IAM poll on increasing motorway speed limits

[snibgo]

I should have said "increased pressure", as road groups and haulage contractors frequently call for these things.

Would increased motorway limits increase the pressure to raise limits elsewhere? I think so. Many dual-carriageways are motorways in all but name. If motorway 80mph limits are thought to be successful, I would expect the same logic to apply elsewhere.

Doubtless the government will resist those pressures. Just as they will resist causing death and injury by increasing motorway limits.

Um, possibly.

[kwackers]

So what you're advocating is that we insist that crap drivers drive the fastest... That's a bizarre conclusion.

.

Right because that's exactly what I said!
Is there any point having a discussion when you clearly want to make up things that others haven't said or even inferred?
I'll leave you to it!.

OK - so what was the point of your story then?
An idiot pulls into a lane at 60mph causing the faster traffic behind him to brake. You make him do 70mph and it causes less problems. So why not make him do 100mph and he'll never cause anyone behind him to brake!

Your story makes no sense. You tell a story of how the differential in speed causes more problems and yet by increasing the speed limit the differential is increased!
Therefore higher speeds create more of a problem, whereas you've tried to engineer a story that proves idiots driving faster is safer.

If you don't agree then explain the point of your story.

[hubgearfreak]

The TRL reckon (PPR397, "An evaluation of options for road safety beyond 2010", Sexton and Johnson, 2009) that increasing motorway speed limits to 80 mph (and enforcing them) would increase annual fatalities by 18, serious by 64 and slight by 363.

that, and the increased pollution is reason enough not to for me. how many people who currently die, wouldn't, if the limit was 60?

[snibgo]

how many people who currently die, wouldn't, if the limit was 60?

94, according to that report. Serious would decrease by 371 and slight by an impressive 2376.

[hubgearfreak]

94, according to that report.

does it make me a deep green, killjoy do-gooder to think that adding 20 minutes to a journey such as hull-liverpool is an inconvenience worth paying if it doesn't destroy 94 families each year??

[ericonabike]

Mission creep.

[Tonyf33]

So what you're advocating is that we insist that crap drivers drive the fastest... That's a bizarre conclusion.

.

Right because that's exactly what I said!
Is there any point having a discussion when you clearly want to make up things that others haven't said or even inferred?
I'll leave you to it!.

OK - so what was the point of your story then?
An idiot pulls into a lane at 60mph causing the faster traffic behind him to brake. You make him do 70mph and it causes less problems. So why not make him do 100mph and he'll never cause anyone behind him to brake!

Your story makes no sense. You tell a story of how the differential in speed causes more problems and yet by increasing the speed limit the differential is increased!
Therefore higher speeds create more of a problem, whereas you've tried to engineer a story that proves idiots driving faster is safer.

If you don't agree then explain the point of your story.

read it again, it's fairly simple to understand.
Given you already made statements up in your own mind about what I said previously re-telling my opinion won't help you any.

[Jonty]

As a driver I'm in favour of variable speeds on motorways. When there is light traffic on the motorway I think 80mph is acceptable. My car cruises nicely at 80 and gives a good consumption at that speed in 6th gear.
Most of the time, however, 70 mph is IMO too fast because of the sheer volume of traffic. Many sections of motorway now have a 50 mph speed limit to cope with the volume of traffic (slowing it down to 50 increases throughput capacity).
Generally I do not think this is a matter for cyclists.
jonty

[kwackers]

read it again, it's fairly simple to understand.
Given you already made statements up in your own mind about what I said previously re-telling my opinion won't help you any.

You're right it is simple.
You've cherry picked an example and realised it doesn't hold up, and now under the pretext of blaming the reader claim there's no point in explaining it.

[meic]

As a driver I'm in favour of variable speeds on motorways. When there is light traffic on the motorway I think 80mph is acceptable. My car cruises nicely at 80 and gives a good consumption at that speed in 6th gear.
Most of the time, however, 70 mph is IMO too fast because of the sheer volume of traffic. Many sections of motorway now have a 50 mph speed limit to cope with the volume of traffic (slowing it down to 50 increases throughput capacity).
Generally I do not think this is a matter for cyclists.
jonty

I bet I wouldnt call it good.
You know very well that it would be a lot better at 60mph. Wouldnt leave as much smog for the people behind to breathe either.

[hubgearfreak]

at 80 and gives a good consumption

I bet I wouldnt call it good.

he means acceptable, given the relative price of fuel to his income and the fact that the external costs aren't his problem.

[hubgearfreak]

On a motorway I'd hazard that isn't always the case, x driver at 60mph comes up behind a slower moving vehicle and pulls out not indicating into lane two maintaining their speed, cars behind have to brake suddenly or change lanes quickly to avoid possible collision.

there's two problems here. x doen't check that the overtaking lane is clear. following drivers haven't used observation skills to predict that x is gaining on the lorry and is likely to pull out.

i fail to see how if they're going faster the problems would simply disappear.

[snibgo]

does it make me a deep green, killjoy do-gooder to think that adding 20 minutes to a journey such as hull-liverpool is an inconvenience worth paying if it doesn't destroy 94 families each year??

Only a pinko communist tofu-eating hemp-sandalled loser could imagine that we should slow down a little in order to save lives.

On a less ironic note, if terrorists killed 94 people and injured thousands more, I would expect immediate legislation and increased law-enforcement. And we would be happy to see more police around, ensuring such a thing could never happen again.

[hubgearfreak]

you forgot yogurt knitting

if terrorists kills 3000, that's enough to start a war (an unwinnable one at that)

[meic]

And against a third party who was nothing to do with it.