Driving well below the speed limit

[Egg Centric]

Why is it people feel the roads do not have to be anywhere near as safe as the railways ?.

OK I accept it is easier to make the railways safer than roads but the attitude to safety seems miles apart comparing the two modes.

Because it would be ludicrously expensive to make the roads as safe as railways.

As it happens I personally feel the railways should be more dangerous if it makes them significantly cheaper and more competitive with the roads, but this an unpopular viewpoint here... (and I also appreciate that that "if" is doing some heavy lifting there) - I'd be perfectly happy with them being 100x more dangerous (for passengers) and 10x more dangerous (overall).

 

[Peter Sarf]

Bear in mind that the people you see and notice doing those speeds are going to be the inconsiderate ones, as the safe ones are going to be doing it appropriately.

Racing driving has very little to do with high speed road driving and I have been careful not to say I am doing high speeds in the UK.

If you're not prepared to do high speed on an autobahn I would encourage being a passenger with someone you trust who is. You will quickly realise there's nothing to make a fuss about.

Perhaps at high enough speeds the perception of surrounding hazards changes.

When I was about 21 years of age I got a lift on the back of a motorbike. A Kawasaki Z650. In suburban Birmingham. We were going so fast that all other road vehicles just appeared to be parked !. So in a way there seemed to be no moving obstacles/hazards.

 

[Krokodil]

If you're not prepared to do high speed on an autobahn I would encourage being a passenger with someone you trust who is. You will quickly realise there's nothing to make a fuss about.

Then why is there now popular support in Germany for restrictions?

https://www.adac.de/verkehr/standpunkte-studien/positionen/tempolimit-autobahn-deutschland/

The ADAC regularly surveys its members about their attitudes toward traffic policy issues. For years, the majority of them rejected a general speed limit on motorways, but the number of supporters of a speed limit has recently increased. In the 2024 survey, 40 percent voted against a speed limit, while 55 percent voted in favor.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Yes, because you may be competent to go that fast (though most drivers have inflated opinions of their capability) but others may not be competent to deal with you going that fast. If you want to drive really fast, book a track day. The public road is not the place for that.

I’m not talking about belting around everywhere doing a ton. Drive to the conditions.

How about:
Motorway with hard shoulder: 80mph, but 70mph in case of rain or fog
Motorway without hard shoulder or other dual carriageway: 70mph
Single carriageway: 50
Single carriageway without marked centreline: 40
Urban: 30 or 20, I struggle to decide which should be default to be honest. But too much signing up and down is unhelpful as it is distracting, so better to pick one of those and stick to it

What you suggest here I agree with. Urban 30 or 20 schools,shopping areas etc.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Because it would be ludicrously expensive to make the roads as safe as railways.

As it happens I personally feel the railways should be more dangerous if it makes them significantly cheaper and more competitive with the roads, but this an unpopular viewpoint here... (and I also appreciate that that "if" is doing some heavy lifting there) - I'd be perfectly happy with them being 100x more dangerous (for passengers) and 10x more dangerous (overall).

I do wonder if a proportion of the money spent on railway safety might be better spent on road safety.

It does seem we expect better safety from the railways. Probably because a train passenger does not feel impeded by safety as much as an eager car driver feels impeded by road safety !.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're not prepared to do high speed on an autobahn I would encourage being a passenger with someone you trust who is. You will quickly realise there's nothing to make a fuss about.

I have been a passenger on the Autobahn and it is abjectly terrifying. There is so little margin for error.

If you want to go fast, the place to do it is a train or plane. If you want to drive fast, the place to do it is a track, not a public road.

Interesting, I wonder what the different standards are for car and train windscreens. Plenty of pheasants and pigeons get hit by trains and I particularly remember a 175 secondman's windscreen with an angel-like silhouette in blood so it had clearly taken a straight hit from a bird.

Car windscreens are designed to be reasonably easily kicked out while not breaking into pieces so they can't cause injury (so they are laminated to keep the panes together even if they break). Train windscreens are designed not to break.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Irony.

We are now arguing about how fast people should be allowed to drive. We started by worrying about how slow some people drive.

Just shows the difference of opinions, desires and ability. I think having a wider range of driving speeds on roads is maybe a dangerous thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do wonder if a proportion of the money spent on railway safety might be better spent on road safety.

It does seem we expect better safety from the railways. Probably because a train passenger does not feel impeded by safety as much as an eager car driver feels impeded by road safety !.

I certainly do think spending on saving lives on transport should be measured up across all transport, yes. Thus it might save more lives to cut train fares and increase capacity (thus reducing car journeys) than to spend a fortune saving almost no lives by e.g. retiring rolling stock with plenty of life left in it. I wonder does any country do it like that?

 

[Krokodil]

What you suggest here I agree with. Urban 30 or 20 schools,shopping areas etc.

I would say 20 on any urban road where there is no more than a curb separating the footpath from the carriageway. If there is at least a strip of grass then 30.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Irony.

We are now arguing about how fast people should be allowed to drive. We started by worrying about how slow some people drive.

Strange but true.

I would say 20 on any urban road where there is no more than a curb separating the footpath from the carriageway. If there is at least a strip of grass then 30.

Fair point.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I certainly do think spending on saving lives on transport should be measured up across all transport, yes. Thus it might save more lives to cut train fares and increase capacity (thus reducing car journeys) than to spend a fortune saving almost no lives by e.g. retiring rolling stock with plenty of life left in it. I wonder does any country do it like that?

I agree. And of course back in the days before privatisation old trains would eke out the rest of their lives on quieter lines.

To vaguely get back on topic. Should older, frailer drivers be relegated to no-motorway roads ?.
I suggest unfair and in fact motorways are safer - at an appropriate speed. Which I argue is a speed where all other road users are doing approximately the same speed.

I would say 20 on any urban road where there is no more than a curb separating the footpath from the carriageway. If there is at least a strip of grass then 30.

Not so sure a cyclist would see that as logical. And pedestrians straying across the road.

For me I have found 20 mph hard to adapt to BUT it really matters not so long as I still get into the same queue at the next junction but logically with the queue being shorter I guess I am hardly losing any time. After all if the average speed in London is less than 5mph (iirc ?) anyway then the odd burst at 30mph is futile.

 

[jon0844]

Surely the real benefit of a performance road car is fast acceleration and good performance when cornering on country lanes etc? If the car isn't giving you anything when driven legally (but enthusiastically) there's really no point owning it unless you do a lot of track days; increasingly driving above the speed limit isn't possible due to far more prevalent cameras, and quite rightly so.

Funnily enough, that's one reason that I no longer own and drive performance cars. Sure, I got older too, but I haven't been on a track for many years and there's really not many opportunities to enjoy a performance car on normal roads without breaking the law (or skirting on the edges of it!).

 

[Peter Sarf]

Funnily enough, that's one reason that I no longer own and drive performance cars. Sure, I got older too, but I haven't been on a track for many years and there's really not many opportunities to enjoy a performance car on normal roads without breaking the law (or skirting on the edges of it!).

I would suggest that the average car nowadays has the road holding etc capabilities that a performance car decades ago had.

I might have been able to overtake a Capri (assuming a lesser sized engine) in my Mums Austin 1100 BUT boy did it seem to float along while doing so - a real sense that steering had no purpose. Never get that with modern cars.

 

[jon0844]

I have been a passenger on the Autobahn and it is abjectly terrifying. There is so little margin for error.

I've been in many a taxi from a German airport at some crazy speeds, and it can be a little unsettling when you're not driving yourself - but I've driven on autobahns and the lane discipline is excellent.

People in lane one know people can and will be going faster in lane two, so they don't do stupid things. Cars in lane two know that someone in lane one might overtake the approaching caravan or lorry, so they pull back. They aren't upset about slowing down because they can accelerate hard after. Indeed, I suspect the stop/start aspect is what makes a lot of drivers enjoy driving as setting cruise control and switching off is far more boring and likely to encourage people to stop paying attention.

Of course there are still accidents. People drive too fast for bad weather. There are people driving vehicles that aren't totally roadworthy and other things can happen, but overall I loved the autobahns. I also recognise that they'd be lethal here if we adopted the concept of 'no limits' because people would absolutely tailgate and force their way out in front of a fast car and assume 'Hey, slow down I'm more important than you' etc. It would be carnage.

 

[Krokodil]

Not so sure a cyclist would see that as logical.

Why not?

 

[Egg Centric]

I do wonder if a proportion of the money spent on railway safety might be better spent on road safety.

100% yes. Or all sorts of things really. Mounjaro for the obese for example would. We don't really allocate resources sensibly at all at a governmental level.

Then why is there now popular support in Germany for restrictions?

Because people love banning things they don't personally do and there are demographic shifts (young people more bothered about climate / less bothered about driving, old people aging, etc etc). This is why I acknowledged that your "side" has the political momentum. You're still utterly wrong though

 

[jon0844]

For years (decades?) there have been demands to reduce speed limits in Germany (relating to autobahns) to reduce pollution. Now that EVs are gradually becoming more common, that argument sort of goes away - although of course an EV user going at over 100mph will be consuming a LOT more power, which means more energy to charge the battery.

If charging from wind or solar, fine, but we do of course still need to look at efficiency - and EVs aren't as good at speed. But is that now such a valid argument to try and reduce speed limits?

It's more a case of people will likely voluntarily cut their speed, especially as some EVs are limited to speeds of under 100mph/160kph.

 

[Cross City]

Because people love banning things

I've said before on here that the average Brit is far more authoritarian than they would care to believe they are. One thing the UK is excellent at is banning things and taking things away from people.

I don't personally agree with your stance on speed limits but I get your point.

 

[Harpo]

Interesting that a thread about irritating under-speeding drivers has become a confession box for dangerous over-speeding drivers.

 

[Falcon1200]

Technically has moved on and so has car safety,it’s about time the speed limits on open roads was reviewed.

100mph or more is extremely appropriate! It's nothing in a modern car.

So what should the speed limit on motorways be? 100mph, 120mph or more? Most, if not all, motorists think they are great drivers but that is not true, and anyway, no matter how good a driver you are, unexpected incidents can occur right in front of you, and the higher the speed the more devastating the consequences. Personally I have never driven at 100mph, regardless of whether the vehicle was capable of that speed, and have no desire to do so.

When my daughter first started driving I told her to bear in mind every other driver on the road might be an idiot or a lunatic, and from personal observation during my own driving that is quite often the case.

 

[LowLevel]

It's all great until someone not paying attention bimbles out in front of you as you bear down on them at a daft rate of knots.

I once had some silly old Doris who hadn't even unfolded her wing mirror pull out from behind a tractor on a dual carriageway doing 25 mph as I was approaching at 70 and that was scary enough - luckily I'd noticed the lack of mirror and already started braking before she moved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting that a thread about irritating under-speeding drivers has become a confession box for dangerous over-speeding drivers.

It's not true of the original post in the thread (I looked) but a LOT of people who moan about people going too slowly are people who wish to drive far too quickly - not always the case (there is the "40mph club" after all) but often so. At least with more cameras the bullying you used to get from behind if doing anything less than ten over the limit has near enough died out, and I'm thoroughly impressed at how well the Welsh 20s seem to be respected.

I've said before on here that the average Brit is far more authoritarian than they would care to believe they are. One thing the UK is excellent at is banning things and taking things away from people.

If you think the UK does that to excess try a Germanic country, particularly German speaking Switzerland! But there are upsides - life there is quite civil when the rules are followed, which they mostly are.

A lot of complaining about enforcement of rules is by people who want to commit minor crime, e.g. speeding, playing music out loud on their phone, feet on seats, littering etc - things that to any right minded person are not OK. If people just knew those things were wrong (though I get that speed is relative) you'd not need any enforcement.

 

[Cross City]

A lot of complaining about enforcement of rules is by people who want to commit minor crime, e.g. speeding, playing music out loud on their phone, feet on seats, littering etc

2 of those things aren't illegal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2 of those things aren't illegal.

All of them are illegal. The middle two, to which I guess you're referring, are Railway Byelaw offences. Merseyrail frequently prosecutes the "feet on seats" one, it's not a specific one but is prosecuted under "interfering with the comfort of someone on the railway" or something like that. The one about playing devices out loud to someone's annoyance (the inspector can testify it's to theirs) is more specific.

 

[Krokodil]

Because people love banning things they don't personally do

If someone wishes to put their own life at risk, that's on them. On public roads you put other people at risk.

You're still utterly wrong though

You disagree with me. That doesn‘t make me wrong.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If someone wishes to put their own life at risk, that's on them. On public roads you put other people at risk.

Exactly.

I would be opposed to banning track days where high speed driving is permitted. People who go to such tracks accept the risk of doing so. If you want to test your car's performance and skills while not putting anyone at risk who hasn't consented to that risk, that's how to do it.

On the public road, the purpose is transport. We don't allow racing* and we shouldn't allow high speeds either, because everyone's safety is rightly a high priority.

* TBH I struggle with cycle racing being permitted on non-closed roads, let alone motor racing (which rightly isn't).

 

[stuu]

Have you ever driven at 100mph for a sustained period of time in a suitable vehicle? You don't need racecar driver like reactions and nor do drivers near you. Or anything close. It's just as relaxing as 70mph if the conditions are appropriate.

Anything relying on "reactions" as opposed to anticipation is far too fast...

Any driving at any speed relies on reactions. If you driving at 100mph and people ahead of you don't realise how fast you are travelling you can find yourself in a lot of trouble very quickly. And if you don't know that you shouldn't be on the road at all. Not that boasting about driving so fast over the speed limit on a public forum is a good look anyway

 

[gswindale]

I don't see the need for speed.

As an example, we were travelling home at the weekend along the M4, exiting at Junction 10. 4 or 5 cars in front of us were all travelling about 65 I think, so I'm approaching the junction and happy to sit behind them.

Audi comes speeding up behind me. Pulls out of the left-hand lane and then takes the 2nd exit for the Reading bound lane across the junction, gets to the point where the Bracknell bound lane diverges and cuts across the chevrons that you can see here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4...try=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

We go round the corner about 5 seconds later and he is now pulled up on the hard shoulder with something hanging from the undertray.

A bit of patience and losing at most a few minutes on his journey time (probably more like just a few seconds) and he'd have been where he wanted to much quicker than it ended up being for him.

That being said, I do probably think the Motorway speed limit could be increased to 80 and I do disagree with the Welsh governments introduction of 20 limits almost everywhere.

The main trouble I see with increasing the limit is you already get those who exceed it and they'll just want to exceed whatever the new limit is.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The main trouble I see with increasing the limit is you already get those who exceed it and they'll just want to exceed whatever the new limit is.

They can want to, but increasingly motorways are covered with cameras so if they do they'll pay the price.

I'd accept 80 on motorways with a hard shoulder (not without) if enforcement was stricter.

 

[The exile]

Your final point is spot on though

Not entirely- there are plenty of things which can happen in and around your own vehicle which you as a driver can’t anticipate (some examples already given). All of those things can happen to the car in front as well (along with a whole lot more - because you can’t accurately predict someone else’s behaviour) - at that point reaction distance becomes vital.