As for accident stats, well the internet will back up whatever data you want to prove, this report for instance seems to suggest (from the graph in the report) that German autobahns have much higher death toll than British motorways [urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/may/13/speed-limits-reduce-number-road-deaths[/url but being naturally skeptical about news reporting I'd suggest that anyone continues their browsing because you can find reports that suggest the opposite too.

What isn't in dispute is the fact that higher speeds are bad for pollution and for fuel consumption. should we really be discussing increasing pollution just because we want to arrive at our destination ten minutes earlier ?

You'll also notice in that report a theme that is consistent in others - the autobahn is not de-restricted as such, it has "suggested" speed limits and many sections have compulsory speed limits and being involved in accidents at high speeds will most likely affect your insurance and possibly bring prosecutions - its never quite as clear cut as it seems.

Rubbishing your rubbish ideas is easy.

If the govt deems it okay to drive over 100mph on British roads, what kind of nonsense is it to then make their insurance invalid if they are involved in an accident at a speed over 100mph?



They are not punishing the majority because of some idiots. They are protecting the majority from the idiotic actions of a minority.



Anyone with a brain simply ignores the 70mph limit anyway if it is an empty road.

What you want is the limit taken away, which will just mean that the idiot in his 911 Turbo will be bombing past at 150mph. But for some ridiculous reason you don't want him to have valid insurance while he's doing it.

No i think you're misrepresenting what i said, you'd be valid with you insurance but if you crash you won't get the costs to replace the car.

Why don't you go back to insulting people on the football thread, skirting round the swear filter and get yourself a proper ban.

Even that's a nonsense, because the insurance company might be let off the 70k to replace the Porsche, but they're still liable to millions because the Porsche driver has hit another driver and paralysed him.

Why is everyone so paranoid about speed. At what point does it become 'unsafe'?

Someone who knows what they are doing in a high-powered sports car is almost certainly less of a risk than an 18 year old who thinks their 10 year old Corsa is a world rally car, just because they have stuck a spoiler on the back and a go faster stripe on the bonnet.

The crash barriers and run off areas of motor racing circuits are full of those who thought "they knew what they were doing" in their high powered sports cars on Track Days, and thats where they should stay.

Just been on the local news that one driver was caught by the average speed cameras through the roadwaorks on the M4/M5 Amesbury junction. I'm not sure whether it's a special kind of arrogance, stupidity or gross inattention that leads someone to think that 128mph in a 50mph limit is OK

Depends.
Braking from 20mph to standstill takes about the same distance as braking from 30mph to 20mph.
Which speed limit is therefore more appropriate outside a school?

Glancing in your mirror to see if you have space/time to pull out into the outside lane of the motorway gives you one opinion when you know that car you see is doing 70mph but a different opinion when you know it's doing 110mph ... can you tell with that glance which of those speeds it's doing?


It's a big assumption that the sports car driver ""knows what they are doing".

I'd agree with that. This is compounded when you have people on the motorway who drive too slowly. The last time this came up it was debated on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2. Some bloke rang in and proudly and very pompously proclaimed he went everywhere at 55mph on the motorway.

He wants locking up IMO. That speed will force lorries to overtake him at 56mph or 57mph and people coming along at 65 or 70 (never mind 85) will have to adjust accordingly. He was seemingly oblivious to the fact his pottering along would cause many more manoeuvres and lane changing than if we went at 60mph and actually overtook the lorries rather than force them to overtake him.

Depends how he does it.

He could be an irritant by just getting to 55 and sticking to that no matter how many problems he is causing in his rear view mirrors.

But he could be simply getting behind a truck doing around 55 and then simply cruising behind them. I think that's the calmest way to drive and it's not causing problems because there's already that truck doing that speed.

I think truck drivers who insist on overtaking at 56mph past a vehicle going 55mph are equally as bad as the car driver who annoyingly insists on going 55 is. If a truck driver is taking 5 miles to overtake another vehicle then he shouldn't be overtaking.

Indeed, I've seen plenty of people at the Nurbergring on various trips, sat on the barrier, looking at the crumpled mess that was their only transport home and crying because they didn't reslise that the majority of European vehicle insurance expressly states that you're not covered on the ring.

As an ex-truck driver I fully agree. It annoys the hell out of other road users, especially on two-lane dual carriageways. Truckers may be subject to drivers' hours laws and tight schedules but the difference of 1mph is not going to get them anywhere much quicker

Its amazing how, now that I am paid per mile to use my own car rather than a fully funded company car for business, I can usually be found on a motorway in the left hand lane quite happily poodling along at 55 to 65 mph with all the trucks, getting full mileage out of every gallon and hating it when I have to press anything above a soft touch on the accelerator, my car pays its own bills every month now

What winds me up is the truck drivers who treat the 50mph restriction on the M62 in the West Riding of God's own county as actually meaning that they can still do 56 and are fine to intimidate the car driver in front who is doing 50-55.

It was pretty clear he was oblivious to anything other than his own little world.



I agree and I have said the same thing in the past myself. On the M56 you get a lot of trucks heading to Holyhead top go to Ireland and often the ones with foreign number plates are the ones doing this. Or so it seems.

I have noticed, on other motorways, Irish-registered lorries going much faster than others and have occasionally wondered whether Irish lorries are not subject to the same speed-governing.

Oi leave us Porsche people out of it, at least Porsches are actually built to be able to handle at speed, it's your hot hatches and 'suped' up citroen Saxons that are the problem, and don't get me started on suits in Audis





Fwiw I dont think a raise to 80 would make much difference

Porsches ... lovely cars.
But even Porsche don't build good drivers, good driving isn't simply handed to you as a gift when you buy one.

Agreed, I actually drive mine sensibly as it would cost me a fortune if I was heavy footed. I very rarely speed but I do like a nice blast on a country B road but don't venture over 60 much as it feels fast enough on a winding road anyway.

Although one of my biggest annoyances is people driving at 30 in a 60 when the road and conditions mean that 50-60 is perfectly safe.

Near where I live, the limit on the main road varies between 20, 30, 40 and 50mph.
I get really narked with those who do 35-40 in the 50mph zone ... and who then carry on at the same speed through all the lower speed limits.
Maybe these dick-eads think it averages-out.

Then you must be a prat of the first order. Nobody is, nor should be, [iobliged[/i to travel at or near the speed [ilimit[/i on a country B road and your arrogance is astonishing. If I am driving along a country B road at 50-60 and there is a car ahead going at 30, it is hardly a major mechanical or intellectual challenge to safely pass it. Why on earth should I be even slightly "annoyed"? FFS.

I'm not a prat at all, on a clear B road there is no need to drive at half the speed limit. You drive as slow as you like, I'll just over take you if safe of course. I don't really get that annoyed its a mild irritation that's all.

Look, the speed limit is just irrelevant to the issue. There is no "need" to drive at or near the speed limit either. "Need" don't enter into it. It's a matter of personal choice.

What if someone is on a touring holiday, and is taking their time, to take in the sights and scenery?

What if they are relatively new, or perhaps elderly, drivers and don't feel comfortable and safe in their ability to negotiate winding country roads at 60 mph?

What if they just aren't in any hurry?


You aren't getting away with that, you said "one of my biggest annoyances" and now you're backtracking. And anyway you have no business being "irritated" either.



Such a person is doing nothing wrong. They have just as much right to pass along the highway at 30 as you have at your speed. It isn't a major annoyance, or even a mild irritation, to a reasonable motorist, who respects other road users.

You sound as if you need some anger management. WHY does it "irritate" you?

You don't know me, it's you who seems quite angry.

I am a very courteous and careful driver, I don't get very annoyed at anything my use of language was probably a bit strong but everyone's annoyance levels are different.

If someone's on a touring holiday and going slow I'll pass them if safe, in fact it can be quite good fun dropping a gear and overtaking (as long as if safe)

My level of irritation might be a lot smaller than yours and I can be as irritated as I like if that's ok with you, I don't speed nor do I do anything dangerous.

I also note you didn't take the other poster who agreed with me to task.

Well they need to park the car and get out. You can't be driving safely and taking in the sights at the same time