Reply With QuoteFoolish drivers would die attempting overtake manoeuvers.
Ok some will be driven in Europe, but not that many ? so for all the rest that will never leave our shores.
If a car/van/motorbike was restricted to 70 MPH.
pros: Insurance would/could be cheaper ? less fuel used ? cheaper vehicles ? possible less accidents ? less deaths ? less idiots on the road ?
cons: Boring.
Foolish drivers would die attempting overtake manoeuvers.
You've seen 2 lorries trying to get past each other on a 2 lane motorway right? Can take miles and miles because they're both maxed out but very slight differences in calibration on speed restrictor, air resistance, load weight, speedo calibration etc mean one eventually gets past the other.
Imagine that but for all the cars and vans. Would just be one massive traffic jam everywhere you went.
Agreed and it's inappropriate speed that is a major contributor to crashes not necessarily speed itself; doing 80mph on an empty early morning dual carriageway in dry weather compared with 50/60 in built up areas or poor visibility such as fog. I think if you limited the car to 70mph there is a risk that the idiots will just drive with the accelerator flat to the floor regardlessOriginally Posted by The Doc
Sent from my moto g(7) plus using Tapatalk
I don't follow that logic; you get held up by lorries as they are limited to 56mph and you are not so you get a build up of cars behind them as they close in on the moving roadblock at maybe 20mph.
If all the cars are doing 70 then that is it everyone is doing 70 or their abouts so their won't be hold ups because you can't close in on that moving obstruction as you can in the above example.
Exactly !! It’s a pain when your restricted to 90 kph and have to work out where and when to try overtakes depending on weight and wagon your in.
Since lockdown the standard of driving has gone downhill big time, I do over 2000 miles a week the majority of the time on the limiter but over the last month or so there’s so many cars getting in our way in lane 2 or 3 doing mid 50s on cruise which has become a real pain as I might get down to high 40 on the hill between 23a and 21a of the M1 but at 60 on the downhill bits trying to make up time.
Limiting cars I think is a bad idea.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
You'd still get people doing 50 in the middle/outside lane on motorways and I think you absolutely would get tailbacks as people all crawled along at 70.
Also, the motorways are statistically the safest UK roads, the most accidents happen on roads with lower speed limits and often at lower speeds, so insurance wouldn't be cheaper.
It's a myth that speeding causes accidents, it's poor driving that does - Sometimes that involves excess speed, but it still would with a 70MPH limit, because the accidents would happen at 60 in 40 areas as they do now.
When we get autonomous cars, they will be restricted to 70 on Dual carriageways and motorways and 60 on single carriageways with no other limits.
Hopefully, I'll be too old to 'drive' by then or too old to care, at least.
M
Last edited by snowman; 19th April 2022 at 11:54.
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
That's what the EU wants...and the gov likely to adopt "to keep the car manufacturers costs down"...
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/...cid=uxbndlbing
(although you can "push through" it...no doubt sending an SMS to the Police who will send a fine alot quicker than it took BoSun to get theirs*)
*maybe
None of these would happen.
Insurance companies would simply adjust preumiums upwards more based on age, experience, postcode, car value and engine size, than max mph.
I'm pretty certain that more fuel overall is burned by people pootling/commuting in urban streets/country lanes than those cruising down motorways at 70+.
Why cheaper vehicles? They still need to be built to the same standard and spec, just slower.
I suspect most accidents and deaths are at speeds well below 70.
Most examples of idiot driving are at speeds well below 70.
A lot of accidents on motorways are either caused by tailgaters or from someone not being seen in a blind spot whilst overtaking.
I don't see restricting cars to 70mph helping either, enforcing correct stopping distances would have a far greater safety benefit
Whilst vehicles are on the road,all and any problems mentioned will stay with us.
Idiots don't become safer at slower speeds. Apparently speed is not a major contributory factor in around two thirds of all road traffic accidents.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Sounds like a good reason not to do it.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Banning alcohol would make the roads safer.................................hang on, that's silly
They the government are supposedly bringing in that all new cars from June 2022 will be fitted with speed limiters, BUT you will still be able to over ride such device by flooring the gas pedal, for safety reasons.
That's what the article covers. Also these GPS related devices will enable the government to put charging "per road mile" arrangements in rather than (or in addition to) RFL plus need to replace the current and future loss of petrol/diesel tax incomes.
That's interesting. I hadn't noticed that drriving standards had dereriorated since lockdown. Mind you, owing to a preponderance of elderley drivers and holidaymakers where I live standards are pretty low anyway. Why do you think lockdown has affected standards?
Suppose you won't grow old or ever go on holiday.
Give it a few years we will all be electric, automated and have digital fines for abusing speed limits
RIAC
Well at least you haven't got the grey tracky bottoms brigade TWOC-ing and careering around the countryside then.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Nope, none of those, although some oldies wear baggy grey pants.
I think we are many years away from autonomous cars. There is so much legislation involved.
Standards of driving dropped significantly when the amount of traffic police reduced by such a large amount. You rarely see a Jam Sandwich on the motorway network anymore. Gone are the days when you might receive a roadside lecture on what you were doing wrong. So the poor driving becomes habitual.
During lockdown many of the professional drivers didn’t drive anymore and seemed to have been replaced by people that rarely drove on motorways. As such many didn’t have a scooby on how to do it. Predominately hogging lanes 2 & 3.
Before I retired I was subject to a driving competency test every two years by my employer. Part of their commitment to keeping us as safe as they could do given that I was averaging 30k miles per annum
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A bowling buddy of mine is a retired motorway cop and he said there are not enough police too police and a lot of the ones that are there don't bother with the "minor" things anymore which he said he would have stopped the driver for a few years back.
Chinos surely!
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Why buy a Omega/Breitling/Rolex, when a Casio G-Shock with tough solar and multiband 6 can do the job far better?
Not stirring, I just think it's a valid point.
If we are going to use tech to make roads safer they need to stop mobile use at the wheel ahead of this.
Not sure that works as an analogy.
That is more like why do they sell Audis when you can buy a Skoda or SEAT?
M
Sent from my ASUS_X00PD using Tapatalk
Breitling Cosmonaute 809 - What's not to like?
They already have
Yep! Mate of mine is retired traffic cop. Just shakes his head in disbelief when you talk about driving standards and current policing methodology
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
People are always amazed when you point out the official statistics. Speeding is one (of possibly more than one) cause of accidents in surprisingly few accidents. As you say, bad driving (on all its forms) is the biggest cause - bad decision making, failure to look, etc..
Seems people are easily amazed (and it's pointed out on TZ often enough) but it's the outcome of those accidents that are more important than their number and speed will be a big factor in this. Always overlooked by the lawbreakers.
It sort of works. Taking the Casio functionality as a baseline and considering it the perfectly nice 70mph car, buying a premium dive watch that can operate safely at many thousand feet under water, needs more maintenance, and doesn’t keep time as well is equivalent to buying a supercar and knowing you can only drive it on UK roads. But much like taking your supercar on track days, you could go deep sea diving with your watch if you wanted to, and that’s nice.
In reality you don’t buy a Rolex to tell the time better any more than you’d buy a Porsche to get to the shops quicker. It’s the experience, the potential, the paper-specs, the comparison with other models, and the feeling of owning such a thing that counts.
It reminds me of the German marques gentlemens agreement to cap top speeds at 155mph to avoid a speed (marketing…) arms race that encourages bad behaviour. A lot of it is marketing and trying to win the real life game of top trumps.
Maybe we should make aircraft fly more slowly so that the impact of a mishap is reduced. The illogical extension of this is to reduce all speed limits to zero; QED, no deaths whatsoever attributed to speed. However, the country would grind to a halt and there would be a revolt.
No one uses it, needs to be compulsory.
Daft argument, the limits we have are a compromise but obviously there is still a risk of death and injury.
It's illegal (hand-held anyway), what else can be done?
You have it all wrong. The magnitude of the impact in aircrafts is linked to altitude. We should make planes fly lower.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Golf and fishing are more dangerous, ban them
Posting Permissions
