2 actually overtaking. I think I misunderstood your thirty seconds as being the time hanging out in L2 until you would need to overtake again, which is what I'm on about. FWIW to safely pass a 19m truck at 70mph it should take you about 28 seconds from start to finish, although only about 3 seconds of that is alongside the truck.
> 
> I should point out that if you overtake at a difference of 3mph, you're in their blind spot for a long time, so frankly I would [IAM answer] not bother or [honest answer] speed up a little to minimise the risk.



As a class 1 LGV driver of some 25 years standing (yeah I know its called CE nowadays) I would like you to explain this 'blind spot' you keep mentioning.
With right hand drive LGV's the 'blind spot' used to be on the near side,  just alongside the tractor unit but, with the advent of compulsory double mirrors (normal and wide angle) plus downward looking kerbside mirror this has mostly been eliminated.
If, as you refer to overtaking and being in this 'blind spot',  I cannot think as to where this is.Offside mirrors on all LGV's are also doubled up with a normal mirror (the big one) and a smaller wide angle mirror usually underneath it though some manufacturers place the wide angle mirror above.
Left hand drive (foreign LGV's usually) have to, by law, have a special refractive lens fitted to the off side window to enable the driver to see similar to that of a right hand drive vehicle (look out for it next time you pass one and if it doesn't have one fitted report the vehicle)

Not withstanding the above, as a driver of a LGV, you are constantly checking your mirrors at least every 15 seconds or so to watch out for vehicles that are around you, so this 3mph difference and blind spot isn't really relevant.
Just out of interest, how often do you check both wing mirrors whilst you are driving?


----------



## mauvais (Oct 9, 2011)

I don't have much of a clue where the blind spots on modern lorries are, except that fron cycling I gather they're not bad these days. I meant cars, where passing vehicles only appear by doing a shoulder check. I'm sure curved mirrors reduce this but my car still has plenty.

Mirror checks: on a motorway, every few seconds. Elsewhere, typically less, but not necessarily intentionally.


----------



## denniseagle (Oct 9, 2011)

rover07 said:


> You drove 10 junctions on the M6 without ever taking your car out of cruise control. It must have been pretty empty that day.



Left Prince of Wales hotel Southport 09.15 Thursday 29 September joined M6 at junction 26 at approximately 10.15 clear run straight through to  junction 9  arrived at front door in Gloucester around  midday.
I know should have taken a break after 2 hours driving as advised in highway code but felt no need to didn't need comfort break so just carried on.

Must admit only second time in over 20 similar journeys (by car) that the M6 was so clear and free flowing, not even the usual bottleneck at the M6/M5 junction nor one between junction 16 stoke north and junction 14 stafford.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2011)

discokermit said:


> that would be fine if the driver had any awareness of cars approaching from behind and moved over in good time but they rarely do, proving that safety is the last thing on their mind.



Which bit about :



weltweit said:


> *If there is no traffic*, the middle lane is the safest, it gives you maximum room for manouver should something happen, a blowout for example.



Did you misunderstand?

I make it a rule to know what is going on in front, around and behind me, I am saying - if there is no traffic i.e. if I am the only vehicle on the road, then the middle lane is the safest place to be.


----------



## fredfelt (Oct 9, 2011)

mauvais said:


> For clarity:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When I'm driving in my Rover 400 at 60 mph in the middle lane, I find a good way to know if you need to go to L1 is to look in your mirror.  After a while some kind soul invariably comes up behind, waves and flashes you over.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 9, 2011)

BigPhil said:


> When I'm driving in my Rover 400 at 60 mph in the middle lane, I find a good way to know if you need to go to L1 is to look in your mirror. After a while some kind soul invariably comes up behind, waves and flashes you over.



Have you not got cruise control?


----------



## Griff (Oct 9, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I make it a rule to know what is going on in front, around and behind me, I am saying - if there is no traffic i.e. if I am the only vehicle on the road, then the middle lane is the safest place to be.



Seriously, so you're an MLM?

You do realise you effectively make a three lane motorway, a two laner by doing this? No wonder there's congestion if you effectively rule out lane 1 and cause danger by drivers correctly using lane one who then have to jump two lanes to get past you sitting in the middle lane.

I see more and more frustrated drivers just going down lane one at the speed limit passing these middle lane morons, who seem oblivious with their empty fucking heads.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 9, 2011)

If there is nothing approaching you from behind and nothing you are gaining on, then the middle lane might well be the safest. I sometimes swicth lanes in such circusmtances to find the better road surface or get a better view of the road ahead.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 9, 2011)

Also, if there are more than one lorries in lane one, I might well overtake in lane three so they can do their "pulling out without taking into account the speed of approaching vehicles" thing without bothering me.


----------



## Griff (Oct 9, 2011)

Sorry, but hangings too good for MLMs.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 9, 2011)

Griff said:


> Sorry, but hangings too good for MLMs.



Now you're being thick. If there are no other vehicles, why would you restrict yoursefl to lane one? It would be like stopping at every give way line even though you could see there no other vehciles for miles around.


----------



## Griff (Oct 9, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Now you're being thick. If there are no other vehicles, why would you restrict yoursefl to lane one? It would be like stopping at every give way line even though you could see there no other vehciles for miles around.



Why can't you drive properly, ON THE LEFT?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 9, 2011)

I often find that the hard shoulder gives me the clearest run.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 9, 2011)

Griff said:


> Why can't you drive properly, ON THE LEFT?



On bendy country roads, when I have a clear view of the road ahead, I often cross the centre white line. I do this because it's often safer to do so.

Also when I'm cycling, I sometimes don't cycle in the gutter.


----------



## Griff (Oct 9, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> On bendy country roads, when I have a clear view of the road ahead, I often cross the centre white line. I do this because it's often safer to do so.
> 
> Also when I'm cycling, I sometimes don't cycle in the gutter.



Neither of which answer the question, why can't you drive properly on a three lane motorway, on the left? If it's empty then why not stay in the correct left hand lane?

I really don'tr understand. Driving up the M11 from Redbridge last week behind a car who as soon as we reached the three lane part, he just moved into the middle lane with nobody in front of him and sat there doing 60. What a cunt. 

I just carried on in the correct lane at 70 and went past the oblivious moron.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 9, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> If there are no other vehicles,


how often does that happen? in twenty four years of driving i think it's happened to me once.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 9, 2011)

Griff said:


> Neither of which answer the question, why can't you drive properly on a three lane motorway, on the left? If it's empty then why not stay in the correct left hand lane?
> 
> I really don'tr understand. Driving up the M11 from Redbridge last week behind a car who as soon as we reached the three lane part, he just moved into the middle lane with nobody in front of him and sat there doing 60. What a cunt.
> 
> I just carried on in the correct lane at 70 and went past the oblivious moron.


What if he'd been doing 70, would you still expect him to pull over?


----------



## Griff (Oct 9, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> What if he'd been doing 70, would you still expect him to pull over?



What was he doing sitting in the middle lane even if he was doing 70 when the left hand lane in front of him was empty?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 9, 2011)

Griff said:


> What was he doing sitting in the middle lane even if he was doing 70 when the left hand lane in front of him was empty?


What harm would he be doing?


----------



## mauvais (Oct 9, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> On bendy country roads, when I have a clear view of the road ahead, I often cross the centre white line. I do this because it's often safer to do so.
> 
> Also when I'm cycling, I sometimes don't cycle in the gutter.


Both of these are fine and taught in advanced driving/cycling.



Andrew Hertford said:


> What if he'd been doing 70, would you still expect him to pull over?


Of course.

As for the middle lane being safest, even on an empty road it's nonsense. Motorways are well protected and in the event of a complete loss of control, it's going to make very little difference where you are. Another poor rationalisation for lazy driving.


----------



## Griff (Oct 9, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> What harm would he be doing?



He's driving incorrectly, effectively making a three lane motorway into a two lane one.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 9, 2011)

Griff said:


> He's driving incorrectly, effectively making a three lane motorway into a two lane one.


But he's doing 70, he wouldn't be in anyone's way, unless _they're_ driving incorrectly.


----------



## Griff (Oct 9, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But he's doing 70, he wouldn't be in anyone's way, unless _they're_ driving incorrectly.



Meanwhile in the real world...


----------



## mauvais (Oct 9, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But he's doing 70, he wouldn't be in anyone's way, unless _they're_ driving incorrectly.


Driving down a single carriageway NSL country lane at 60mph, a car approaches quickly from behind and moves out to overtake you. Do you let them past, or do you move out to block them?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 9, 2011)

Griff said:


> Meanwhile in the real world...


We got there in the end!

I don't sit in the middle lane if the left lane is empty by the way, but if I'm doing around 70, I'm dammed if I'm going to change lane just to let some moron indulge in a bit of their own "incorrect" driving, not if there's slow traffic just ahead and it means I'd have to pull out again soon afterwards. 70 is still the maximum speed limit, if you want to break it then you can't expect other people to swap lanes just to accommodate you.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 9, 2011)

mauvais said:


> Driving down a single carriageway NSL country lane at 60mph, a car approaches quickly from behind and moves out to overtake you. Do you let them past, or do you move out to block them?


60 down a country lane?!!  It would have to be a bloody wide and straight one before I'd do that. And if some dick did want to go even faster than that, I'd do everything I could to keep out of their fucking way!!! It's a totally different situation to a motorway.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 9, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> 60 down a country lane?!!  It would have to be a bloody wide and straight one before I'd do that. And if some dick did want to go even faster than that, I'd do everything I could to keep out of their fucking way!!! It's a totally different situation to a motorway.


No it's not. In either case you would be consciously choosing to block the road because you have decided that your speed is the maximum that anyone should be allowed to travel at.

How do you even know that your indicated 70mph is a genuine 70mph?


----------



## Griff (Oct 9, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> We got there in the end!
> 
> I don't sit in the middle lane if the left lane is empty by the way, but if I'm doing around 70, I'm dammed if I'm going to change lane just to let some moron indulge in a bit of their own "incorrect" driving, not if there's slow traffic just ahead and it means I'd have to pull out again soon afterwards. 70 is still the maximum speed limit, if you want to break it then you can't expect other people to swap lanes just to accommodate you.



OK fair enough, you're not an MLM. I'm not saying that doing 70 in the middle lane is wrong if the inside lane has a procession of slower moving lorries/traffic, but what I do object to is the example I gave earlier where the inside lane is empty and somebody just sits in lane 2 doing 70, it just shows a lack of awareness to other road-users, and is probably the biggest contribution to congestion we have.

I use a two lane section of the M11 daily and am amazed at the procession of cars doing 65, constantly braking in the outside lane, nose to tail while the inside lane is totally empty. it's fucking madness, how can so many people be so unaware, and that constant braking!


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 9, 2011)

mauvais said:


> No it's not. In either case you would be consciously choosing to block the road because you have decided that your speed is the maximum that anyone should be allowed to travel at.
> 
> How do you even know that your indicated 70mph is a genuine 70mph?


Of course a country lane is different to a motorway ffs!

I'm NOT blocking them because I "have decided that my speed is the maximum that anyone should be allowed to drive at", I'm just driving as safely as I can within the laws of the road. Where's the rule that says I have to pull over into slower traffic and then pull out again, just to let somebody break the speed limit?

And no speedometer is that accurate, which is why I said _around_ 70. Mine usually reads 72 or 73 when I'm cruising.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2011)

Griff said:


> Seriously, so you're an MLM?



I might be.



Griff said:


> You do realise you effectively make a three lane motorway, a two laner by doing this? No wonder there's congestion if you effectively rule out lane 1 and cause danger by drivers correctly using lane one who then have to jump two lanes to get past you sitting in the middle lane.



There is no congestion Griff, **I am the only vehicle on the road**. I have merely selected the safest place for me to be in that scenario.



Griff said:


> I see more and more frustrated drivers just going down lane one at the speed limit passing these middle lane morons, who seem oblivious with their empty fucking heads.



I repeat, I am the only vehicle on the road.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 9, 2011)

that happens so rarely as to be useless as an example.


----------



## Griff (Oct 9, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I have merely selected the safest place for me to be in that scenario.



The flawed argument of probably 95% of the MLMs on the road, and they do practise this executable offence when the roads are busy too.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2011)

discokermit said:


> that happens so rarely as to be useless as an example.



Perhaps you don't travel as much as I do but I frequently find myself on empty motorways thanks!


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2011)

Griff said:


> The flawed argument of probably 95% of the MLMs on the road, and they do practise this executable offence when the roads are busy too.



When the roads are busy I am usually busy overtaking.


----------



## Griff (Oct 9, 2011)

I put the Jag gearbox into 'Sport' mode for extra motorway MLM overtaking fun these days, it just comes alive and sound great. Warp speed for the overtaking manouvre.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 9, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Perhaps you don't travel as much as I do but I frequently find myself on empty motorways thanks!


i travel plenty and at various times. you're just making stuff up. unless you're travelling up and down the m54 at two o'clock on a tuesday morning.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 9, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Of course a country lane is different to a motorway ffs!
> 
> I'm NOT blocking them because I "have decided that my speed is the maximum that anyone should be allowed to drive at", I'm just driving as safely as I can within the laws of the road. Where's the rule that says I have to pull over into slower traffic and then pull out again, just to let somebody break the speed limit?


You keep changing the argument. You asked why should Mr. MLM move over into an empty L1 when doing 70mph. I said it's the same as blocking someone on a single carriageway because you don't agree with going over 70mph.



> And no speedometer is that accurate, which is why I said _around_ 70. Mine usually reads 72 or 73 when I'm cruising.


When mine says 70, it's really about 64. A true 70 is about 77 indicated.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 9, 2011)

Griff said:


> I put the Jag gearbox into 'Sport' mode for extra motorway MLM overtaking fun these days, it just comes alive and sound great. Warp speed for the overtaking manouvre.


i drop mine down a cog and think 'cheers griff!'.


----------



## Griff (Oct 9, 2011)

Still going well then?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 9, 2011)

Griff said:


> Still going well then?


beautifully. how's yours?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2011)

discokermit said:


> i travel plenty and at various times. you're just making stuff up. unless you're travelling up and down the m54 at two o'clock on a tuesday morning.



I haven't been on the M54 for a long time, but I do like to travel when others are not and I have been on the roads at 03:00 on occassion. However even at 06:00 there is a lot less traffic than at 08:00.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 9, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I haven't been on the M54 for a long time, but I do like to travel when others are not and I have been on the roads at 03:00 on occassion. However even at 06:00 there is a lot less traffic than at 08:00.


less. but nevertheless, some.


----------



## BarbedWire303 (Oct 9, 2011)

T & P said:


> I found the claims of some government minister today that increasing the speed limit will bring significant economic benefits through shorter journey times laughable.



I think what they really mean by "beneficial to the economy" is that drivers will use more petrol at higher speeds, thus paying more fuel tax. 

Never mind doing something beneficial for the enonomy, like "bringing back industry" (something they love to say, but never actually encourage), they think we'll get out of our economic mess by... driving faster. 

They have clearly also forgotten that the reason I drive at 30mph on the M60 is not because of the speed limit being too low, but because there's too much traffic. For much of the day, I can't break the speed limit, even if I wanted to!


----------



## Griff (Oct 9, 2011)

discokermit said:


> beautifully. how's yours?



Runs and looks lovely, started using wax on it now to really bring out the shine.

Only problem I've had since June was a flat battery due to lack of use, passed the MoT no probs last week (only car that did that morning apparantly, and the oldest).

Only thing is the consumption, computer says 23.2 average mpg, it did cost £80 to get to the Goodwood Revival and back the other week.

Half-heartedly up for sale, and the only interest I've had was some crap email from a bloke in Germany who didn't reply, but I'm not bothered about selling it.

Bloke next door said seeing it made him buy his brand new XF (diesel).


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2011)

discokermit said:


> less. but nevertheless, some.



I am not sure what your point is?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2011)

Griff said:


> Only thing is the consumption, computer says 23.2 average mpg, it did cost £80 to get to the Goodwood Revival and back the other week.



I meant to go to that this year, forgot about it till too late!!


----------



## weltweit (Oct 9, 2011)

BarbedWire303 said:


> They have clearly also forgotten that the reason I drive at 30mph on the M60 is not because of the speed limit being too low, but because there's too much traffic. For much of the day, I can't break the speed limit, even if I wanted to!



Yes, during rush hours on the M25 I see the limit set at 40mph and I think if only!

I hate having to drive when everyone else is. One of the joys of working in sales is that you get to use the roads when the rush hour lot are in work. The difference is staggering.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 9, 2011)

mauvais said:


> You keep changing the argument. You asked why should Mr. MLM move over into an empty L1 when doing 70mph. I said it's the same as blocking someone on a single carriageway because you don't agree with going over 70mph.
> 
> When mine says 70, it's really about 64. A true 70 is about 77 indicated.



Whether you agree with it or not has fuck all to do with it. It's the law! You might think the law is wrong but that doesn't give you the right to break it, let alone actually complain when others won't help you break it!

I don't stay in lane 2 myself if lane 1 is empty, but when it's not, you'd be amazed how many twats think I should pop into a two chevron sized gap between two slow, hulking great lorries because it's their god given right to break the speed limit!


----------



## Roadkill (Oct 9, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Whether you agree with it or not has fuck all to do with it. It's the law! You might think the law is wrong but that doesn't give you the right to break it, let alone actually complain when others won't help you break it!
> 
> I don't stay in lane 2 myself if lane 1 is empty, but when it's not, you'd be amazed how many twats think I should pop into a two chevron sized gap between two slow, hulking great lorries because it's their god given right to break the speed limit!



Get in the slow lane, get out of the way and stop being such a self-righteous prick.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 9, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Get in the slow lane, get out of the way and stop being such a self-righteous prick.


Why would I want to do that? I too want to go faster than all the slow stuff. Aren't I allowed to overtake as well?

Do you know what the different lanes are for?


----------



## paolo (Oct 10, 2011)

I have an old camper. More than happy to pull into lane 1 once I've overtaken something. Once in a while I end up passing MLMs on the left hand side. Technically I should come out to lane 3 and back to 1, but I just slip past. They can probably see another vehicle on the horizon, and have convinced themselves they are overtaking it.


----------



## Pingu (Oct 10, 2011)

Middle Lane Muppets dont irritate me that much these days tbh.

I save my ire for twats who sit in the right hand lane of dual lane roads because they are planning to turn right in about 2 miles time


----------



## rover07 (Oct 10, 2011)

Very sensible Paolo. Why be a moron and constantly weave about from L1 to L3.

Stay in lane


----------



## sim667 (Oct 10, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Why would I want to do that? I too want to go faster than all the slow stuff. Aren't I allowed to overtake as well?
> 
> Do you know what the different lanes are for?



Yeah the one on the left is for undertaking, and the one on the right for overtaking...... Everyone knows that


----------



## paolo (Oct 10, 2011)

sim667 said:


> Yeah the one on the left is for undertaking, and the one on the right for overtaking...... Everyone knows that


----------



## sim667 (Oct 10, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Yes, during rush hours on the M25 I see the limit set at 40mph and I think if only!
> 
> I hate having to drive when everyone else is. One of the joys of working in sales is that you get to use the roads when the rush hour lot are in work. The difference is staggering.



Yeah but its normally like that because of a slight prang an hour before that takes the mugs who've done it ages to sort out in the hard shoulder. Of course everyone slows down to look as they drive along, just incase they witness a bit of road rage.

Ive driven the M25 nearly everyday for the last 2 years. It infuriates me.


----------



## paolo (Oct 10, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Very sensible Paolo.



It's not sensible, it's laziness and poor lane discipline.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 10, 2011)

sim667 said:


> Yeah but its normally like that because of a slight prang an hour before that takes the mugs who've done it ages to sort out in the hard shoulder. Of course everyone slows down to look as they drive along, just incase they witness a bit of road rage.
> 
> Ive driven the M25 nearly everyday for the last 2 years. It infuriates me.


Actually, it's nothing to do with rubberneckers. It's all to do with standing waves. To quote from that entertaining website:



> After the wreck is removed, there seems to be no reason for the traffic jam to persist. Yet it does. The reason for this is sensible: if I am stuck behind a car that is stopped, then I have to stop too, and so does the car behind me. All the cars in the jam are in this situation. Even though the wreck is gone, they remain locked at standstill because if they want to move, they ALL have to move at once. They never do, because each driver is waiting for the car ahead to move. If I am in the traffic jam, I'm not going to move forward because I have no room to do so. I'd bump the car ahead of me. We all think like this, so none of us can move.
> 
> When the car in front of me leaves, I still cannot accelerate instantly, so I will remain stopped for a moment. I must delay leaving for a moment. If I started up instantly, I'd stay too close to the car ahead of me, and that would not be safe. Each departing car must delay in the same way, and this causes the jam to "evaporate" starting from the forward downstream end. It evaporates in a wave which begins at the forward end of the jam, (near the wreck). The wave eats into the jam from right to left, yet new cars are piling onto the back end of the jam.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 10, 2011)

There is a pressing imperative on German autobahns to maintain strict lane discipline. Apart from the fact that a lot of German autobahns are in fact only dual carriageways there is the other issue which is if you don't pull into the slow lane promptly you are likely to get a massive Mercedes shaped dent in the back of your car!


----------



## kabbes (Oct 10, 2011)

And this is what Wikipedia has to say on the subject of traffic waves.



> Traffic waves, also called stop waves or traffic shocks, are travelling disturbances in the distribution of cars on a highway. Traffic waves usually travel backwards in relation to the motion of the cars themselves, or "upstream". The waves can also travel downstream, however, more commonly become "pinned" to a single spot on the road as a soliton.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 10, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Actually, it's nothing to do with rubberneckers. It's all to do with standing waves. To quote from that entertaining website:



Yeah them too, but rubberneckers are a visible target for me to get angry at.

You can see standing waves unfortunately


----------



## Manfredd (Oct 12, 2011)

spawnofsatan said:


> Works fine on the Autobahn


Drivers are more curtious on the autobahn. If your going slower than the driver behind wants to go, then you MUST pull in (it the law), they will often indicate to show they want to come past.
Not all Autobahns are unristricted tho. In busy areas around cities they are often restricted to 100-110km/h to ease traffic congestion and for safer travel.
However on deristricted autobahns there is no top end speed limit, in fact there is a minimum speed limit of 60km/h, this stops slow moving vehicles from accessing fast sections of road.


----------



## Manfredd (Oct 12, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Night is a tricky one, because in some ways it is more dangerous (lower visibility, tired drivers) but in other ways safer (a lot less cars on the road). I suspect, for example, that the hours between 8pm and 10pm may well be more dangerous, with 10pm to midnight being less dangerous, and then midnight to 4am being more dangerous again. That's only a guess, but you get the idea.


Up north if your on a motor way, nowhere near any of the big cities after 10pm your extremely unlikely to see many other motorists. If fact i can remember driving from near Nottingham to Darlington at 1am on a saturday night and only having dip my lights about a dozen times for vehicles coming in the opposite direction. Thats about 150miles!


----------



## paolo (Oct 12, 2011)

Manfredd said:


> Drivers are more curtious on the autobahn. If your going slower than the driver behind wants to go, then you MUST pull in (it the law), they will often indicate to show they want to come past.
> Not all Autobahns are unristricted tho. In busy areas around cities they are often restricted to 100-110km/h to ease traffic congestion and for safer travel.
> However on deristricted autobahns there is no top end speed limit, in fact there is a minimum speed limit of 60km/h, this stops slow moving vehicles from accessing fast sections of road.



Probably best our Middle Lane Morons don't try their driving style in Germany.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 12, 2011)

paolo999 said:


> Probably best our Middle Lane Morons don't try their driving style in Germany.



Many unlimited German Autobahn are in fact dual carriage ways, there is no excuse for being in the fast lane unless you are overtaking something.

And if you don't pull over smartish, the driver coming up behind will make you aware of their presence in a way that British drivers never do (because in Britain they are breaking the law usually).


----------



## paolo (Oct 13, 2011)

The same culture exists in France. It's not about having legal blessing, it's much simpler - once you've finished overtaking, finish overtaking. It's not complicated and shouldn't require legal measures - as other European countries prove.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 13, 2011)

The thing about French motorways though, and I understand the same thing is true in Germany, is that they tend to be half-empty.  People thus have no problem pulling out to overtake, so they don't stress about it.  Our motorways tend to be almost continually nose-to-tail, making pulling out to overtake quite a difficult procedure.  The result is that some people prefer to avoid the problem by sitting in the middle lane.  Then they get used to driving that way even when the motorway _is_ empty.


----------



## paolo (Oct 13, 2011)

That seems like a plausible explanation for the poor lane discipline in the UK.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 13, 2011)

Or another explanation is that we're just a nation of idiots..... Which is far more likely.


----------



## fredfelt (Oct 13, 2011)

My pop psychology take on the international aspects of this.

I think the difference with other European cultures is that us, the British, like to get wound up by other people breaking these kind of rules. Other places are seemingly more relaxed and will undertake and more readily accommodate for middle lane drivers.

We get really wound up by queuing, and queue jumpers.  In terms of stickin to the rules we are no worse or better than any other nationality - our difference is we get internally wound up and don't say anything when others jump the queue.  People from other cultures pipe up and confront queue jumpers.

Get on the motorway and our inhibitions that we'd have on the street are lost.  We let our rage spill out.  Therefore we get really huffy and strive for a correct order.  Other countries just get on with the job.

I doubt in any other country there would be a bulliten board with a 13 page thread on this subject!


----------



## weltweit (Oct 13, 2011)

BigPhil said:


> I doubt in any other country there would be a bulliten board with a 13 page thread on this subject!



Oh I am not so sure about that. Germans get very pissed off if you don't get out of their way at the first opportunity. I can recall on a rainy day on the Autobahn when there is supposed to be a limit because of the water, fast cars getting into road rage (flashing their lights and beeping their horns) because vehicles in front of them did not get out of the way fast enough. They were going very fast in heavy spray, much too fast for the road conditions it has to be said, but the road rage was very real.


----------



## denniseagle (Oct 14, 2011)

German motorists do behave correctly mostly down to the simple fact that the fines for not doing so are very high.
I am not sure what it is called but there is a law concerning filtering of vehicles from 2/3 lanes into 1 lane.
Failure to 'let one in' i.e. give way and let the car from the left in front of you can result in quite a large fine,  UK drivers mostly see it as a weakness to allow a vehicle to get in front when there are lane closures.Perhaps a similar law needs to be enacted here??
Unrestricted autobahns usually come with a cost via a toll it is inevitable that having paid for the 'right' to drive as fast as they can, some drivers would get annoyed at those  travelling slower.
Once travelling as a passenger in a Granada doing 130 mph we were flashed and beeped by a 5 series beemer who just flashed past us and was gone within what seemed like seconds , my brother in law who was driving just shrugged and said  'flash git' typical brit abroad lol.


----------

