Last week the Government delivered its draft plan to tackle pollution. One of the key recommendations was cutting emissions by reducing the speed limit on UK motorways from the current 70 mph to 60 mph.
When cars are travelling at faster speeds, they emit more harmful toxins. Thus by reducing speed limits, toxicity levels will fall. The motorway speed limit decrease is one of the few recommendations that will cost nothing to implement but could make a big difference to road emissions. Enforcing it, however, is a different story entirely, although the growth of “smart motorways” (sections of motorway fully monitored by cameras) does seem almost purpose-built for this task.
This week, PetrolPrices.com conducted an in-house survey. We asked over 100 members what they think the motorway speed limit should be. The results show the scale of the task that the Government has in convincing motorists to slow down.
What should the UK motorway speed limit be?
- 60 mph – 5.66 %
- 70 mph – 15.09 %
- 80 mph – 49.06 %
- 90 mph – 15.09%
- 100 mph – 5.66 %
- No limits – 9.43%
[Source: PetrolPrices.com Facebook Poll May 2017]
Just 6% of motorists agree that 60 mph is a good speed limit for the UK’s motorways. Meanwhile, a staggering 79% think that the current motorway speed limit of 70 mph needs to be raised. Of those, 48% feel that the motorway speed limit should be 80 mph. 10% of respondents even go to the extreme and argue the UK’s motorways should have no enforceable speed limits, like the German Autobahn.
Statistics show that 67% of accidents on German roads occur on motorways without speed limits, resulting in twice as many speed-related deaths as the UK. Interestingly, Germany has the same number of speed-related accidents per 100,000 drivers as the UK. Speed is one of the main killers on the roads (alongside distraction), even when accident levels are the same.
These statistics come at an interesting moment. We’re seeing a widespread push from pressure groups and the government to reduce pollution and improve road safety at the same time. There is an argument that, whatever the speed limit, there will always be those who break it. However, there will also be those who comply with it. This suggests that lower speed limits do mean fewer deaths, fewer accidents and lower emissions. The question is whether the police will turn a blind eye to those who break the speed limits (as they do now), or whether there will be a huge crackdown using “smart motorways” or other methods in the near future. Only time will tell.
What’s your view on the proposed reduction in motorway speed limits to 60 mph? Should they be higher or the same as they are now? Let us know in the comments below.
80 mph would I think be a better speed limit on motorways.
Speed Everyone wants everything to go as fast a possible driving included Some people expect ot arrive at there destination before they even set off All people want is speed first other more important things do not matter
Speed limits should be raised to 80 with the smart motorways used in built up areas and at peak times only
Motorway speeds should be raised to at least 80mph , modern cars and technology advances mean most vehicles are well adapted to cope with this, slower vehicles do cause bottlenecks on these roads.
I know this would be controversial but to make roads safer why not make people take the driving test when they renew their licence. Every 10 years.
Have they performed any kind of research into emissions at different speeds? My previous BMW 320d gave more MPG between 80-90mph than at 60-70mph, and I bet the emissions belted out was less. Slower speeds would lead to more congestion and lane discipline needs to be enforced – if you want to drive slow don’t hog the fast lane.
Where’s the science? Where’s the evidence? This is more than it seems, as it always is. This is about, step-by-step, controlling everybody down to a t. Know that stupid feeling you secretly have when you drop down to 50 on a ‘stupi/ sorry, smart motorway section, even if the lanes are virtually empty and you’re looking at the diggers that have lain idle for months and nothing seems to be progressing and you’re thinking well, if I do increase my speed, are these average speed cameras actually working? But you don’t, because of the possible/potential/actual penalties (punishments) metered out by an ever-increasingly militant and fascist state police; so you are being ‘controlled’. As Jay Chauhan rightly commented, modern cars, give better fuel economy and therefore lower emissions at certain higher speeds. The Gov. premises false logic. There I am on the M62, 50mph max. lots of ‘good’, cautious drivers, doing a lot less, the amber (cautionary) 40 sign flashes (you know damn well that when the ‘End’ sign is reached there will have been nothing there! So everyone is crawling along, and the air is choked and there is a thickening haze…..it’s ONLY cleared when the real END sign is reached and speeds increase again. Has nobody realised that since all the ‘measures’ that have in recent years been put into place, air quality has worsened? Let drivers do what they do best and leave us alone.
1) France has 130kph dry, 110kph wet and it seems to work for them
2) 70 mph is already widely disrespected here
3) I drive an electric car with 0 emissions at any speed – should it be limited in this way to no effect? If EVs were to be exempt, that would encourage their adoption no end.
Surely it’s a balance recognising vehicle Performance and driver Skills may have failed to be matched and developed side by side.
I have reluctantly long argued for lower speed limits on all our roads to include the Motorways and persuading Motorists to schedule their journey times more effectively. The modern vehicle may be capable of high speeds, but it totally ignores the capacity of the Driver in terms of ‘skill’ to act appropriately, if at all when ‘things go wrong’. Three hours to complete a journey of some 150 miles mainly on Motorway, or Trunk roads, but with the inevitable delays and ‘hold ups’, only two hours available. Car can do 90/100 comfortably so what happens?…no prizes for guessing!
Driver skill and awareness abilities have simply not kept pace with the machines now available.
I spent a career examining the often gruesome aftermath of tragic accidents. I also witnessed many vehicles in the course of construction at Major manufacturing plants. It is only when you see pre – pressed panels as a sheet of metal that a ‘fit’ 10yr old could fold only receiving its strength through press forming and electric ‘spot welding’. In a incident and not necessarily at an excessively high speed, the release of collision energy simply tears the shell apart and the passengers within!
We constantly hear the excuses that it was ‘foggy’, ‘windy’ an ‘icy road’ etcetera. The ‘icy road’, for example didn’t cause the incident. It only becomes a contributory factor when the driver has failed to monitor and recognise the ‘condition’.
Vehicle development over recent decades has been fantastic. Unless you had to drive in the 50’s and 60’s in the vehicles then in ‘mass production’, believe me, you really have no idea of just how some were basic and potentially unsafe.
Let’s introduce limits to ‘trial’ and then take an informed position and not set limits arbitrarily.
As previously said – France does 130kph in dry and 110 in the wet – a very good and sensible speed that works well on all fronts.
Driving at 50mph around northern section of M25 and first 100 miles of M1 under camera control is not only ludicrous but stressful and ends up in more accidents elsewhere.
I cannot see how reducing the speed will reduce emissions. At 70 mph my car runs comfortably in 6th gear at about 1500 rpm. At 60 mph, I need to change down to 5th and actually use more fuel according to my trip computer.
Motorways are the safest roads in the country, and therefore merit the highest speed limits. The 70 mph speed limit is an anachronism and desperately needs increasing to reflect modern vehicles and road conditions. A 60 mph limit would encourage bunching, and make it difficult to overtake heavy goods vehicles travelling at their limited 56 mph. According to the latest Government statistics I can find, a mere 5% of accidents have exceeding the speed limit as a contributory factor – hardly one of the main causes.
I think that our speed limits are stupid. You have got a motorways and dual carriageways all driving the same direction. I think that driving on a motorways in the fast lane should 90mph which is what’s happening now? and all so on dual carriageways. On a three lane motorway the inside lane should be for lorries with a max speed of 65mph this would stop lorries passing each other, this is where the problem starts, two lorries with a limit of 56/58 mph one is empty and the other has a load, the empty one is going to be able to pass the loaded one. If the nearside lane was raised to 65 mph aand rise the limit on the lorries to 65mph it . The middle passing lane should also be 90mph
Modern Cars are ecomical but no matter what new car you have it will use much less fuel at 60 than 70.
I have a 2016 Vovlo XC40 1.6 Diesel which averages 55mpg on my 60mile commute if I cruise at 70 for the 40miles of this commute on motorway. if I cruise at 60 the MPG jumps up to 72MPG
Also I have 2017 VW Passat 2.0D and on the same commute its does 45 at 70, or 62MPG if I cruise at 60
and my Range rover does 22MPG if I crusie at 70 or 33MPG if I crusie at 60.
So multiply those savings on Millions cars of doing millions of miles and yes the government os right it will save millions of tonnes of NOX and Co2.
A limit of 55 would be even more beneficial.
interestingly the difference of crusing at 80 to 60 make very little difference to the overall journey time – on average you might ned up there quicker by 5 or 10 minutes…
If you simply do the Arithmetic the following is true.240 miles travelled , if legal, at average speed of 80 mph equals journey time of 3 hours.If the same journey was undertaken at an average speed of 60 mph the it would take 4 hours !! If you travelled from Glasgow to London at 60mph by car , you would need to have a sleep on the way there .
If you simply do the Arithmetic the following is true.240 miles travelled , if legal, at average speed of 80 mph equals journey time of 3 hours.If the same journey was undertaken at an average speed of 60 mph the it would take 4 hours !! If you travelled from Glasgow to London at 60mph by car , you would need to have a sleep on the way there .
By your calculations, if I travelled at 0 mph, It would only take 40mins longer.i.e.Do not go at all.
I fail to understand why people feel the current levels of slaughter that occur daily on our roads are in any way shape or form acceptable. It is a matter of fact that crashes at higher speeds result in higher and more serious casualties, and yet huge numbers of motorists persist in breaking the speed limit every time they get behind the wheel.
Deaths on UK roads 2015: 1,732. That’s the 7/7 bombings fatalities x 33. Every year. Think about it.
Seriously injured on UK roads 2015: 22,137. That’s more than 7 times the 9/11 fatalities.
Total casualties on UK roads 2015: 186,209. That’s more than the population of Swindon. Or Ipswich. Or Wigan. Or Oxford.
Higher speeds also cause more pollution – fact – and the UK is has amongst the worst air pollution in Europe leading to an estimated 50,000 premature deaths each year FIFTY THOUSAND! Much of this is caused by motor traffic and would be greatly reduced with lower speeds.
I fully support reductions in speed limits and their strict enforcement. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and with it comes serious responsibility. If we are not prepared to accept that responsibility, then we should find another way of getting around.
‘no limits’. arbitrary speed limits are ridiculous and take no consideration into road conditions, traffic levels or performance of car. my mum’s 1.0L micra is practically shaking itself apart at 80mph, whereas my 200mph capable F10 M5 and litchfield stage 5 R35 are stable and barely breaking a sweat at 100mph+. prosecute based on car + conditions. its far more dangerous weaving in and out of busy traffic in some disk braked, thin-tyred and flexing chassis eco-box versus cruising along at 150mph on a quiet stretch of M6 late night in a GTR, 911 etc.
The speed limit has been 70mph on a motorways’ since a limit was introduced. When cars wasn’t what they are today, cars stop a lot quicker today even small hatchbacks’ (corsa) if a car is built after 2003 it should be 80mph limit. If its reduced to 60mph then lorries should be restricted to 50mph so that cars can overtake comfortably. Does this mean caravans, trailers have to do 50mph as there limit is 60mph. This isn’t about emissions’ its the government on a power trip, its not going to be free as they have to monitor the speed with cameras, new speed limit signs to make people aware its for a revenue to catch speeding motorists!
cars may stop quicker but reaction times are the same as they have always been. May even be longer as modern cars are comfy and have distractions like radio, phones, knobs to twiddle etc.
If you think it is acceptable to be “cruising along at 150mph…” on a public road then I can only hope you wipe yourself out before you kill someone else. Everyone thinks they are a great driver and that it’s just the others that aren’t. Book yourself a slot on a racetrack to get your speed kicks and stop putting the lives of others at risk by your selfish and illegal behaviour.
What speed limits? Do seventy on the motorway and count how many cars pass you in say, two minutes . People drive as fast as they like, allways have done.
Government’s argument about reduction of air pollution is based on dry research done in the lab on certain types of engines, research that doesn’t take into account other factor so typical on driving on the motorway, like the type of tarmac (modern tarmac reduce fuel consumption on cars with good quality tyres even 20%). No factors like increased travel time, increased queues is taken into account. Moreover, what’s worse, nobody thinks about people behaviour regarding route selection. Today, most driver select longer route via motorway counting on speed little above 70 mph would let them reach the destinations earlier, so they avoid local roads. Now, when the speed limit on motorways is lowered and heavily enforce more people would start using local roads as shorted and still with 60 mph speed limit on certain sections (until government decides to lower that too). Increase in local roads usage would effect in noise pollution increase, what have health implications, etc. Longer queues (caused by drivers leaving earlier) would in effect increase pollution as driving very slow is more polluting that driving at speed cars were designed for. Increased engineering efforts by car manufacturers really improve emissions, plus number of hybrid and electric cars are growing, so the potential fall in emission caused by lower speed is going to be quickly cancelled.
In terms of safety, the example of my home country – Poland – demonstrates that increasing the speed limit from 130 km/h to 140 km/h actually reduced the amount of accidents and fatal accidents on these types of road. Science has an explanation for this too: Faster we drive more focused on the road we are. Poland has faster speed limits on motorways but more restrictive speed limits on local roads.
Increase of the speed limit on most of motorways has potential gains, like boost in economy by shorter travel times, less stress caused by driving, more drivers avoiding local roads (I personally prefer driving local than M4 or – especially with its 50 limit – M3 if travel times are longer by 1-3 mins).
Today, we are in possession of technology that would nicely help to very closely approximate results of changes in the traffic as a result of reduced or increased speed limit. It’s agent based simulations – using huge computer cluster a population of agents is programmed to mimic behaviour of drivers based on decisions coming from measurable factors, like distance, travel time, fuel consumption, potential queues, even the environment attractiveness, etc. Multiple simulations run with different restrictions in force can demonstrate how most probably the effect of such changes would look like. This can simulate short and long term effect. Short term effect is going to biased by sudden change in opportunity (by increase) or anger for being restricted (by decrease). That is the research that should be taken into account in real discussion these days. Otherwise a brutal decrease is going to hit already suffering British economy.
I lived in Germany for 21 years, during that time I drove Trucks, Large Bikes, Cars & Taxis. The roads are much safer and exhaust emmisions are worse. I now live in Glasgow where, in the city centre we have a 20mph speed limit allegedly due to emmissions. It’s B.S. if I’ driving at 30mph I’m in 4th gear, my C4 Picasso struggles to do 20mph in 3rd gear and I often have to drop to 2nd. Using a lower gear and taking much longer to drive through town has increased the emmissions.
Jesus Christ! Can ANYONE spell or use the Queens English these days?
Or the correct grammar?
80 mph is a sensible speed limit on the motorway network, part of any problem with long distance journeys is fall off of alertness and reducing to 60mph will increase that risk. Remembering the 50mph speed limits imposed years ago due to fuel crisis many people had accidents due to the longer journey times and attention falling off.
Further if you look at the relative pollution from diesel cars of under 10 years old compared with pollution provided by diesel trucks and buses there is a vast difference. Fleet operators could be made to install Addblue systems to trucks and buses which would dramatically improve their emissions with some cost increases, for individual car drivers this is not practical. Why make travel more arduous by such clumsy legislation when greater thought can provide a better solution to benefit all.
I was in the motorway police for several years and remain convinced the higher the speed, the greater the number of accidents and the higher severity of the casualties in the persons involved.
Alex, I too was a motorway cop. In my experience it was bad driving that caused crashes, not speed.
Hi David, I agree with you, I am the local co-ordinator for The Alliance of British Drivers.. For years we have been telling the Revenue Generating department that it is not Speed that causes “Accidents” it is Inapropriate Speed and Inattentive Driving! Speed Limits are usually set by people who know absolutely nothing about driving, but the Police have to enforce them
Its about time people went back to basics, the left hand lane of any motorway is for driving in, any subsequent lanes are for overtaking. if more people followed the rules and pulled back in after overtaking ass opposed to sitting in the middle lane because there is another lorry a mile in front and I’ll just stay out here because i don;t want to pull in and then have to indicate to come out in a mile! Never mind the people behind slowing down and speeding up adding to pollution! Rant over sensible thing (and I hate to do this) is mirror the french 80 on dry motorways and reduced to 70 if it is raining, there by keeping a sensible speed for modern vehicles and a safety factor for bad weather. in a few more years it won’t matter because the computer will be driving and we won’t get a say in it!
Indicate? what motorway do you drive on???
Most modern cars are at their most efficient at 80mph. Reducing the limit to 60mph, will force the lorries to go at 50mph. This means more pollutants as the lorries will always be in a lower gear and even slower on hilly stretches, like on the m62, adding to pollution.
Sums it up nicely for me.
I think 60 is no more than a trap to ensure fines, the motorist is just a bread basket for a dwindling coffer. For years we have used speedos in cars that are set to show your going faster than you are, why ? Technology now has the ability to be far more accurate, speed limiters and cruises are electronically so easy to install, as is electric display of the actual limit for every road. Lets stop playing games with each other and DEMAND that the people we pay ( manufacturers and politicians) give us a decent deal. Tail gaiting , weaving into silly spaces and all those daft antics are what we need to deal with, lets have cameras that time how close the next car is to you and catch the idiots. The real dangers wont be prosecuted because it takes people on the road to see them and deal with it….. cost items are ignored for the easier statistics and less expensive revenue earners.If we need more revenue then go chase the real tax dodgers from huge companies and let the motorist get to where they are going in peace.
What I would like to know, is if the speed limit on motorways is to be kept at 70mph, why on earth build cars that are now capable of driving twice as fast? When the M1 was built in 1959, cars were very basic. The Moggy Minor, for instance, with 1100 cc’s had a top speed of 77mph. Now a car with 1600 cc’s for example, & has a top speed of 117mph, so why have an outdated speed limit. If you wanna keep the speed limit down, I don’t have too much of a problem with that, just DON’T bring in new cars that are capable of at least double the speed limit.
I note a comment earlier from someone who mentioned driver training to address the subject of higher motorway speeds.
But first, I entirely concur with the belief that travelling at 60mph or 70mph is both tedious and tiring. I also recognise, like everyone else, that since the 70mph speed limit was imposed on the newly built unrestricted’ motorways in the 60’s, cars/vans/lorries have all improved in both performance, comfort and safety. Indeed, I believe stopping distances quoted in the Highway Code are based on a 1960’s, drum braked, Ford Anglia.
Now, back to driver training. I am a Police qualified driver, a former RoSPA qualified driver and a former driving instructor. It is ludicrous that a newly qualified driver is allowed to drive on a motorway, without ever having seen one before, the moment they pass a rudimentary driving test. It is also beyond belief that same driver could sit their test in a Ferrari if they want, and drive away from the test centre unsupervised.
Driving standards kill people, not speed. Speed is a contributory factor to the extent of damage/injury but aeroplanes don’t routinely fall from the sky when they travel above 70mph. Nor is there a simple, simplistic solution to the problem, least of all by governments and anti car campaigners who predominantly live in cities and few of whom have any driving qualifications beyond passing a basic test of driving competence.
In my opinion, speed limits should be determined by driving competence and training not by arbitrary imposition using pollution as a trendy bandwagon to jump on. Newly qualified drivers should be restricted to cars with a certain power to weight ratio, motorcyclists are subject to it, why not car drivers? Passing a secondary test to, say, RoSPA Bronze standard would allow them to move up a category, similarly Silver, then Gold being unrestricted, probably limited to supercars with performance over 150mph.
Speeds could similarly be allocated, Newly qualified drivers restricted to, again say, 56mph and lane one of a motorway, 70mph for Bronze, 80mph for Silver and 90mph for Gold. Retesting every three years is already mandatory to maintain a RoSPA qualification.
Associating motorway speeds with life affecting pollution is similarly ludicrous. Pollution figures are invariably judged on inner city areas like London (the main culprit) and imposed as the norm across the country, which is patently false. The rural community are having city compliant standards imposed on them. Meantime, low city speeds are doing just what’s described by another poster, forcing drivers to use the bottom few gears in cars with pollution measurements usually judged at 56mph in top gear. Modern 9 speed automatic cars are driving around at 20mph in 3rd or 4th gear, no wonder cities are polluted.
Shifting the blame of pollution onto drivers is an easy and convenient task, supported by wild eyed green campaigners with a hatred of progression in general. Green Flag, the motoring organisation points out “It would take 42 million Euro 6 diesel cars – almost four times the number on the roads – to generate the same nitrogen oxides as one UK coal-fired power station.”
As for CO2 emissions, a study conducted by NASA on their own satellite data over the last 30 years found the planet has greened by 14%. Two continents the size of mainland USA worth of extra vegetation, 70% directly attributed to increased atmospheric CO2 alone. Over the same period, and longer, there is not one credible, empirical study that demonstrates increased CO2 has any detrimental effect on the planet whatsoever. There should be hundreds, if not thousands by now, but there isn’t. Whilst CO2 has been rising, temperatures have risen far less than IPCC computer projections, indeed if global temperatures continue to rise as they have been, within 5 years they will have dropped below even the lowest extent of IPCC models.
Meanwhile, UK taxpayers are contributing £9Bn a year to climate change initiatives, including renewables, which remain demonstrably uncompetitive in an open market despite the recent claims they are. That figure will rise to £14Bn per year by 2020; and in 2016, the NHS deficit was £2.6Bn. By 2050 the UK taxpayer will have spent £300Bn on nonsensical climate mitigation unsupported by any meaningful evidence other than educated guesswork. Sure, CO2 causes climate change in a test tube, but the main greenhouse gas is atmospheric water vapour which makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases, CO2, a paltry 3%.
Don’t believe for a moment speed control is about safety, it’s about creeping, green, city centric socialism, imposing control over every aspect of our lives, despite few of them having ever spent any meaningful time in the countryside.
The answer. 1.Build all new houses with compulsory solar /photo voltaic roofs and storage batteries.With all charging of cars to be only from solar/ wind/ hydro or nuclear sources. 2.Government 25 year interest free secured loans for same technology to existing house owners and landlords.3.All new cars to be electric plug in only with 250 mile range and with reserve batteries.4.All new cars to be fitted with advanced crash avoidance technology.5.Introduce 5 year timeline for diesel scrappage scheme on cars over 7 years old.6.Offer 10 year interest free loans for renewing such diesel cars.
These would dramatically reduce local pollution in UK without reducing motorway speed limit.
As for the rest of the world and global warming overall, you will need to depose Donald Trump or
we are all doomed !
Trevor,
PV’s are environmentally destructive to manufacture, have short lives and in the Northern Hemisphere are restricted to summer months, just when they aren’t needed. The space and environmental resources needed to supply every house with enough energy to last just one day from batteries charged by PV’s is enormous. Way more expensive than conventional, grid distributed, centralised power generation.
Because of the hysteria surrounding nuclear energy, plants are being decommissioned rather than built globally. And whilst wind/solar might seem a solution, again, in the NH, neither work very well. You will be sold the story of average wind speed operation of wind farms, but again, when we need the energy the most to charge our cars, they won’t be working because of high winter speeds from storms etc. and low light levels.
You can wish for electric cars with, routinely 250 mile ranges, but it’s not happening, and if it did, how about spending 8 hours, 50 miles from your destination while it recharges. There is no such thing as a reserve battery in an electric car. Every battery has to be carried and charged.
Many cars are fitted with crash avoidance systems now, but it didn’t stop a Tesla recently being wrecked in a crash with a truck because the sun upset its sensors. Car drivers will be in charge of their vehicles for a long time yet. Technology doesn’t yet have the same self preservation instinct humans do.
And who pays for your diesel scrappage scheme that is only effective in inner cities? 90+% of the country isn’t polluted, but it has to conform to a minority city concept of pollution. Yet the rest of the country is taxed so city folk can enjoy fresh air. And whilst charging cars from PV’s and wind farms might seem a good idea, the subsidies per MWh provided by the taxpayer are obscene.
And who will provide the money for interest free loans for cars, well the taxpayer of course.
As for climate change, it’s happening, whether you like it or not. And not because of man. The planet is currently around the coldest it has ever been without being in an ice age, and it”s has around the lowest CO2 concentration it has ever had in its history. Uniquely, however, neither of these two have ever come together at the same time before. 100 years ago the atmosphere had around 280ppm CO2 concentration, only 80ppm away from when plantlife begins to die, and 130ppm from all meaningful plant life being extinct, and thereby, man as well.
I would rather take the risk that CO2 causes global warming, and suffer the unknown consequences of increased atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures, that suffer the certain fate of lower CO2 and lower global temperatures.
I agree with this quote from David Redfern “speed limits should be determined by driving competence and training not by arbitrary imposition using pollution as a trendy bandwagon to jump on. Newly qualified drivers should be restricted to cars with a certain power to weight ratio, motorcyclists are subject to it, why not car drivers? Passing a secondary test to, say, RoSPA Bronze standard would allow them to move up a category, similarly Silver, then Gold being unrestricted, probably limited to supercars with performance over 150mph. ”
Personally I think most accidents are caused by real bad driving even though speed may have contributed to it. I don’t agree with stastitics as they can and are manipulated to suit circumstances.
As for emissions I’ve noticed with my car that the lower the gear especially in town the more fuel is used and higher emissions. When you buy a car from a sports car manufacturer which is cable of very high speeds but is more than capable at stopping from these high speeds then the manufacturer should be enforced to include a driver advance course, it all to easy now to go in and buy high performance vehicles I love fast cars but driver training has to be available your talking about taking your driving to next level while also driving for other road users.
Stuart,
speed contributes to the net result of the accident, not to its cause. The cause is always bad driving. F1 drivers routinely exceed 70mph in heavy traffic but crashes are caused by idiotic manoeuvres, not the speed itself. And they usually crash at slower speeds.
and modern cars often have really poor visibility. My pug 407 estate has many blind spots, especially from the rear.
Slower speeds on the motorways will just create more road rage due to frustration of not getting anywhere fast enough and may even make things more dangerous. Slower motorway speeds can induce a soporific effect where concentration is reduced and sleepiness creeps in. There may be more falling asleep at the wheel, especially if using cruise control. At higher speeds you should be more alert as things can happen quicker and reaction times must be that much faster.
With 60mph limits cars will then be only a few mph above that of lorries and I would never feel that to be a safe environment when travelling at similar speeds to them.
80mph is a much more acceptable speed for motorways these days.
Simple solution get rid of all anti car idiots and since we are leaving the EU they can shove their pollution limits were the sun don’t shine !!!! F#~€ pollution
I have a normal oldish car with just 5 gears! What we need is a culture change – perhaps when we are all driving electric cars which have to be recharged after a certain distance it will happen. People only drive from London to Glasgow fast because they can. Personally I prefer the train for longer journeys although I appreciate this causes issues for anyone with a lot of luggage etc to transport. Overtaking HGVs won’t be an issue if we have the same limit as them. It might be fun to whizz around the world fast but we need a world which is still functioning and healthy to live in.
Why is overtaking an HGV an issue?
Cannot see the sense of a 60 mph limit as although it does save fuel in most cars as they are not much above tick over. The problem with higher speeds are the idiots tailgating as it is bad enough now and if they all drove smoothly, there would be a less holdups as traffic would flow and not have a sudden speed drop but it’s not going to happen with human nature as it is.
Re the comment by “Joe Bloggs” about Adblue not being practical for cars; I’m driving a brand new diesel Audi A6 with an adblue tank that gets refilled approx. every 6th time I refill the fuel tank. The technology is such that if a warning message on my dash saying adblue tank needs filled is ignored for too long, when I switch off my engine, I wont be able to restart my car until I’ve topped up the adblue tank as well. This prevents those who don’t care about spreading pollution from continuing to do so. Adblue is on its way for all diesels, so your opinion is completely wrong “Joe”
Chance would be a fine thing. I am driving up the M1 later and dont expect to do more that 60 for most of the way cos of variable speed limits and congestion.
I just got a ticket for doing 39mph in a 30 zone, quite unwittingly …I genuinely believed it was 40 and was on cruise control.
The limits on A roads can change so frequently with inadequate signage that its often impossible to know for sure what the limit actually is without a satnav to tell you.
Having had more than enough inadvertent tickets, I do try conscientiously to comply with the law.
In this last particular case I was caught out by taking my lead from a police car cruising just in front of me.
Presumably he was caught by the same camera- will he get a ticket?
Please send your answers written on a ten pound note.
I think reducing the speed limit to 60 is a great idea ive been driving at around 60 for 2yrs now and ive worked out i save about £150 a year = 3 tanks most and if it helps reduce emissions im all for it, most of the complainers will be BMW Audi & VW drivers there allways the ones doing 80+ pumping out twice the emissions.
And put up more speed cameras too 😉
Accidents are caused by bad driving for the speed and conditions and poor training on what constitutes a hazard so is dropping the speed limit an admission that we have rubbish drivers poorly trained and tested on our roads? If the reason is pollution then better results would be gained by finding a way to stop badly maintained HGVs on motorways with their drivers foot to the floor in the centre lane, churning out clouds of pollutants to get past another HGV at one mph faster than the HGV on their left.
80mph on Motorways sounds good to me as a large number of people seem to do that anyway. But why stop there, many ‘A’ roads are motorway standard (I assume that is what A1(M) means so allow it on them as well.
I drive on many other dual carriage way roads where the speed limits could be higher.
There will always be people who break the speed limits not matter what they are, there are others who will exceed the conservative speed limits by a little because almost EVERYBODY else is.
We have smart technology out there that seems to be able to monitor average speeds over miles of roadways and generating loads of money for someone. Todays cars are safer with better braking systems that in the days when the speed limits were set and this should be recognised. Perhaps these cameras should be used to concentrate on the other perhaps more dangerous aspects of bad driving such as tail gating, using mobile phone, personal grooming, undertaking.
Why not target people who drive for miles in the the central lanes when the inside lane is empty for considerable distances in front.
I don’t expect people to move over to the inner lines if they have to immediately slow down, that would be pointless, but when the inner lanes are empty for as far as the eye can see why not. I feel that some people do it for fear of being trapped in the inside lane and forced to turn off when the inner lane become an off slip, but sorry that is just down to poor driving and awareness of what is going on..
.Lets use the tech to get those numpty drivers out there thinking about what they are doing to make the roads safer for the rest of us.
How about a minimum speed limit of say 50mph on motorways , anyone wishing to drive slower can use the alternate A roads
Speed only kills when some one is not thinking, 80 mph on the motway would be ok, if we keep the HGV’s still at the 60 mph. I have been driving for almost 60 years and on England roads, German, malaysia and a few other countries,, so I would say if you drive at the right speed for the conditions then 80 on the moterway would be ok.
Perhaps if these government advisors did their home work properly they would not have forced many drivers to switch from the now proven overall cleaner petrol powered cars for the polluting diesel powered cars we would not have so much pollution now?
Just as in Oz, make undertaking legal and thus substantially reduce the need to speed up to overtake a slow motorist on the middle lane. Speed limits can then be reduced to 60mph or left at 70mph with massive benefits to safety and the percieved need to pass someone slower than you.
Cost…….nil
Benefits………massive
It works in Oz and can work well here.
Having driven extensively in Australia slower but steady speeds leads to a much more comfortable mode of driving. The only skill needed to be honed is to use BOTH mirrors!!!!
The appalling experience in the US with the 55 mph overall speed limit cased thousands of extra deaths in road crashes over two decades. When most States raised their speed limits to 65, 70 or 75, the “safety”organisations all forecast a great increase in crashes. But there was a significant drop in fatal accidents across the board, particularly with the upper speed limits. Separation distances anybody?
My auto gearbox car barely gets into top (7th) gear by 70 mph.
Other cars have 8 gears or maybe more by now.
Why drive at 60 mph in a low gear when you can drive at 80 in top gear & save fuel?
A 60 mph speed limit is just plain stupid.
Do you remember, It was only a couple of years ago when the current government were thinking of raising it to 80 mph anyway!
Another U-turn, just like pensions for women at 60.
It’s a complete farce. you couldn’t make it up.
This is a government run by a bunch of nincompoops – I hope I’ve spelt that right!
It’s all very well to reduce the speed limit but when there aren’t enough officers visible on the roads, it won’t be obeyed but the majority of drivers. When driving on motorways with variable speed limits, I move over to the left hand lane as soon as possible and stay there if safe to do so until the limit to 70mph resumes. However I might try to do the lower limit, there is a constant flow of other vehicles behind trying to push you on faster. It’s especially terrifying when those vehicles are massive articulated trucks whose drivers never seem to behave as though Road laws apply to them (and to those brexiteers reading this comment thinking it’s just drivers of foreign trucks that do this, it’s not!!! Equally UK plated vehicles as foreign!). It’s not fun being trapped in a position with one in front, behind and beside you. How does one travel safely these days unless by luck alone! Very bad idea to lower the limit! The above-described behaviour would just become the norm!
Not sure if anyone else might have said this already, but motorway driving in the UK is relatively safe – fewer accidents per driven mile than on minor roads – we even have some of the safest motorways in Europe. Secondly, the matter of fuel economy is a red herring – I recently drove an 800-mile round trip almost entirely on motorways and at reasonable pace (I’m no speed demon) and my fuel economy was outstandingly good compared to ‘normal’ (mixed) driving (how does 165 miles on 2 gallons sound? Not bad for a 9-year-old diesel…). This was attributable to the fact that I stayed at roughly the same speed for long distances between stops, rather than having to slow down / stop frequently. It’s not about how fast you drive, it’s about how you drive.
Reducing the speed limit to 60mph would be ludicrous because it would essentially prevent anybody from overtaking a 56mph-limited lorry, turning the motorways into an anarchy of three-abreast trundling due to the enforced stalemate. Like many others, I’ve always been suspicious of so-called ‘smart’ motorways – cameras poised at short intervals to capture motorists accidentally straying over arbitrarily reduced speed limits. Any argument for safety allied to reduced speed limits enforced via ‘smart’ motorway cameras must be countered by saying that as soon as you open the hard shoulder to traffic, you reduce the safety of the motorway. It is the Nanny State, pure and simple.
I have a Honda CR-V. It’s a 2016 model with a 1600 cc Diesel with DPF and all that comes with it including feeding it premium diesel. Its also got an automatic 9 speed torque convertor gear box. The gearing is such that at 1000 revs it will travel the at different speeds at the same revs depending on the gearing. The City where I live has now instituted a 20 mile an hour limit. It travels at 20 mph at 1000 revs and also at 30mph. Surely if I travel at 30 I’m going to get there quicker using less fuel/emissions. Similarly at 2000 revs which is its max torque output it will travel happily at 70 as well as 80. Quicker journey = less emissions.
The so called experts don’t understand that a high geared car travels at less engine revolutions, my car travels at 70mph at 2000rpm in 6th, it runs at 1500rpm in 2nd gear at 20 mph when negotiating road humps. So I am polluting more say for a 1 mile section of road.
Talking about speed how much pollution is created when the traffic is queuing up for 5 miles in a tailback travelling at approx. 4 mph.
Just recently it has been shown that a wood burning stove produces as many particles as 1000 cars. and they don’t even move.
Politicians
Idiots the lot of them ruled by political correctness and not common sense.
Hear we go again, well ive read this 1st page of comments & me wife (the boss) & i Have had a real good laugh amongst other things, yup as one of you said, it wern’t so long ago that the government were gonna raise the speed to 80mph but like a lot of ideas & things on a manifesto it seemed to get lost in the system somwhere, probably just one of those things to keep the people quiet for a little while then conveniently go on to the next thing on the agenda. Theres only one thing to remember while driving, whether it be a car or motorbike, SPEED DOES NOT KILL PEOPLE! PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE! A car/motorbike is only a machine like a machine a factory, when its turned off its harmless, but turn it on & let an idiot loose on it & it comes a killing machine! I have proven this so many time to so many people im sick of it, So there i was back in 1982 on my way to work riding my nearly one year old Kawasaki Z 1100cc shaft drive, (good for 145mph plus according to MCN) i was on a backstreet off a backstreet 5 mins from home where i’d lived for my 25yrs & a cortina MK4 (still remember the No plate) reversed off of the council hard standing from behind another vehicle on full lock about 12ft in front of me. Oh God i wish i’d been speeding cos i’d have been past him, but as people walk their dogs & kids up this rd i only used to go at approx 15-20 mph. When the Dr said what do you do for a living i said im a bricklayer, not anymore your not, you’ve got a broken back in 2 places. SO DONT TELL ME SPEED KILLS! p.s. Our diesel car does more to the Gal at 80 than at 60 & its still lower fumes than a lot of 1600 petrol, Mondeo 2.0 estate against our sons Focus 1.0 turbo petrol, we win hands down, my MOT says so! Stick that in your pipe & smoke it Mr Silly Sadiq. (a good replacement for bumbling Boris erm nah, as bad as each other)
80 mph would I think be a better speed limit on motorways.
Speed Everyone wants everything to go as fast a possible driving included Some people expect ot arrive at there destination before they even set off All people want is speed first other more important things do not matter