Driving well below the speed limit

[bramling]

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/@51.4335986,-0.8483004,3a,75y,183.91h,82.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1st-JjLuhXQVgEm24lfDye8w!2e0!6shttps://streetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com/v1/thumbnail?cb_client=maps_sv.tactile&w=900&h=600&pitch=7.014411359129937&panoid=t-JjLuhXQVgEm24lfDye8w&yaw=183.91028638050804!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?entry=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.

One wonders if your situation might not have happened if you hadn’t had those 4 or 5 cars doing 65. I’ve never understood why people do this - why not just do 70 mph and cut out all the speed differentials?

It’s almost like people have to choose “their” speed just to give themselves a feeling of power or control. Same with the ones who do 40 literally everywhere. Driving is a lot less stressful, plus you get more capacity out of scarce road space, if everyone drivers in as uniform way as possible.

As for why people want to drive quicker, often it’s because they have somewhere they need or want to get to, something then need or want to do, or something more valuable to be doing with the time. If I’m driving to work for example, that extra 3 or 4 minutes might mean the difference between having time to properly stretch or warm down after the gym, or time to buy some food before starting work. It’s more valuable to me than sitting watching some Patsy who can’t drive properly flashing their brake lights on and off for no reason.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One wonders if your situation might not have happened if you hadn’t had those 4 or 5 cars doing 65. I’ve never understood why people do this - why not just do 70 mph and cut out all the speed differentials?

I find it much less stressful on the motorway to set my limiter to either 67 or 72-73* than setting it to an indicated 70. 70 would work fine if all vehicles had the exact same 70. Whereas a very small speed differential is frustrating because it causes prolonged overtakes, which cause an obstruction both to my disadvantage and that of others.

I suppose adaptive cruise control removes this frustration, though.

As to your main point, I don't think these drivers can be blamed for the incident. The incident was caused by the Audi driver driving dangerously and committing an offence by crossing chevrons with an unbroken white line at their border, and should be charged with that offence as well as the cost of fixing his (it will be a man, certainly) vehicle. If you can't cope with driving at 65mph for a short distance before leaving a motorway, you shouldn't be on the road.

* Indicated 73 is actually 70 by GPS in my car.

As for why people want to drive quicker, often it’s because they have somewhere they need or want to get to, something then need or want to do, or something more valuable to be doing with the time. If I’m driving to work for example, that extra 3 or 4 minutes might mean the difference between having time to properly stretch or warm down after the gym, or time to buy some food before starting work. It’s more valuable to me than sitting watching some Patsy who can’t drive properly flashing their brake lights on and off for no reason.

Get up 3-4 minutes earlier, then; getting up at 0655 for example has no significant impact on your sleep compared to 0700. Driving to the clock makes people deprioritise safety, and so it's really not a good thing.

(See also small disreputable bus companies who often set impossible timetables, couriers and the likes).

 

[Tetchytyke]

My £0.02:

People drive fast because it is fun.
People drive slowly because they are incompetent.

The ones who really make my teeth itch are the ones- usually in a Honda Jazz- who do 37mph in the unrestricted section of a road here. Get to the village where the limit is 30mph and they are still doing 37mph. Get to the primary school where the limit is 20mph and, guess what, they’re still doing 37mph.

That’s not to say the ones driving fast are as competent as they think they are, the Mountain Road here is often closed due to people running out of talent. But at least the ones driving quickly generally* have some sort of awareness of their surroundings. Unlike Doris in her Honda Jazz.

(*the ones overtaking on blind bends should have their car crushed in front of them)

 

[Bletchleyite]

My £0.02:

People drive fast because it is fun.

Certainly. There are a lot of activities where people partake on a consenting basis which are dangerous and are partly fun because they are dangerous. Rock climbing is one, and I do partake of that. The key thing, though, is that the additional risk is posed only to those who consent to it. That's why rock climbing above Cheddar Gorge is not allowed at certain busy times of year (and not at all in certain places) because of the risk of things being dropped on people.

Because driving excessively fast poses an unconsented risk to other road users, we don't allow it.

To me, that's very simple. If you want to drive really fast and accept the risk and want to do so in the company of others who also accept the risk, book a track day. Otherwise stick to the speed limit.

 

[gswindale]

One wonders if your situation might not have happened if you hadn’t had those 4 or 5 cars doing 65. I’ve never understood why people do this - why not just do 70 mph and cut out all the speed differentials?

It’s almost like people have to choose “their” speed just to give themselves a feeling of power or control. Same with the ones who do 40 literally everywhere. Driving is a lot less stressful, plus you get more capacity out of scarce road space, if everyone drivers in as uniform way as possible.

As for why people want to drive quicker, often it’s because they have somewhere they need or want to get to, something then need or want to do, or something more valuable to be doing with the time. If I’m driving to work for example, that extra 3 or 4 minutes might mean the difference between having time to properly stretch or warm down after the gym, or time to buy some food before starting work. It’s more valuable to me than sitting watching some Patsy who can’t drive properly flashing their brake lights on and off for no reason.

My life is the most valuable part of my time - hence why I won't drive like a complete t**t particularly if I've got passengers. I can't remember what exactly was ahead of us in our lane, but we were in the point where you should only have been in lane 1 if turning off, so if there was a lorry or other restricted vehicle, then it makes perfect sense that we would be driving a little bit below the speed limit - certainly I try not to do 70 until I'm right behind something, I'll try and gradually slow down.

If I'm driving to work, whilst it is frustrating seeing the sat-nav arrival time creep up, I can't do anything about it, and it's better to just go with the flow and not get stressed. I'd rather be there in one piece than not be there!

 

[BingMan]

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 think that it is partly because when using public transport we are putting our safety in someone elses hands. Whereas, when driving, we feel that we are responsible for our own safety.

Th extreme of this attitude is people who are terrified of flying but are quite happy to drive to the airport: something a hundred times more dangerous

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

Cycle racing - as opposed to trials - always takes place with rolling road closures

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cycle racing - as opposed to trials - always takes place with rolling road closures

Technicality. I mean against the clock in any form.

I have had the displeasure to be crossing the Hardknott/Wrynose while cyclists on a triathlon were ducking in and out of cars, the risks they were taking were spectacularly dangerous and quite intimidating to drivers and motorcyclists who were negotiating what is a very difficult road to drive. It was disgraceful and highlighted the point to me. Once a road user starts to prioritise time they are deprioritising safety, and that isn't OK. I bet had any of them been hit by a driver due to their actions they'd have been shouting at them at least!

No problem with people cycling over it, I fancy trying it myself one day, but not against the clock. Often one has to wait patiently for some time if a vehicle gets a bit stuck, and patiently is the only acceptable way on a road like that.

See also "Strava segments".

 

[The exile]

If I'm driving to work, whilst it is frustrating seeing the sat-nav arrival time creep up, I can't do anything about it, and it's better to just go with the flow and not get stressed. I'd rather be there in one piece than not be there!

“Better late than ‘the late’” may be corny but it’s no less true for that.

One wonders if your situation might not have happened if you hadn’t had those 4 or 5 cars doing 65. I’ve never understood why people do this - why not just do 70 mph and cut out all the speed differentials?

A noticeable difference in fuel consumption, for a start.

 

[Egg Centric]

So what should the speed limit on motorways be? 100mph, 120mph or more?

There should be no national speed limit, in my view (which is not to say there couldn't be speed limits on particular stretches of motorway; certainly in congested ones variable speed limits are a very good idea for managing flows).

Otherwise stick to the speed limit.

Good luck sticking to the speed limit on the mountain road @Tetchytyke is talking about

 

[BingMan]

“Better late than ‘the late’” may be corny but it’s no less true for that.

Batter twenty minutes late in this world than twenty years early in the next is equally true ands even more corny

Technicality. I mean against the clock in any form.

I have had the displeasure to be crossing the Hardknott/Wrynose while cyclists on a triathlon were ducking in and out of cars, the risks they were taking were spectacularly dangerous and quite intimidating to drivers and motorcyclists who were negotiating what is a very difficult road to drive. It was disgraceful and highlighted the point to me. Once a road user starts to prioritise time they are deprioritising safety, and that isn't OK. I bet had any of them been hit by a driver due to their actions they'd have been shouting at them at least!

No problem with people cycling over it, I fancy trying it myself one day, but not against the clock. Often one has to wait patiently for some time if a vehicle gets a bit stuck, and patiently is the only acceptable way on a road like that.

See also "Strava segments".

Holding a trial on roads like that is vey irresponsible. Do they need police permission to do so?
Do you feel the same about runners on roads?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Why not?

The grass verge is not going to make much difference to the cyclist overtaken at speed if the car is too close.

I suppose the grass verge might help if the cyclist can fall in that direction when a bit of poor road surface sends them flying.

 

[Krokodil]

The grass verge is not going to make much difference to the cyclist overtaken at speed if the car is too close.

I suppose the grass verge might help if the cyclist can fall in that direction when a bit of poor road surface sends them flying.

By "at speed" we're talking about 30/40mph. This is still a built-up area and not a fenced off dual carriageway.

 

[Peter Sarf]

By "at speed" we're talking about 30/40mph. This is still a built-up area and not a fenced off dual carriageway.

I was replying to the following

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.

Where I was thinking the grass verge does not make much difference to the safety of a cyclist as regards speed being 20 or 30 mph.

For other purposes I can see that a bit of spare space between the pedestrians and the road could be seen as allowing for a higher (30mph) speed.

 

[Krokodil]

I was replying to the following

Where I was thinking the grass verge does not make much difference to the safety of a cyclist as regards speed being 20 or 30 mph.

For other purposes I can see that a bit of spare space between the pedestrians and the road could be seen as allowing for a higher (30mph) speed.

Should be little issue for confident adults cycling on a 30mph road. Where novice cyclists (including young kids) or those using bakfiets or trailers to move kids are more likely to want to ride, the provision of a segregated cycle path should be considered. Otherwise then lower the limit.

 

[DJ_K666]

I’m really grumpy today so forgive this in advance if it touches a nerve.

Why do people drive well below the permitted speed limit, even in good conditions, with clear visibility, and no hazards? I’m talking sub 40mph on a 60mph road, or 20mph on a 30mph road.

I have mentioned before the A1081 from St Albans to Harpeneden, where at any time of day there is always someone trundling along at 40mph in the 60 area, much to the frustration of those behind, as overtaking opportunities are limited. I see similar elsewhere. Now I am routinely seeing people driving at 20 in 30 limits everywhere I go. I put it down to inattention and rank poor driving. It can also be dangerous, and I know of at least one person who failed their test because of it.

Does anyone on here do this? If so why? Genuinely interested.

I had to follow one if these the other day. 35 in a 60 limit. By the time we got past a short distance down the road it turned out to be the bog standard Sunday driver in a small car. No doubt thinks 'careful' driving means 'Slow'.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Should be little issue for confident adults cycling on a 30mph road. Where novice cyclists (including young kids) or those using bakfiets or trailers to move kids are more likely to want to ride, the provision of a segregated cycle path should be considered. Otherwise then lower the limit.

That is true. If there is a grass verge then there is a possibility for a cycle lane. Except some roads round here that have pesky trees in the verge .

A little aside but near me one such tree has abruptly stopped a car that might have been speeding etc. Police asking for witnesses so I guess they were going dangerously faster than the signed 40mph. I expect someone will blame the tree .

 

[Krokodil]

I expect someone will blame the tree .

"It just jumped out in front of me, wasn't wearing a hivis or anything"

What gets me are the people who prang bollards and complain about it. Do they not realise that the bollard they failed to see could have been a child? There was a photo of the parking spaces outside an American liquor store which was protected by a row of bollards, none of which remained vertical. It's painfully how apparent how many people drink and drive there.

 

[The exile]

"It just jumped out in front of me, wasn't wearing a hivis or anything"

What gets me are the people who prang bollards and complain about it. Do they not realise that the bollard they failed to see could have been a child? There was a photo of the parking spaces outside an American liquor store which was protected by a row of bollards, none of which remained vertical. It's painfully how apparent how many people drink and drive there.

That said, particularly where bollards are installed where end-on parking is the norm, then the bollards should be high enough to be seen through a car’s rear window. To anyone who says “it could be a child” show me a child of that height who is only 4 inches across - and if it was a child you wouldn’t be trying to nose/back up to it so the other end of the car wasn’t sticking out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Holding a trial on roads like that is vey irresponsible. Do they need police permission to do so?

I don't *think* so on the basis that cyclists (and pedestrians and horse riders) use the road by right, whereas motorists do by licence.

Do you feel the same about runners on roads?

Generally large races are run on closed roads. I've never seen issues caused by runners on minor roads of the nature of the ones I describe relating to cycling (e.g. darting in and out of cars) - if such issues do occur maybe the law on this should be reconsidered. However people just cycling or running on roads are absolutely fine - it's when people are against the clock that they start acting in a dangerous manner.

I don't think Strava segments are a good thing in general, by whatever mode of transport - generally they cause people to use shared infrastructure in a very selfish and often dangerous manner.

 

[Krokodil]

That said, particularly where bollards are installed where end-on parking is the norm, then the bollards should be high enough to be seen through a car’s rear window. To anyone who says “it could be a child” show me a child of that height who is only 4 inches across - and if it was a child you wouldn’t be trying to nose/back up to it so the other end of the car wasn’t sticking out.

Let's face it, these are the sort of people who drive into the space rather than reversing in as one should do.

 

[Falcon1200]

There should be no national speed limit,

None at all, really? So on an unrestricted section of motorway there would be a mix of traffic travelling at any speed up to what, 200mph, and it would be left to each driver to assess what their speed should be? Flipping heck!

I would not personally object to an increase to 80mph in suitable areas, but beyond that, absolutely not.

 

[Egg Centric]

None at all, really? So on an unrestricted section of motorway there would be a mix of traffic travelling at any speed up to what, 200mph, and it would be left to each driver to assess what their speed should be? Flipping heck!

Sure, why not? Works fine in Germany. Drivers already have to assess what their speed should be within the current limit. The same principles apply at much higher speeds.

(In practice it is unlikely many will be doing 200mph as even in Germany the conditions are rarely appropriate for it; it's also pointless as far as I know except on a very short trip as any time savings will be eaten up by extra fuel/charging stops - my main "aim" is getting our motorways moving at a roughly 110-120ish cruise in good conditions for all the economic and social benefits this will bring)

 

[Falcon1200]

Sure, why not?

Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me, even at 'only' 120mph. If it ever comes to pass I will be travelling by canal in future. No excessively fast driving there!

 

[Bletchleyite]

(In practice it is unlikely many will be doing 200mph as even in Germany the conditions are rarely appropriate for it; it's also pointless as far as I know except on a very short trip as any time savings will be eaten up by extra fuel/charging stops - my main "aim" is getting our motorways moving at a roughly 110-120ish cruise in good conditions for all the economic and social benefits this will bring)

The capacity reduction due to the significantly increased braking distances required for this would damage the economy, not improve it. Plus motorway deaths would skyrocket.

This is just about the worst suggestion for a transport policy I've seen since the Serpell report.

 

[GusB]

Single carriageway: 50
Single carriageway without marked centreline: 40

This is a rather blanket approach, and one that I don't agree with. Not all single carriageway roads are equal and I see no reason why 60mph shouldn't be permitted, including on roads with no centre line. If there is a particularly hazardous stretch, by all means impose a restriction on those sections.

There should be no national speed limit, in my view (which is not to say there couldn't be speed limits on particular stretches of motorway; certainly in congested ones variable speed limits are a very good idea for managing flows).

I don't agree with this, either. I could support increasing motorway speed limits to 80mph in certain circumstances, but I think the limits we have are set at the right levels.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a rather blanket approach, and one that I don't agree with. Not all single carriageway roads are equal and I see no reason why 60mph shouldn't be permitted, including on roads with no centre line. If there is a particularly hazardous stretch, by all means impose a restriction on those sections.

Generally single carriageway roads with no marked centreline are too narrow for two vehicles to pass safely. The elevated risk of head on collision to me justifies a lower limit, just as single carriageways justify a lower limit than duals for the exact same reason.

To increase such a limit on one that's wide enough, paint a centreline - easy!

 

[GusB]

Generally single carriageway roads with no marked centreline are too narrow for two vehicles to pass safely. The elevated risk of head on collision to me justifies a lower limit, just as single carriageways justify a lower limit than duals for the exact same reason.

To increase such a limit on one that's wide enough, paint a centreline - easy!

They're not all too narrow for two vehicles to pass safely and if you come across a tractor or other wide vehicle you simply slow down and, if necessary, pull in to let it past. As I said, not all roads are equal and the speed I drive at very much depends on factors such as visibility, how much other traffic is about, weather conditions on the day and the time of day. There's such a stretch of road a couple of miles away; if I was to drive it now, I'd probably be happy enough to take it at 60 but give it an hour or so when the light is beginning to fade and I'll be a little more cautious due to the increased risk of animals running out in front of me.

 

[gswindale]

Sure, why not? Works fine in Germany. Drivers already have to assess what their speed should be within the current limit. The same principles apply at much higher speeds.

(In practice it is unlikely many will be doing 200mph as even in Germany the conditions are rarely appropriate for it; it's also pointless as far as I know except on a very short trip as any time savings will be eaten up by extra fuel/charging stops - my main "aim" is getting our motorways moving at a roughly 110-120ish cruise in good conditions for all the economic and social benefits this will bring)

What economic benefits? I suppose the fuel companies will be better off due to the poorer fuel consumption. I guess also the pub industry might be better off due to the increased numbers of wakes taking place, but that might just offset the decrease in social drinkers.

Seriously though, unless you're doing a long journey, any increase in speed limits won't make much difference though.

It's about 160 miles from me to my parents, and probably about 5 isn't motorway. In current conditions that would take about 3 hours non stop, but I'd want a stop part way. Quickest journey by public transport is showing 3hr 45, so not dissimilar allowing for me to have a stretch and whatever part way through the drive.

Upping the limit would mean I could drive faster, but then I'd probably want extra stops to allow my brain time to rest a bit. I'd also need to fill up more often to ensure I had enough fuel for both journeys along with pootling around when at my parents.

 

[Peter Sarf]

"It just jumped out in front of me, wasn't wearing a hivis or anything"

What gets me are the people who prang bollards and complain about it. Do they not realise that the bollard they failed to see could have been a child? There was a photo of the parking spaces outside an American liquor store which was protected by a row of bollards, none of which remained vertical. It's painfully how apparent how many people drink and drive there.

Yes some bollards take a right beating. I do wish they were taller as otherwise they are a hazard rather than a control. But too true about a child or other animal - although they are more likely to jump OUT of the way (unlike the aforementioned tree !).

Now i am reminded of the colleague that stepped into the road ahead of me. A passing driver shouted "are you blind" to which my answer was YES. I don't believe the driver had noticed my colleagues white stick !.

Now that many cars have front and rear sensors I think there are more scrapes down the side of cars. So are we breeding complacency.

Near me there are some width restrictions. They are set in stone with large tall steel pipes. Those pipes are badly scratched and gouged !. I dread to think how many cars/vans have got a scrape !. I slow right down for them.

They're not all too narrow for two vehicles to pass safely and if you come across a tractor or other wide vehicle you simply slow down and, if necessary, pull in to let it past. As I said, not all roads are equal and the speed I drive at very much depends on factors such as visibility, how much other traffic is about, weather conditions on the day and the time of day. There's such a stretch of road a couple of miles away; if I was to drive it now, I'd probably be happy enough to take it at 60 but give it an hour or so when the light is beginning to fade and I'll be a little more cautious due to the increased risk of animals running out in front of me.

I think the problem with the part of the day when the light is beginning to fade is not just animals suddenly coming out to play but that peoples vision deteriorates before it improves. What I had explained to me is that the colour receptors in the human eye begin to lose detail as they are not sensitive enough in low light. Once things get dark enough the black and white receptors take over and vision is back to good albeit no colour but plenty of contrast. The tricky bit is different types of human switch from colour to B&W at different light levels. So while I might be happily driving in black and white someone else might be struggling in colour. I don't know how true or valid that all is but I personally notice it is hard to see until it is properly dark.

On a different tack I have been in a car where the driver was complaining about the person coming in the opposite direction "can't they see me", my driver could see perfectly well but I could judge that the person coming the other way too near the centre and slow - they had the sun in their eyes !.

So we have to remember to drive assuming everyone else has less ability than us.

 

[Brent Goose]

Perhaps germane to mention that raising the limits on HGVs 10 years ago didn’t produce the carnage on the roads the usual suspects said would happen