Speeding on motorways

[Minilad]

The problem being that it would likely be viewed as a wasteful exercise. As you say, under the current 70mph limits it is sort of accepted that "about 80" is the norm, and you're relatively unlikely to get a tug for doing that speed. So why spend money simply making what is already the 'unofficial norm' official?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the limit was raised to 80 the "unofficial norm" would then become 90. Speed limits are something a lot of people are happy to break as they think, wrongly, that they are OK because cars are much safer now and I am a very good driver.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the limit was raised to 80 the "unofficial norm" would then become 90.

It wouldn't if it was then properly enforced.

I've seen (a colleague got it) a Swiss speeding ticket for 112km/h in a 110km/h area. We don't have to carry on the 10% + 2mph thing...

 

[Minilad]

It wouldn't if it was then properly enforced.

I've seen (a colleague got it) a Swiss speeding ticket for 112km/h in a 110km/h area. We don't have to carry on the 10% + 2mph thing...

If it should be enforced at 80 it should also be enforced at 70.
Is there any other facet of life where the law is so blatantly ignored as speed limits? Buying train tickets perhaps!!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it should be enforced at 80 it should also be enforced at 70.

I think the lack of enforcement at 70 is acceptance that 70 is really a bit low for the motorway limit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If it should be enforced at 80 it should also be enforced at 70.
Is there any other facet of life where the law is so blatantly ignored as speed limits? Buying train tickets perhaps!!

Planning permission and building regs might be another one. DIYers routinely disregard them and unless someone complains enforcement is non-existent.

 

[anme]

I dislike 20 zones also. It's a difficult exercise to stick at that speed; most decent drivers can manage a steady 30ish by 'feel', but 20 requires frequent speedo checking. The blanket use of such low limits is, in my experience, totally counter productive, as a vast majority see it as a nuisance and completely disregard it. There appears barely any attempt to enforce the limits either, making the whole thing nothing more than an exercise in erecting signage. A far better policy would be to employ the limit only where it it justified, eg schools, shopping areas and so on, and use a combination of road planning and enforcement to back it up.

I would disagree. If it makes life unpleasant for drivers, that's a big advantage in itself. We simply don't want people driving in the kind of places where 20 mph limits are place.

 

[ExRes]

It wouldn't if it was then properly enforced.

How is it to be enforced though?, if the Police enforce it they will be called by many, not all of course before the screams arrive, Nazis who should be doing more important things, if it's enforced by cameras then the Government and councils are accused of milking the poor innocent public of their hard earned money

I think it's called a no win situation

 

[EM2]

If I lived in London I probably wouldn't own a car either. Car clubs provide them when needed, and you can hire one that suits that occasion (e.g. a van if shifting "stuff").

If you're anywhere near a car club parking slot. The nearest one to me is fifteen minutes away on the bus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How is it to be enforced though?

Smart Motorways, which include cameras while getting drivers on-side by providing other benefits e.g. hard shoulder running and better information.

 

[anme]

Smart Motorways, which include cameras while getting drivers on-side by providing other benefits e.g. hard shoulder running and better information.

Why would we care about getting criminals (i.e. speeding drivers) onside? We don't talk about getting drug dealers or burglars onside!

 

[Busaholic]

I think the lack of enforcement at 70 is acceptance that 70 is really a bit low for the motorway limit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Planning permission and building regs might be another one. DIYers routinely disregard them and unless someone complains enforcement is non-existent.

Or 'retrospective planning permission' is sought, especially by the rich and arrogant, and, unfortunately, is usually given. I think, if given, other than in truly exceptional circumstances, a large fine should accompany it.

 

[BestWestern]

I would disagree. If it makes life unpleasant for drivers, that's a big advantage in itself. We simply don't want people driving in the kind of places where 20 mph limits are place.

That's a plainly daft and rather ill-informed attitude to take when an entire city is blanketed with 20mph limits. The residents of nearly every street in Bristol/Portsmouth/whichever other council chooses it should simply be annoyed off of the roads, then, because 'we don't want people driving' in any area within their city, at all?!!

Your comment merely supports what I said previously, that 20mph limits need to be targeted, not blanket.

 

[richw]

I wouldn't touch a car with the 1.6HDi with a bargepole, because the turbos are made of chocolate and fail.

I've always erred towards petrol with my cars, because you get more car for your money and with the mileage I do, they tend to have less complicated engines in my price range, and a diesel doesn't offer much saving for the amount of time I'm likely to keep the car for.

I voluntarily terminated a 4 year old 1.6 hdi to Peugeot Finance as the cost of the repairs were more than the car was worth at 4 years. It had full main dealer service history and had been serviced at better intervals than recommended. It had around 75000 on the clock. Learnt my lesson with that awful engine there.

 

[anme]

That's a plainly daft and rather ill-informed attitude to take when an entire city is blanketed with 20mph limits. The residents of nearly every street in Bristol/Portsmouth/whichever other council chooses it should simply be annoyed off of the roads, then, because 'we don't want people driving' in any area within their city, at all?!!

Your comment merely supports what I said previously, that 20mph limits need to be targeted, not blanket.

What I said makes perfect sense. Cities are places for people, not cars.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That's a plainly daft and rather ill-informed attitude to take when an entire city is blanketed with 20mph limits.

Even areas which have widespread 20mph limits don't "blanket" them/ Even Islington doesn't apply the 20mph limit to the main A roads.

But I think there is nothing wrong with having more use of 20mph limits on residential roads, not just outside schools, etc. The road safety benefits of slowing down in residential areas are well noted; get hit at 20mph you'll probably survive, but get hit at 30mph and you probably won't.

Quite simply, if you cannot drive your car at 20mph without staring at the speedo you should not be on the road.

 

[anme]

get hit at 20mph you'll probably survive, but get hit at 30mph and you probably won't.

How can any car driver know this statistic and NOT support 20mph zones?

 

[bnm]

That's a plainly daft and rather ill-informed attitude to take when an entire city is blanketed with 20mph limits.

That too is a pretty daft and ill-informed statement.

Bristol has not been entirely blanketed with a 20mph limit.

 

[miami]

Shocked by how many people admit to their inadequacies as drivers (I can't do 20mph)

I'll happily poodle along at 95 down an empty motorway, soon as I hit a town though it's down to third and about 27-28, and off main roads even when it's a 30 it's down to 22-23mph. I don't want people driving past my front garden at 30mph, so why would I think it's ok to drive past theirs at that speed?

From my speed awareness course it seems almost everyone caught is caught in a 30mph zone. Shows a worrying lack of awareness or concern for vulnerable road users.

 

[BestWestern]

That too is a pretty daft and ill-informed statement.

Bristol has not been entirely blanketed with a 20mph limit.

I can edit my wording if it fails the pedantry test...

However, the point is that there are cities, including the two I mentioned, where very substantial swathes of the road network are covered by 20mph limits. The comment to which I was replying stated that "we simply don't want people driving where there are 20mph limits", which clearly is wholly impractical when that covers vast numbers of residential streets. A 20mph limit has far more effect when it isn't plastered across entire areas, because doing so appears to many people to be lazy and unnecessary. A targeted limit in 'high risk' areas is far more likely to be respected and adhered to.

 

[bnm]

It isn't plastered across entire areas either. Many main routes and some residential streets remain 30 mph.

However, I would like to see many more roads reduced to 20 mph in my city, Bristol.

 

[BestWestern]

In most cases I believe the usual is for the main roads to stay 30, with the side roads, residential streets etc being lowered.

Do you notice many drivers who obey the lower limit since the Bristol scheme launched?

 

[krus_aragon]

How affordable are the insurance premiums these days for both very young male and female drivers?

A little over a decade ago, my first year's premium was ~£1600 on a 1.4l Vauxhall Astra. I held a provisional license, and was the only named driver. This sum was paid by the bank of mum and dad, as my father had just received a temporary suspension, and we needed somebody to be able to drive the car.

Fast forward twelve years, and I've just bought my first car since that Astra. It's been a while since I owned a car (no No Claims Discount), but being older and having held a full license for that long reduced my first year's premium to ~£400.

Edit: that's for a 1.6l Fiesta.

 

[anme]

I can edit my wording if it fails the pedantry test...

However, the point is that there are cities, including the two I mentioned, where very substantial swathes of the road network are covered by 20mph limits. The comment to which I was replying stated that "we simply don't want people driving where there are 20mph limits", which clearly is wholly impractical when that covers vast numbers of residential streets. A 20mph limit has far more effect when it isn't plastered across entire areas, because doing so appears to many people to be lazy and unnecessary. A targeted limit in 'high risk' areas is far more likely to be respected and adhered to.

If drivers are such bad people they will not obey a 20mph limit in a city, then they must be taken off the roads. Again - we do not worry whether drug dealers or burglars will "respect" a law before we make it.

 

[BestWestern]

If drivers are such bad people they will not obey a 20mph limit in a city, then they must be taken off the roads. Again - we do not worry whether drug dealers or burglars will "respect" a law before we make it.

Very few drivers observe this particular law, in my experience.

 

[anme]

Very few drivers observe this particular law, in my experience.

Then we need proper enforcement, or simply to ban cars altogether from these areas.

 

[BestWestern]

Then we need proper enforcement, or simply to ban cars altogether from these areas.

I think we're circling....!

My point with banning is that you cannot simply prohibit cars from residential areas where those vehicles' owners are living - where are they going to park them?! And how are they going to get to and from that location?!

I am entirely in favour of booting private cars from town and city centres; there are far too many places utterly ruined by the relentless march of all day long traffic and the associated problems that come with it. But these 20 zones extend far beyond that; in fact in many cases those very roads which would benefit so much from a loss of traffic are still 30 zones!

 

[miami]

Then we need proper enforcement, or simply to ban cars altogether from these areas.

I find it impossible for a car to get into this position without driving on the pavement and thus the driver breaking the law.

However as the majority of people do it, it's not going to be enforced.

When most people break a law, enforcing it is hard and has to start with changing attitudes. Sticks don't work against 80% of the voters.

Whether it's parking on the tiny pavement and stopping wheelchairs getting past, or whether it's doing 40mph up a residential road, the same applies.

 

[Busaholic]

Shocked by how many people admit to their inadequacies as drivers (I can't do 20mph)

I'll happily poodle along at 95 down an empty motorway, soon as I hit a town though it's down to third and about 27-28, and off main roads even when it's a 30 it's down to 22-23mph. I don't want people driving past my front garden at 30mph, so why would I think it's ok to drive past theirs at that speed?

From my speed awareness course it seems almost everyone caught is caught in a 30mph zone. Shows a worrying lack of awareness or concern for vulnerable road users.

I would put myself broadly in your camp, although 85 rather than 95, though it's mostly academic as I don't stray too far from motorway-less Cornwall for months at a time. I did once receive 3 points for going at 35 in a 30 mph zone, although in mitigation the speed limit on the bit of dual carriageway on which I was caught had been reduced from 40 mph the previous month, with no warning signs to this effect!

I can truthfully say that my life was probably saved by a high-heeled shoe! A long time ago on a Saturday I was returning from a shopping trip on foot with my wife, we were nearing home, and one of my wife's heels broke. As we stopped for her to effect a repair, a car came careering down our road ( a side road, with cars parked on both sides) at, I later estimated,55 mph in a 30 zone, didn't make the slight bend and crashed into a parked car before crossing the pavement, demolishing a neighbour's brick wall and embedding itself in the house. It's a long story, the driver was never prosecuted for the reason that the police never turned up and, in the end, the ambulance crew that had turned up and didn't want to go before the police arrived had to leave - the driver, obviously disabled by drink or drugs or both, had a few cuts, but the neighbour, a taxi driver, his mate and myself hung on to the driver for as long as possible before admitting defeat and letting him stagger off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I find it impossible for a car to get into this position without driving on the pavement and thus the driver breaking the law.

It isn't, it could have been pushed, which would be legal.

Yes, that seems ridiculous, and to some extent it is. But criminal law operates on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt", and it is not "beyond reasonable doubt" that a car on the footway was not pushed there, as it is feasible that it could have been.

The solution is a law specifically prohibiting parking on the footway (as exists in the Greater London area already), and that is once again under discussion, I believe.

 

[TheNewNo2]

Shocked by how many people admit to their inadequacies as drivers (I can't do 20mph)

I'll happily poodle along at 95 down an empty motorway, soon as I hit a town though it's down to third and about 27-28, and off main roads even when it's a 30 it's down to 22-23mph. I don't want people driving past my front garden at 30mph, so why would I think it's ok to drive past theirs at that speed?

From my speed awareness course it seems almost everyone caught is caught in a 30mph zone. Shows a worrying lack of awareness or concern for vulnerable road users.

Motorways are the only places I intentionally break the speed limit, and even then only when it's decontrolled. I don't have a set speed for residential areas, I just go with what feels safe and below the limit.

 

[underbank]

My point with banning is that you cannot simply prohibit cars from residential areas where those vehicles' owners are living - where are they going to park them?! And how are they going to get to and from that location?!

I am entirely in favour of booting private cars from town and city centres; there are far too many places utterly ruined by the relentless march of all day long traffic and the associated problems that come with it. But these 20 zones extend far beyond that; in fact in many cases those very roads which would benefit so much from a loss of traffic are still 30 zones!

Banning cars from city centres is a laudable aim, but in reality, completely impossible in many towns due to simple lack of alternative roads. How much money would you like to spend on building by-passes to enable it? Take Lancaster - the A6 goes straight through it. The only alternative is the M6, When the M6 is closed due to an accident (quite a regular occurrence), Lancaster city centre is log-jammed. The only relief is through small residential streets, which is a far worse hazard!

As for 20mph roads, I agree, we have blanket coverage, even down to 20mph signs at the end of tiny cul-de-sacs where there simply isn't enough road to get over 20mph (literally just 1 or 2 houses each side). Then we have the "main" roads that are still 30mph, even where they're passing schools and housing estates where there are large numbers of vulnerable people. Makes no sense at all. We even have a few schools directly on 50 and 60 mph roads that havn't been traffic calmed. By contrast, we have 20mph limits on relatively wide/clear/safe roads. Seems to have been no common sense at all when deciding where to place the limits - seems more a case of trying to get to some magical figure for miles of road to tick a box rather than the intention of road safety. Oh, and yes, most in our area aren't enforceable because the council either havn't got the legal by-laws properly enacted or because the council havn't enought enforcement offices (apparently, the police can't do anything about breaching a 20 limit other than a verbal warning!).