General Chat

It was on the 18th of March 1935 that the 30 mph speed limit was first introduced.

Considering how much more traffic there now is and how much more densely populated our towns are compared with 79 years ago, isn't it about time speed limits were reviewed?

There has been talk about reducing the speed limit to 20 mph in urban areas. Yet, at the same time, it has also been suggested that the speed limit on motorways be increased to 80 mph. What do you think the speed limits should be?

The first speed limits were 4 mph in urban areas and 8 mph in the countryside. Whilst driving through an urban area you used to have to have had somebody walking in front of your car waving a red flag to warn people that a car was coming. And we think health and safety is ott now :-S

Brighton has introduced a lower speed limit for parts of the city - some people (mainly the anti-car faction) approve, others don't. In many parts of the Capital, drivers would be cheering if they could sustain the heady speeds of 30mph!

A speed limit of 20 mph in residential side streets isn't a bad idea, especially if there are parked cars which could be hiding small pedestrians. A problem arises when a good A or B road passes through a village - some drivers forget or ignore the current 30 mph speed limit.

Raise the speed limit on the motorways? Only if the speed was variable to suit the road and weather conditions. A constant 50 mph probably produces a better rate of fuel economy.

aaaaaaaah! maybe so, but a queue of traffic 10 miles long at 50mph would not allow other traffic to join!!

you MUST have gaps!.........try crossing a busy 30 mph road, that does'nt have pedestrian crossing facilities

Bob

I DO agree about the fuel economy, but in practice "YOU" are NOT the only person using the road.

and are merely, an unofficial road block!

try overtaking a young motorcyclist who is riding one of those speed limited bikes!!!!

Bob - I wasn't suggesting that 'only' our family drives at 50 mph - on motorways we normally observe the speed limit, but drive to suit the road conditions which includes matching the speed of other vehicles ;-)

On a clear road, it would drive me potty sticking to 50 mph all of the time. On the other hand, hasn't there been some studies which suggest that a lower but constant speed for all would reduce the 'pulsing' that occurs on say the M25?

Agree with Bob about motorways. Many cars now have excellent fuel economy at 70mph with top speeds of 140 plus. We have spent a lot of money on motorways so that we can safely drive at very high speeds on them most of time. Bet nobody restricts HS2 to 70mph.

Suburban streets are very different. Wherever possible it is vital to keep pedestrians and cyclists away from cars and lorries. By passes, cycle tracks, pedestrian underpasses, bridges etc. When that is impossible (in housing estates, for example) 20mph is plenty - with no distractions from sat nav or mobile phones

Unfortunately spending lots of money on motorways and technology doesn't improve peoples ability to drive. A car capable of doing 140 mph would be a lethal weapon with the wrong person at the wheel.

Quite so, Graham, that's why my "you" was in quote marks..........I have recently taken to using a stretch of the "old great north road........."
I can amble along there at 45-50 ish without lane hogging and my fuel consumption is improved no end!

Bob

Graham. I was once told that a car was a lethal weapon at 60mph. Facts are that there is a 100% chance of dying if you are hit by a car at 60mph. It is like a massive artillery shell weighing a ton hitting your fragile body:-0

If you are hit by a car at 140mph, the risk of dying increases from 100% to :-S :-S :-S

The most dangerous time on roads was when cars went up to 20mph with poor brakes and roads were very bad ie about 1900. Have we moved on since? Brake (anti speed Govt funded pressure group) hasn't.

DET,
I don't use the M25 ( you do of course mean, the Greater London mobile car park!)often, maybe twice,three times a year.......but each time i've encountered traffic jams, it(to me) seems that it is generated by the overhead variable speed limits.........and lane closures, when you get there, there is nothing to account for any problems........
Bob

If there is a 100% chance of dying if hit by a car doing 60, then doing 60 is too fast isn't it?

Graham :-0 :-0 What speed would be safe on motorways then? Police seem to think 30mph will just churn your insides out and put you in intensive care. Schumacher was going quite slow and wearing protective equipment and is unlikely to recover..

The logic is to have maximum speed limits of about 4mph on road and railway. No need then for trains and cars. Bring back canal barges and Shanks's pony, I say

I haven't read all of this but IMHO all built up areas should be 30 or less, motorways 50, trouble is everyone is constantly in a hurry and children aren't taught road safety because most are driven to school.
I'm lucky I suppose because I'm on the road at silly o'clock in the morning and silly o'clock in the evening on country roads so dont see a lot of traffic.

roads are for cars, pavements are for pedestrians, its when the usage gets cross-contaminated,that people get hurt.........


speed itself is no problem, ie the ISS is travelling at around 17,000 mph ..with no untoward happenings,.........in fact, if it slowed down, there WOULD be a massive problem......

People on motorways drive nose to tail, to fast to stop quickly so speed and distance is the problem.

There are all kinds of angles to this really. I think there is some truth in 'the slower you drive the less you concentrate and the more you are distracted by shop windows, what is happening on pavements etc' instead of looking well ahead. It is also when you see people start texting as they drive!

Also, the slower vehicles move, the less efficent and more polluting they are and slower journeys take longer which means pollution lasts longer too. Do we want the extra health risks?

Speed may mean the outcome of an accident is worse but it doesn't cause accidents..... most of the time bad driving does that. There are stretches of main road around here that have 20mph limits near schools and they are talking of making 20mph limits on some city streets too. A lot of the city streets don't need them as they have stopped them being through roads by closing one end of them and turning them into cul-de-sacs. Basically they are now car parks that cause problems for the emergency services to try and get down.

I'm all for safety near schools but it is a bit galling that often it seems to be the parents that cause problems with dangerous parking and driving near school entrances. I see road humps etc, that really slow down those of us with small or low cars, but parents in their people carriers can and do just speed over them as if they aren't there!! They don't seem to care that the big vehicles they drive would cause most damage to other people and their children either, as long as they and theirs are protected!!

I like the layout at Stoke on Trent, where the main through road is almost tunnelled through with high brick walls each side with a few overhead crossings. It keeps pedestrians and cars seperate and with few traffic lights needed etc the traffic moves much more freely.

It's ironic isn't it that after all these years we have better, safer, more comfortable, reliable and faster cars with better brakes that we can drive on better lit , better surfaced roads, yet we will likely end up gradually driving slower than in 1935 on more and more roads!

Good post I thought, Annx. Clearly thought about it a lot.

Schools is such a key area. I don't want to be driving past a school at less than 20mph at 3am though. Personally I think all vehicles should be banned along school roads for an hour every morning and evening. All vehicles.

Children can then be walked to school from home or parents park a short distance away and they walk. Same with school buses. How ridiculous that they drive through school gates with children running amok.

I guess that road in Stoke is the A5000. Great road. North Circular in London is another good one with plenty of underpasses when there is a possibility of pedestrians and vehicles coming together. Same with Birmingham Inner Ring.

It is true that slow moving or stationary vehicles in a traffic jam cause a lot of pollution. However the idea that a vehicle travelling at 50mph is more polluting than one at 70mph iis very wring.

The energy of a vehicle is proportional to the square of the velocity as is the air resistance. That means it takes roughly twice the amount of fuel to accelerate to 70mph as it does to get to 50mph., and similarly to maintain that speed. So even though the journey will be done in 70% of the time it will have used 1.4 times as much fuel as the slower vehicle.