# No to lowering speed limit.



## snorri (13 Sep 2011)

I thought this was a bit disappointing

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/...cil-drops-plan-to-lower-speed-limit-1.1123266


----------



## HLaB (14 Sep 2011)

I saw that on the news the other day, sign clutter seemed a lame excuse to me.


----------



## Banjo (15 Sep 2011)

If speedlimits were better enforced it would have more effect than lowering the limit. 

Where I live when they introduced cameras in it was really noticeable that cars were slowing down through the villages. Personally I like cameras, if you dont want to pay the fine then dont do the crime. 

Re the blot on the landscape argument why not just paint the limits on the road in rural areas?


----------



## Dan B (15 Sep 2011)

Re the "blot on the landscape" argument, I'd suggest - admittedly without having seen it - that the road itself, and the traffic it enables, is a much bigger blot on the landscape than a few signs could ever be


----------



## albion (15 Sep 2011)

The country is near bankrupt so a blanket motorway limit 60mph and A road 50mph would help with our balance of payments.




And if every country had such sensible limits then the cost of oil would either fall or fail to go further into orbit.


----------



## Alun (15 Sep 2011)

albion said:


> The country is near bankrupt so a blanket motorway limit 60mph and A road 50mph would help with our balance of payments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll leave those decisions to you expert economist types!


----------



## HLaB (15 Sep 2011)

albion said:


> The country is near bankrupt so a blanket motorway limit 60mph and A road 50mph would help with our balance of payments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Playing devil's advocate on one hand most economies succeed better financially with faster more efficient transport links but on the other hand the cost saving due to accident reduction alone would out weigh this IMO. Actually the whole road should be replaced with a high speed rail line


----------



## Mr Celine (17 Sep 2011)

snorri said:


> I thought this was a bit disappointing
> 
> http://www.heraldsco...limit-1.1123266



IMHO a very sensible decision. Lowering the speed limits on these two roads would be expensive and intrusive due to all the 50mph repeater signs but more importantly it would have no effect on the casualty rates.
Both roads are weekend race tracks for motorcycles and the KSI stats merely reflect this. One notable fatality on the A708 involved one organ donor biker colliding with the fire engine on its way to hose down the wreck of the previous crash. 
Due to the twisting nature of both these roads there are few spots where it is possible to reach 50mph in a car. On a motorcycle it's a different story, and as the bikers ignore the 60mph limit they are hardly likely to comply with a 50mph limit.

I cycle on the A708 most weeks. The speeding bikers do not pass close or on blind corners and are far less dangerous to me (and everyone else except themselves) than the 35mph Sunday drivers.


----------



## twobiker (17 Sep 2011)

I don't think lowering the speed limit will bring down the price of fuel, we will still pay the same tax on it and world markets will still jack up the price every time someone sneezes in the middle east.


----------



## albion (17 Sep 2011)

It would certainly cut deaths as no doubt is the fact that car miles have declined quite dramatically.Some reckon that the deficit means sterling has a further decline of 50%+ so £10 a gallon by 2013 sounds possible.


----------



## snorri (17 Sep 2011)

Mr Celine said:


> IMHO a very sensible decision. Lowering the speed limits on these two roads would be expensive and intrusive due to all the 50mph repeater signs but more importantly it would have no effect on the casualty rates.


As you have local knowledge, I will take your word for it, but I am generally in favour of lower limits on rural roads.

My disappointment comment was based on local experience of a road with a bad crash record where the limit was reduced. The vast majority of users obey the new limit and they have the effect of a rolling road block on the would be racers. The slower average speed has dramatically reduced the number of close passes of cyclists as drivers used to squeeze through in the face of oncoming traffic, now they seem happier to hold back.
Although the limit was reduced in order to deter boy racers from killing themselves, it has had the effect of reducing the danger caused by these drivers who treat speed limits as speed targets and so create a hazard for cyclists and pedestrians.
The new 50mph signage could not by any stretch of the imagination be described as intrusive.


----------



## gaz (18 Sep 2011)

Banjo said:


> If speedlimits were better enforced it would have more effect than lowering the limit.
> 
> Where I live when they introduced cameras in it was really noticeable that cars were slowing down through the villages. Personally I like cameras, if you dont want to pay the fine then dont do the crime.
> 
> Re the blot on the landscape argument why not just paint the limits on the road in rural areas?



You mean they slowed down where the cameras are?

Every local road user knows where the cameras are and they just speed in between, fixed cameras are a waist of time!


----------



## DiddlyDodds (18 Sep 2011)

HLaB said:


> Playing devil's advocate on one hand most economies succeed better financially with faster more efficient transport links but on the other hand the cost saving due to accident reduction alone would out weigh this IMO. Actually the whole road should be replaced with a high speed rail line



Yea , change the road for Rail ,, so we can all stand at the side and watch the train wizzzz past , coz sure as hell no one could afford to use it ,


----------



## albion (18 Sep 2011)

The rule is that we are allowed to know where the cameras are so we can then choose where to increase death risk by driving illegally.A perversity of so called freedom.


----------



## albion (29 Sep 2011)

Seems they are about to increase the motorway limit to 80mph.Maybe the extra 15% of fuel needed will help push of fuel costs and keep the riff-raff off em.Nutty as a fruit cake as far as I'm concerned. Costs and costs!


----------



## growingvegetables (29 Sep 2011)

And a month before the legislation becomes active, we'll have the speed merchants "pushing the enforcement envelope", and driving at 90mph as a matter of course.


----------



## Alun (29 Sep 2011)

albion said:


> Seems they are about to increase the motorway limit to 80mph.Maybe the extra 15% of fuel needed will help push of fuel costs and keep the riff-raff off em.Nutty as a fruit cake as far as I'm concerned. Costs and costs!



Where do you get 15% from?


----------



## albion (29 Sep 2011)

Try http://www.mpgforspeed.com 

56mph has been the accepted all round efficient speed though 60mph might be optimum these days.No doubt they used official documents for this. Use of air conditioning etc could skew a lower percentage in certain countries.I made the 15% up using personal experience of 70mpg at a constant 60mph and stats I've seen over the years.



If you look at the graph you will see that the smaller modern cars appear to lose a good 20%.


And this is striking. "The old national speed limit of 55 mph was created to address the energy crisis in the early 1970's - not safety purposes (although it did help safety)."




Yet there is now both an energy crisis and a major recession.


----------



## Alun (29 Sep 2011)

Whilst I accept that cars use more fuel at higher speeds I think 20% is overstating the case, and can see why you "made the 15% up".

The national speed limit in Britain was reduced to 50 in the early 1970's, and not 55. Your link is to a US site!


----------



## albion (29 Sep 2011)

Maybe it is more like 15%. It looked more at a glance.

That calculator certainly works at 15% and as said, discounting air conditioning which is used more in the US it may just be more.


----------



## srw (30 Sep 2011)

Alun said:


> Whilst I accept that cars use more fuel at higher speeds I think 20% is overstating the case, and can see why you "made the 15% up".
> 
> The national speed limit in Britain was reduced to 50 in the early 1970's, and not 55. Your link is to a US site!



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15116064

The RAC reckon it's 20%.


----------



## pshore (30 Sep 2011)

If you listen to Philip Hammond on the Today programme back in May on Ruthless Clampdown on reckless drivers the bigger picture emerges.

Looking through rose tinted glasses, the 80mph limit is a sweetner to allow through some lower limits and more FPN based policing and driver education.


----------



## gavroche (1 Oct 2011)

I think there should be no speed limit on the motorway. After all, it is the safest road to be on. Fuel consumption is totally irrelevant as it is the driver who pays the bill so the driver can decide how much fuel he wants to burn.
As for the environment, I have never believed in all that for cars. Cars are a lot cleaner now than years ago. Also, the air in our cities is also cleaner ( remember London in pre 60's years?), the rivers are cleaner and so on, so lets stop going on about "saving the planet". The planet will survive with or without humans. 
80mph is a good start, in line with the rest of Europe for a change. As for safety, it will make no difference as no-one is forced to drive at 80, it is your own choice!
The figures for road fatalities in France have gone down this year compared to last year or any other years. ( heard on French radio).Why? because drivers are better educated , more police to enforce the law and the price of fuel has also helped in drivers voluntarely reducing their speed.


----------



## pshore (1 Oct 2011)

gavroche said:


> As for the environment, I have never believed in all that for cars. Cars are a lot cleaner now than years ago. Also, the air in our cities is also cleaner ( remember London in pre 60's years?), the rivers are cleaner and so on, so lets stop going on about "saving the planet". The planet will survive with or without humans.



What is your opinion on something like the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster ?


----------



## machew (1 Oct 2011)

The only reason that the GOV is pushing this is that it is popular with the voters and doesn't cost anything, in fact it may raise money with the higher fuel usage. But that is just my cynical opinion.


----------



## gavroche (1 Oct 2011)

pshore said:


> What is your opinion on something like the BP Gulf of Mexico disaster ?


Crude oil is a natural product so it will clear itself with time. Anyway, accidents in nature also happen, volcanoes, typhoons....stop blaming humans for all the wrongs.


----------



## mickle (1 Oct 2011)

gavroche said:


> The planet will survive with or without humans.



Fiicking genius.


----------



## al78 (2 Oct 2011)

gavroche said:


> Crude oil is a natural product so it will clear itself with time. Anyway, accidents in nature also happen, volcanoes, typhoons....stop blaming humans for all the wrongs.



That is like trivializing arson by saying forest fires happen naturally.

Or trivializing murder because people die of all sorts of things anyway.



BTW, volcanoes are essential for life on earth.


----------



## albion (2 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1543095"]
Of course it is. Add in the "we're the green government", pretending that they're waymakers when in fact they're behind the voters, and it's nauseating.
[/quote]I have to admit that this government is one of the cleverest I have seen. They are getting the better of the Lib Dems at every tricky turn too.





I have my doubts about the clever populism being of any use whatsoever for Britain.


----------



## Bad Company (19 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1543085"]
And don't forget that average speed cameras are also fixed. And, as Tony the Tiger says, they're ggggreat.[/quote]

Especially for motorcyclists who can ignore as the cameras are forward facing and motorbikes do not have front number plates.


----------



## Bad Company (19 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1543104"]
Yeahhhhhh, let's tax those cyclists as well.

Where've you been anyway? We've had a few speed apologist threads and you're usually a regular to those...
[/quote]

No apologies from me. Spend a fair amount of time on Twitter and here www.pistonheads.co.uk 

By the way why do you want to tax cyclists?


----------



## Bad Company (19 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1543106"]
I don't. I thought we were playing the "let's see who can come up with the most overly used irrelevance" game.[/quote]


You win.


----------

