National speed limit to be reduced to 50mph

[Mich the Tester]

not the first word that springs to mind mate

Look, I don’t speed; I haven’t had a fine in years. I don’t want to drive like a maniac, I just can’t see the point in continually slowing everything down while the safety technology keeps on improving. Why not use the technology we have to make transport faster AND safer instead of always grabbing for the big leap backward and making things slower?

[dang65]

So the only sane people are not motorists?

Not motorists who think that roads built decades ago to support cars that might have a top speed of 50mph are safe to drive on at 70-80mph. It's like taking a track racing motorbike to the local BMX park. They aren't mutually compatible.

[Mich the Tester]

...like taking a track racing motorbike to the local BMX park. They aren't mutually compatible.

I'm not sure i'd have agreed when I was 17.

But I see your point; it's obvious then that authorities should be more selective when choosing the speed limit for a road. On the little country roads you're talking about, 20 might be too fast, 15 even in blind bends with high hedges. On other A-roads, 60 is well within safe limits. Setting a national limit of 50 isn't going to help on either.

[dang65]

Why not improve the roads to match the capabilities of modern cars?

Or am I being a bit techie about this?

Absolutely. I imagine the motorists are reaching into their pockets right now so they can enthusiastically contribute to such a project. An extra quid on the price of a litre of fuel would cover it, and the work could no doubt be done in as little as five decades if everyone knuckled down.

[Mich the Tester]

Absolutely. I imagine the motorists are reaching into their pockets right now so they can enthusiastically contribute to such a project. An extra quid on the price of a litre of fuel would cover it, and the work could no doubt be done in as little as five decades if everyone knuckled down.

Good. Time to get started. I'll have some of those ultra high speed magnet trains as well. Better than bailing out banks.

[FSM with Cheddar]

Flying cars is the solution.

No more roads to support.
No delays because of a crash (they just fall to the ground, and everyone can carry on).

Easy

[minestrone]

Look, I don’t speed; I haven’t had a fine in years. I don’t want to drive like a maniac, I just can’t see the point in continually slowing everything down while the safety technology keeps on improving. Why not use the technology we have to make transport faster AND safer instead of always grabbing for the big leap backward and making things slower?

When we upgrade the safety technology of the pedestrian's body then you can drive at higher speeds.

[DaveB]

It's irrelavent anyway, your average journey times will be largely unaffected.

I do 60 miles each way each day, a mix of A roads, dual carriage way and motorway. Average speed for the journey is 50 mph, sticking to the speed limits or as near as I can get to them in the traffic.

[expat]

I'm not sure i'd have agreed when I was 17.

But I see your point; it's obvious then that authorities should be more selective when choosing the speed limit for a road. On the little country roads you're talking about, 20 might be too fast, 15 even in blind bends with high hedges. On other A-roads, 60 is well within safe limits. Setting a national limit of 50 isn't going to help on either.

I dispute the idea that the government can or should set a speed limit for every piece of road, whether it is the same limit everywhere or a different limit for every 50 yards.

No I don't practise or approve of dangerous driving, and I will accept that driving too fast is probably the most common single cause of driving being dangerous.

Can we not impress upon drivers that driving safely is essential? It is tempting to think that a nationwide speed limit will at least provide one way of helping to bring about safe driving, but I am not sure. I suspect that many a boy racer, and even many a school-run mum, will tend to lean too much on the blanket guidance, thinking that that one single rule from the government is the beginning and end of safety.

Of course, speed is much easier to measure. It's not the real object, safety is the real object, but it's harder to teach and harder to bring to court.


PS Mich: I see that your sensible suggestion about improving roads rather than disimproving cars' performance met with the usual disappointing gamut of dark-ages denial. I no longer think that this lot want anything better, and god help us because they ought to be intelligent early adopters, relatively.

[dang65]

On the little country roads you're talking about, 20 might be too fast, 15 even in blind bends with high hedges. On other A-roads, 60 is well within safe limits. Setting a national limit of 50 isn't going to help on either.

I suppose the answer to that is that they don't want to restrict people ridiculously, just to reduce accidents by bringing cars down to a practical speed.

Some roads are so obviously dangerous that I doubt if even a drugged up boy racer would drive at 50mph down them, or even have room to get up to 50mph in the first place. Those kind of roads are pretty much self-regulating I would have thought.

It's the larger A and B roads that are the problem. Where people think they can drive at 60 or 70, but it's really not safe and it's killing people.