Originally Posted by Nidge (Post 34747429)

And cause major tailbacks, if you have one car doing 50MPH the car behind him is doing 45MPH if you've got quite a few cars following the car at the back will be stood, this is caused on the motorway when you see the matrix signs saying 50MPH, it will cause loads of tailbacks because it's causing a knock back effect with the traffic.

If they upped the speed limit there's be no tailbacks whatsoever. Do they have tailbacks in Germany?

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34747796)

In my experience the majority of fatals are usually down to a combination of drink/drugs/inexperience/showing off/grossly inappropriate cars and speed rather than speed alone.

Some roads, while technically 60MPH, shouldn't be anywhere near that speed but enforcing it without a massive expansion in cameras (which have their flaws) or some type of GPS blackbox fitted to cars (part of a pay as you drive scheme from HM Revenue and Moneygrabbing?) would be next to impossible.

If you want to seriously reduce the number of fatalities look at the whole testing/licensing of drivers. It's ludicrous that you can pass a test in a 1.2 litre punto with no experience of driving in rain, at night or on a motorway and then go out, buy a knackered old Subaru etc. and load it up with a bunch of your mates for a tear around the back roads.

Phased licensing as to the amount of passengers/power of car is the way forward as far as I'm concerned rather than a blanket dropping of speed which will be ignored by 99% of drivers anyway.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 34747333)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/dri...cle5864847.ece

here we go again ,might as well get a tricycle and make every one happy .

THE government is to cut the national speed limit from 60mph to 50mph on most of Britain’s roads, enforced by a new generation of average speed cameras.[from the article]

Originally Posted by Rob M (Post 34747424)

Agreed.

I went shopping yesterday, was nearly run off the road 3 times by idiots coming around corners half on my side of the road half on theirs. I got cut up twice on roundabouts by people in the wrong lane. Had to stand in front of someone's car in the carpark to stop it rolling forward and hitting other cars whilst Mrs-M-to-be went to put a tannoy call out for the driver because they'd left their handbrake off.

None of these incidents was caused by speed, they were all caused by the fact that the idiots behind the wheel should never have been given a damn driving licence in the first place.

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34747383)

Just another money making scheme thought up by ministers desperate to make more money penalising the motorist, the clue is in this quote

Ministers plan to use average speed cameras, which monitor speeds over distances of up to six miles

Measuring speeds over 6 miles will have fines pouring in and probably cause more shunts as cars box together on long journeys, well thought out by idiots without a clue.

Originally Posted by Jambone (Post 34747972)

Apparently those who're ignorant enough to comment on the driving of everyone who's ever got points on their licence, has never been stuck behind 'Doris' on an empty lane...
And apparently has never been in a hurry either.


Hmm..

Originally Posted by homealone (Post 34747931)

The fact that many HGV vehicles are restricted to 40mph on such roads, which encourages the point above..

I would be in favour of restricting cars to 50mph on some roads, if the trucks were allowed to go at the same speed (conditions allowing) & a reasonable average speed could be maintained 'in convoy' ???

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 34747954)

Correct but all such incidents are less dangerous at lower speed. There's no doubt about it that speed isn't the only factor in serious accidents but equally there's no doubt that the higher the speed, the more serious any given incident will be whether due to an idiotic driver or a mechanical failure - especially if you happen to be a pedestrian who comes into conflict with a car.

Oh and yes I am a driver just in case Russ is wondering.

---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:04 ----------



It won't have any fines pouring in if drivers do what they ought to be doing and pay attention to their speed. Given that speed cameras are well signed and national limits well advertised, I'd say the real idiots are those who just can't help getting fined and racking up points!

Originally Posted by bopdude (Post 34748039)

Mmmm, started reading this thread, lost the plot half way through with all the to me to you points of view.

Yours though mate ring soooooooooooo true, it's not the speed limit but the lack of for certain vehicle types that causes problems such as tail backs on minor roads, lets not forget that most of the limits in place today were set 40 plus years ago, it's time the government got it's act together, stopped targeting the motorist for easy fines and got the roads up to scratch.

Originally Posted by homealone (Post 34748051)

cheers bop - I'm driving at least 2,000 miles per month, recently, I totally agree that measures to help motorists, rather than hindering them would be preferable. :tu:

Originally Posted by bopdude (Post 34748066)

Ouch mate, feel for ya, not missing my average 2000 per week since i went self employed.
I count myself as a reasonable / good all round driver, I check all mirrors constantly, look ahead, left and right, I know who's where and when, in case of. This said, you can't foresee the dicks of the road.
One of my big moans isn't speeders but those who don't go fast enough on any given stretch ) those that do 40ish on the M1 for example............:mad: far more dangerous IMHO

Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 34747476)

A bit off topic but when I was taking an advanced driving course the Police driving instructor used to describe these pedestrians and vehicle using idiots as "Accidents looking for somewhere to happen."

I do wonder whether the whole lot of them are all totally oblivious of the danger they put themselves and others in to.