Re: Totally OT - Highway Question - Is 100 Metres Enough

[The Natural Philosopher]

They are not physically limited. Artics are, and they have a LOT of drag, so that it is hard for them to do more than the 56mph they are supposed to be set to.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I think there would be less pressure actually. 85 +10% is 90 and a bit..and its probably more than adequate for most journeys. Its nice to do 140mph down a deserted motorway but frankly one seldom gets the chance, and anything more than 30mph faster than what is likely to pull out in front of one is distinctly dangerous..with artics at 56mph, that means 85mph is really the safe limit in company.

The fact of the matter is that in germany, where many autobahns are not restricted at all, the bulk of the traffic is in the 70-90mph range..fuel consumptions rockets at over 100mph, and its just a few people with money to burn who are doing 100mph plus.

I've done it for the interest..but the nice thing about the Autobahns are that when you come to a roadworks everybody DOES slow down to 60kph or whatever because

1/. There is actually someone working on the road, and the cones are not protecting 5 miles of empty carriageway 2/. you can always make up for lost time but doing 15 miles at 100mph...

In addition, congestion caused by Denniss' who have strayed from home and who are sitting with their optimistic Ford Ka speedos reading 70mph (in reality 63mph) firmly in the fast lane defying you to undertake them (I always do, on principle)does not happen..since it is as illegal to BE undertaken in Germany as it is to undertake. All traffic gives way to anyone behind them, because that is the Law, and the Germans love being Law Abiding. And because everyone does it, and there aren't speed cameras everywhere, the law is respected far more. And you do not get the huge trains of traffic behind someone who decides that they alone are the arbiters of what is a safe or legal speed to do. In Germany it is illegal to sit in the fast lane if someone faster comes up behind you, period. Likewise people are far happier to let someone pull out in front, because they know they will - must - pull in as soon as there is room to do so. This results in far better road usage..all te carriageways are full. Contrast a typical situation in te UK where everybody sits in the fast lane, because there is a truck up ahead and there is no way anyone will let you pull out to overtake it, because stuck at 63mph by Dennis at the queue front, there is extreme pressure to get to the front and hope the bastard will finally pull over and let people with more accurate speedos get on their way.

[Tim Lamb]

In message , The Reid writes

Maybe.

If you change to that, what about other dual carriageway roads?

However an upper speed limit is always going to be a compromise. To an extent the snow/fog/spray issues are covered by illuminated speed reduction signs but you still have traffic density, inexperienced drivers, elderly drivers, poorly maintained vehicles etc. creating unexpected hazards on otherwise safe roads.

I think 70 is a sensible compromise: giving reasonable fuel economy, within reach of most passenger vehicles currently on the road, realistic journey time (I remember fuel emergency speed limits) and still giving protected occupants a chance of survival in a *same direction* shunt.

I suppose I am too old to enjoy high speed and certainly never consider speed as a factor in actual journey time. Would an extra 15 mph have a significant impact on anything other than door to door motorway travel after midnight?

I had begun to think that modern motorists had realised the futility of selfish road use with less high speed tailgating and an increase in courtesy. Railing against enforcement rather than campaigning for sensible change causes doubt:-)

regards

[The Natural Philosopher]

Hear bloody hear. I would drive at any speed between 45mph and 140mph that I felt the conditions allowed.

When I had a luxurty sports coupe, and traffic was light, sometimes just sitting on cruise control listening to a bunch of nice CDS at 60mph was more relaxing and less fuel hungry than trying to beat records.

Conversely, sometimes at midnight plus getting home from afar, its nice to simply say 'sod the cost' and do it at 120 mph.

In heavy traffic, the hazard is the man who wants to travel at a radically different speed from anyone else..faster OR slower.

Which is why my 'stay legal: use cruise control' fell apart.. there were times when everyone slowed to 55..and there were times when everyone was doing 85..

The only safe course of action was to simply use the power to get into a clear bit of road, and stay there as long as possible.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well there's your 'cannonball' lanes open then ;-)

[The Natural Philosopher]

Hmm. I went across Denmark in a fit of temper one day at 110mph..thats a

90kph limit as well.

No one cared really.

[The Natural Philosopher]

yes.

Its 20% off journey times directly, but more imnportant it would reduce congestion. Unless you think that congestion is actually keeping the vast majority of drivers off the road, and clearer roads would simply attract more traffic..

People have been campaigning for sensible change for years, but this government is adept at doing the Right Thing for the Right Reasons and achieving the exact opposite of what it said it was trying to do.

I have to date spent about two complete days sitting in the local hospital while they filled in forms and buggered around, and wasted my time, the doctors' time and my elderly mothers patience, for an operation that took 5 people 25 minutes. I was invited in to theater to watch it.

The overhead of management bureuacracy, to make sure she was 'risk assessed' and 'prioritised', was about 10:1 on the doctors time. Frankly they could have taken one look, whipped her in and jabbed her, removed the little lump and sent her packing with about 1/3rd the manpower.

All these measures to measure efficiency mean that the system becomes totally inefficient.

Same with speed limits. A sop to the road safety lobby, that results in more accidents more congestions and more inefficiency. Simply because driving on the dials all the time is stressful and places the drivers concentration where it shouldn't be..inside the car.

Someone said that drivers cant do more than one thing at a time. If so then *ipso facto*, strictly enforced speed limits that can ONLY be checked by looking at the speedo take teh drivers attention FROM the road TO the speedo just as much as a phone conversation.

And I don't believe people who say they know what speed they are doing to within 2mph just by looking out the window either.

[The Reid]

no change, they have pedestrians, junctions, bicycles.......

[The Reid]

thats me for 100, but I would slow a bit to be legal, few do more than

100 all the time.

[Roger]

The message from Mike Barnes contains these words:

The thing that I find difficult to judge is how much traffic is not going much the same speed as me. I do find that if I happen to be doing

90 as I occasionally do (per gps) very little passes, 80 and there is likely to be a constant stream (sometimes headed up by a police car) passing at more than walking pace hence my thought that 85 might not be high enough.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No one does 100mph all the time, but occasionally, when late for bloody important appointments, or just wanting to get home after a hard grind miles from home, its nice to know you CAN.

For me, the thought of 'once I get to the M11, I can be up that like a ferret up a trouser leg' keeps me sane and safe at 60mph on the cluttered M25..

You know, the time you allowed 3 hrs to get to gatwick, and got stuck for 2 1/2 hours on the M25..to feel you COULD make the plane-on-a-trip-of-a-lifetime after all..by rushing down the M23..

As I said, in germany, few people do more than they do here frankly. But its SO nice to know you CAN if you WANT TO.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well that's exactly how I do it.

I know that at 70-80 there is plenty going past. At 85 there is not. At below 56 I overtake NOTHING at all. maybe one vehicle in a hundred miles.

Apart from a few things like caravans and trailers that are rightfully restricted to 50mph most people do between 55 and 85mph. Curiously a nice 30mph range..which as I said I feel is about as much speed differential as should be exercised in traffic.

[Dave Liquorice]

I've done Penrith to Bolton all the way on cruise (my 62mph) and not had to touch it at all. Similary Scotch Corner to Leeds or down to Sheffield.

The M6 north of Lancaster is very quiet and so is the A1 at 0530 in the morning. Once you are into normal daytime motorway traffic the cruise is still handy but you can't just leave it on.

[The Reid]

for me the dawn London - Aberdeen run is made a lot easier by doing

100 on the empty motorway, I think some of the people who think its the worst crime ever haven't driven a competent car on an empty motorway.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Ah, but the rationale goes:-

It's the LOR. PEEPULL who break LORS are CRIMMINULLS. All CRIMMINULLS should be BANGED TO RITES.

The fact that its safe or not is not the issue to *THOSE* 'PEEPPUL'

[The Reid]

i just use it for the roadworks 50s, or rather 40s now

[dennis]

vehicle in a hundred miles.

Why is it rightful to restrict caravans and trailers to 50mph (its 60 mph ATM BTW). There are circumstances where its perfectly safe for them to do 100 mph. Just like its safe for you to speed. Why is it different for others and not you?

[The Reid]

because my car at 100 can be controlled with a couple of fingers and has powerful ABS brakes to stop it quickly. A caravan at 100mph would be difficult to keep on the road at all and would probably jacknife if braked from 100, plenty of them go off the road at 60 just because its a bit windy.

[dennis]

They also tend to kill/injure less others too. Anyway its a myth spread by speeders that all the accidents are caused by the slower driver that they hit. The fast drivers are always the ones that are perfect drivers who have levels of skill far higher than al the other drivers so it *must* be someone elses fault for all their accidents/near misses. They even get worked up and try to make out that its impossible for someone to drive for 30 years without having an accident as they have had several even though they are perfect.

Of course the reality is that they are no more skilled than the others but their judgement is impaired.

So create a new authority to police the roads and let the police do something else. It would be self financing as the perfect drivers will continue to get caught.

Quote>>>

the criminal classes (joyriders and the like) and police cars would have to be excluded as neither are going to take any notice of speed limits whatever they are set at

[Roger]

The message from The Reid contains these words:

Cruise control makes it significantly easier to stick somewhere near the legal limit on sparsely populated dual carriageways but increasing traffic makes it too much of a PITA if you need to be constantly modifying your speed to cope with those who would go faster and to avoid what some drivers must take a positive pride in doing - overtaking at a point where traffic in the inner lane has to brake because you are too close for them to pull out.

Isn't it ironic that since the advisory speed limits for road works have become statutory they more often than not are now 40 and even 30. And on a holiday they are surely taking the piss when there are no workers around, the cones are neatly parked by the side of the carriageway and there are regular notices informing you that the speed limits remain in force for your safety.