Driving well below the speed limit

[Krokodil]

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

That was done to reduce the speed difference between different vehicles, not increase it. Letting cars rocket along at 120mph is not a good idea.

 

[Egg Centric]

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

There would not be a capacity reduction; while it's true that high speed offers less capacity as the motorway fills up the speed will naturally drop to approx 50mph anyway. The benefits of high speed are for quiet times.

Plus motorway deaths would skyrocket.

Even if they doubled - which I don't believe for a second (autobahns have about double the death rate and are usually far inferior roads) - 84 people died on our motorways in 2023 and this rate can reasonably be assumed to continue decreasing. I'm perfectly comfortable with those excess deaths for the benefits it would bring.

In practice it wouldn't double - Austrian autobahns have a limit and have broadly similar death rate to the German ones.

Letting cars rocket along at 120mph is not a good idea.

This is such emotive language. I'm not arguing for "frantic" driving, just chilled stress free cruising at significantly higher speeds than is legal today.

Try it yourself in Germany. Hire a car that's limited to and capable of 155mph (so you're not pushing something to the limit) and drive it at 120mph. You'll get used to it very quickly.

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!

I'm also not a fan of the 4mph speed limit for all boats...

 

[Krokodil]

This is such emotive language.

You're the one who described road safety advocates as "disgusting"

 

[Egg Centric]

You're the one who described road safety advocates as "disgusting"

No, I described proposed lower speed limits as disgusting. I've no problem with road safety advocates, even the ones who mistakenly advocate for low speed limits. In the same way I've no problem with people who advocated the recent online safety bill (for example) even though some of the laws that came out of it are disgusting.

 

[Krokodil]

No, I described proposed lower speed limits as disgusting.

Potato/potato. There are lots of things in this world which are "disgusting". Russian breaches of the Geneva Convention. People who don't clean up after their dogs. The state of the health service. The man who did 140mph down the A1(M) and killed two people. All things which justify the use of such an emotive word. Using the term to describe lower speed limits is bizarre.

I've no problem with road safety advocates, even the ones who mistakenly advocate for low speed limits.

How are they mistaken? They hold a different opinion to you. They generally have scientific evidence to back their views up. They may even have lost family members to road traffic collisions.

 

[AlterEgo]

No, I described proposed lower speed limits as disgusting. I've no problem with road safety advocates, even the ones who mistakenly advocate for low speed limits. In the same way I've no problem with people who advocated the recent online safety bill (for example) even though some of the laws that came out of it are disgusting.

I’m struggling to understand what disgusts you about them. I’d find some of them inconvenient, but they wouldn’t disgust me. FWIW, I think our limits are fine, I’d like to see 80 on motorways in fair conditions, that’s about it. I wouldn’t like British autobahns though; there are some appalling drivers here with a very inflated sense of their own importance.

 

[Egg Centric]

Potato/potato. There are lots of things in this world which are "disgusting". Russian breaches of the Geneva Convention. People who don't clean up after their dogs. The state of the health service. The man who did 140mph down the A1(M) and killed two people. All things which justify the use of such an emotive word. Using the term to describe lower speed limits is bizarre.

It's not potato/potato. There's a huge difference between calling someone's character disgusting versus disagreeing with someone about an issue (that would go for any of your examples above too).

How are they mistaken? They hold a different opinion to you. They generally have scientific evidence to back their views up. They may even have lost family members to road traffic collisions.

Because my value judgement is better than their value judgement

(the scientific evidence is extremely contentious btw)

I’m struggling to understand what disgusts you about them.

As with e.g. the online safety bill, I see them as part of our ever-ratcheting nannying/infantilisation of responsible adults. I believe this trend has corrosive effects both in terms of bringing the law into disrepute (and thus creating scofflaws - might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb) as well as interfering with fundamental liberties*.

*The speed limit thing isn't a fundamental liberty, but I'm referring to the overall problem type

 

[The exile]

I'm also not a fan of the 4mph speed limit for all boats...

I doubt “no breaking wash” (which is the critical point) would be exact enough for the lawyers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As with e.g. the online safety bill, I see them as part of our ever-ratcheting nannying/infantilisation of responsible adults.

Driving at 120mph on a British public road (given the design and level of crowding on them) is not the act of a responsible adult.

 

[Harpo]

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

I’d be in favour of 70mph for HGVs. It would eliminate the funnelling of all other traffic into lane 3 when a 56mph truck in lane 2 takes several miles to overtake a 55.99mph truck.

 

[Krokodil]

responsible adults

I've spent many years working with the British public in a variety of industries and I was long since disabused of the notion that most of them were responsible adults.

 

[AM9]

I've spent many years working with the British public in a variety of industries and I was long since disabused of the notion that most of them were responsible adults.

In my experience, those who persistently spout that their qualities are superior to other (unnamed) persons are amongst the least responsible in society.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’d be in favour of 70mph for HGVs. It would eliminate the funnelling of all other traffic into lane 3 when a 56mph truck in lane 2 takes several miles to overtake a 55.99mph truck.

I'm not sold on that for safety reasons, though England did increase HGVs to 50 on single carriageways to reduce overtaking. Notably not to 60 though...

 

[AM9]

I'm not sold on that for safety reasons, though England did increase HGVs to 50 on single carriageways to reduce overtaking. Notably not to 60 though...

If the current campaigning for a near blanket maximum limit of 50mph on single carriageway roads in the UK ever becomes law, a 50mph for HGVs would reduce a genuine need for overtaking.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the current campaigning for a near blanket maximum limit of 50mph on single carriageway roads in the UK ever becomes law, a 50mph for HGVs would reduce a genuine need for overtaking.

That is the main reason I support blanket 50 on singles - overtaking is basically eliminated aside from tractors and cyclists.

 

[AM9]

That is the main reason I support blanket 50 on singles - overtaking is basically eliminated aside from tractors and cyclists.

The A5183 (part of original A5 route) has just been reduced to 50mph or less between St Albans and Redbourn, - about time, high speed and irresponsible overtaking there has resulted in quite a few KSI incidents over the last few years.

 

[bramling]

I've spent many years working with the British public in a variety of industries and I was long since disabused of the notion that most of them were responsible adults.

That may well be true, however I’m not convinced that treating *everyone* like children is a responsible solution to that problem.

Really we need to get away from the notion that driving is a “lifeline” to people, and be prepared to remove some people from the roads - with extremely stiff penalties if they don’t comply. Governments won’t do that because it would jeopardise votes.

That is the main reason I support blanket 50 on singles - overtaking is basically eliminated aside from tractors and cyclists.

How do you guarantee it is eliminated? Most of the people who wouldn’t have overtaken before still won’t, whilst the most dangerous people of all will still do whatever they want.

In my experience, those who persistently spout that their qualities are superior to other (unnamed) persons are amongst the least responsible in society.

You’re essentially going back to the old saying that the trouble with this world is that intelligent people are full of doubts whilst stupid people are full of confidence. This runs a lot deeper than motor vehicle drivers unfortunately. Again, no politician will ever govern in a way which recognises this, as it would lose votes.

 

[Krokodil]

That may well be true, however I’m not convinced that treating *everyone* like children is a responsible solution to that problem.

I'm not sure that lowering speed limits on single carriageway roads to 50mph ("disgusting") is really treating everyone like children.

Really we need to get away from the notion that driving is a “lifeline” to people

Hear hear. People often get away with recklessly endangering (or actually taking) lives.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How do you guarantee it is eliminated? Most of the people who wouldn’t have overtaken before still won’t, whilst the most dangerous people of all will still do whatever they want.

Coupled with speed enforcement it will reduce. There are not only two groups of people.

 

[AM9]

You’re essentially going back to the old saying that the trouble with this world is that intelligent people are full of doubts whilst stupid people are full of confidence. This runs a lot deeper than motor vehicle drivers unfortunately. Again, no politician will ever govern in a way which recognises this, as it would lose votes.

There's no politics in my statement, just speaking from personal experience. However, those who don't practice caution on something as safety critical as drivers' behaviour don't seem to ooze consideration for others nor even basic intelligence.

 

[Egg Centric]

I doubt “no breaking wash” (which is the critical point) would be exact enough for the lawyers.

Given that boats don't (usually) have speedos, it seems easier to tell to me than any particular speed - just look behind you!

(Still it's a far more niche thing than getting the country moving; I also suspect anyone actually prosecuted under this is grossly violating the limit... although even 1mph over it is like doing 75 in a 60, proportionally...)

 

[Tetchytyke]

The issue we have on the roads is that enforcement of driving standards is expensive. It requires manpower. But enforcement of speed is cheap. Stick up some average speed cameras and away you go.

So what happens is that poor driving goes unpunished, and this means you just get more poor driving. The old dear who pulled out on me last week on an unrestricted road then proceeded to pootle along at 22mph won’t ever get caught by speed cameras but she is clearly a horrifically dangerous driver.

 

[Meerkat]

So fine when drivers can get away with speeding but silly when they can’t?

Exactly. When arbitrary laws are enforced by coppers they don’t give such unreasonable outcomes.
eg they could stop people doing 75 on a busy motorway in heavy rain , but wouldn’t be bothered by 90 on a four lane M25 at 11pm. Even copper operated speed cameras are reasonable - they clearly don’t ticket everybody breaking the limit.
It’s horribly Germanic to have arbitrary laws and then enforce them rigidly. It’s really not English. Are we going to criminalise jaywalking next, to improve safety?

Except that it didn't work. Road fatality rates today are a fraction of those in the 20th century. Speed limits and the enforcement thereof are part of the reason for this fall.

That’s an assumption - there are far bigger factors.
What annoys me is lower and lower speed limits are thrown in with next to zero consultation because it’s ’safer’ without any business case. How much safer and how much will that cost in wasted time?
If they build a new road they boast about the economic benefits of saving a minute or two (how many billions on HS2?), but they steal that time away from us due to ideology.

 

[Ollie29]

Speed limits are there for a reason; the human being behind the wheel is the dangerous factor.

Those who drive above the speed limit cause crashes, and those who drive well below it can also cause them.

 

[Indigo Soup]

The old dear who pulled out on me last week on an unrestricted road then proceeded to pootle along at 22mph won’t ever get caught by speed cameras but she is clearly a horrifically dangerous driver.

In principle you could set a speed camera to capture anyone driving below a threshold speed. In practice, defining that minimum speed would be almost impossible. There'd be some justification for using 25mph on motorways, but even that is dubious.

It’s horribly Germanic to have arbitrary laws and then enforce them rigidly. It’s really not English. Are we going to criminalise jaywalking next, to improve safety?

Probably yes. The self-driving car lobby are very keen to criminalise crossing the road, because it causes problems for them. If they get to say that people crossing the road are automatically in the wrong, it's not the software company's fault when they get killed, and the cars don't have to figure out if they need to stop for them.

Those who drive above the speed limit cause crashes, and those who drive well below it can also cause them.

There will always be road accidents1 for as long as there are road vehicles, because there are too many environmental variables to completely eliminate risk. But if they happen at lower speeds, they'll do less damage. There's therefore a tradeoff between letting people get where they're going very quickly on clear, good quality roads, and stopping people who don't know better killing themselves and others on busy, poor roads.

Ironically, the less car-dependent the country is, the easier it is to have clear, good-quality roads and to enforce high driver standards. Which means that people who want to blast along at 120mph should want everyone else to take the train and get out of their way.

 

[Ollie29]

There will always be road accidents1 for as long as there are road vehicles, because there are too many environmental variables to completely eliminate risk. But if they happen at lower speeds, they'll do less damage. There's therefore a tradeoff between letting people get where they're going very quickly on clear, good quality roads, and stopping people who don't know better killing themselves and others on busy, poor roads.

Ironically, the less car-dependent the country is, the easier it is to have clear, good-quality roads and to enforce high driver standards. Which means that people who want to blast along at 120mph should want everyone else to take the train and get out of their way.

Exactly!

Going right the way back to the main question of this post, it is rather infuriating when you are on a 60mph country road lets say (that's safe enough to be doing 60) and you get stuck behind someone that is doing 40mph or less. This creates accidents I imagine, just as much as someone speeding on the same road doing 60mph+.

Why drive on a 60mph road if you're going to tootle along doing 40...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly!

Going right the way back to the main question of this post, it is rather infuriating when you are on a 60mph country road lets say (that's safe enough to be doing 60) and you get stuck behind someone that is doing 40mph or less. This creates accidents I imagine, just as much as someone speeding on the same road doing 60mph+.

Why drive on a 60mph road if you're going to tootle along doing 40...

Speed within reason doesn't cause that many accidents in and of itself. What it mostly does, though, is make them more severe. With energy being the square of speed it doesn't take much more speed to make collisions vastly more severe.

Someone driving at 40mph is almost certainly safer for themselves and others than someone driving at 60mph. This is slightly affected by the frustration it causes which might result in people doing dangerous overtakes, though.

 

[sprunt]

In principle you could set a speed camera to capture anyone driving below a threshold speed. In practice, defining that minimum speed would be almost impossible. There'd be some justification for using 25mph on motorways, but even that is dubious.

When notices are sent out after speed cameras are triggered, is the process automatic or is there some human involvement? If it's automatic, any congestion could lead to loads of tickets being sent out to people for the "crime" of getting caught in a traffic jam, which would be terrible politically for whoever had introduced the scheme so I can't see it being implemented for that reason alone.

 

[bluenoxid]

My view is that the quality of warnings on roads has fallen, which has reduced confidence in the ability to drive particularly unfamiliar roads at a higher speed approaching the speed limit.

Reducing the speed limit/average speed achieved by vehicles also reduces the distance travelled every second and gives more time to react to incidents. That can reduce the number of incidents and their severity.

 

[bramling]

Someone driving at 40mph is almost certainly safer for themselves and others than someone driving at 60mph.

Given the numbers of people I experience

(1) pulling out of a side-road when they shouldn’t and then driving at 40 mph or sometimes less

and

(2) on motorways people doing well under 70 mph who change lanes to the right when they shouldn’t

I’m not sure this is the case at all. And in a lot of cases there’s an interesting correlation between people who make these dangerous errors and driving round in poorly maintained vehicles.

I’d more trust the 60 mph person whose focussing on what they’re doing and bothers to maintain their vehicle properly.