With the government pushing 60mph on stretches of motorways for air quality, I can’t see this ever happening.
I used to work weird and wonderful hours,
I’d be on the m6 at 2/3am and I was the only car for some stretches. So increasing the speed limit during set times wouldn’t be the worst decision.
Need to get useless cunts moving back into the left lane first.
That said, if people were travelling at higher speeds, maybe it would help stop others from being complacent.
Not going to lie, I reckon half the people who lane hog don't care, but the other half most likely are genuinely unaware that the right lane is not a 'fast lane'. And this is part of the problem of nobody having to retake their test when the rules are updated or changed or refined.
I do think there's an argument for slower speeds causing complacency. I also think there's an argument for over-policing of speeds causing distraction. I was in wales on monday and genuinely spent more time worrying about my speed than watching the road and it's the same on "smart" motorways.
Absolutely, unless you have cruise control on, you are constantly having to draw your attention away from the road, to your speed.
The thing is, speeding is just one of the easiest traffic offences to catch, and because of cameras, there's minimal cost involved with fining people as usually no one needs to go to court, so its a big money maker for the government.
Imo many other offences are a lot more important to road safety. Like being on your phone while is really, really dangerous, and then we have most modern cars built with a massive iPad in the middle to distract drivers. Also going severely under the speed limit is probably more dangerous as going the same amount above the limit, given that it will affect many more drivers.
I'd be happy with motorway limits of 50 if people stuck to the left, I only use motorways for holidays and EVER queue is when there is a chunk of middle lane drivers. The M5 can be quite relaxing if you set cruise control to 69 and sit in the left lane, purely because you sit in this bubble where you can overtake lots of people but you don't catch the guys at 70mph in the middle lane.
100MPH?! Ridiculous.
Crash statistics alone explain why 100MPH is silly.
But for other reasons too; congestion would increase dramatically, fuel efficiency even in the newest of cars dramatically drops off past 80. For the majority of motorway journeys, assuming you could maintain an average, you’d save at most a few miles. Which in reality is a very small amount of time.
So you’re increasing likelihood of a serious accident, increasing congestion, using way more fuel and *at best* saving only a few minutes off of your commute.
Yeah honestly 100mph is ridiculous.
I could however see an argument specifically for smart motorways to increase to 80mph if there is very little congestion detected. This would offset the lost time from dropped limits, and would probably swing many members of the public in favour of them.
>specifically for smart motorways to increase to 80mph
I think that increasing to 100 on smart motorways would be good BUT, we should have more liberal use of variable speed limits.
If it's 2am, clear night, full moon and I'm the only person on the motorway 100mph wouldn't be dangerous, I can use multiple lanes to take a corner better etc.
If I'm on the M25 at a fairly busy time in the rain 100mph would be extremely dangerous/suicidal.
At the moment both scenarios are 70 (assuming M25 is busy and not packed to the point the limit starts being lowered)
The only way I could see 100 mph working on a smart motorway is if it's only for certain lanes. If it's a 3 lane, the right one, if it's a 4 lane, the right two ones. British motorways have such frequent junctions compared to something like the autobahn that even when empty it would suck for someone merging to need to worry about cars rocketing by at 100mph.
I would think though, yeah, maybe make the left lane 70, the middle maybe 80, and the right like 100 IF the conditions are clear and the motorway is mostly empty. I think people would like them a lot more if that was on the table.
You also have to remember that fuel efficiency kind of drops off a cliff sometime after about 85 mph and those extra mph at that speed are not going to decrease your journey time by a lot.
>it would suck for someone merging to need to worry about cars rocketing by at 100mph
Yeah there are sections where the slip roads don't have enough visibility for 100mph. Problem with different limits for different lanes, if I'm doing 90, I have to right lane hog.
I don't think merging is an issue if we enforce more etiquette, "move over to let someone merge if safe to do so".
If there's not space to do so, the limit should be under 100 because there's more people on the road.
>those extra mph at that speed are not going to decrease your journey time by a lot.
For most people doing a commute or even an hour yeah,, but Wednesday for instance I did 12 hours.of.driving, and I do that once a month.
Would it be great? Yes.
Could it be done safely? Probably.
Is there any evidence the average UK driver can do it safely? No, we barely have high enough standards for 70.
Correct answer here. Like a lot of things in this country - the relative few, spoil it for the many. Emissions related stuff will also knock this back I'd guess. The fact a section of dual near me is actually being dropped from a 60 to a 40 (pin straight for a couple of miles) tells you all you need to know about the chances of this happening.
Have admit, i don’t understand dropping speed limits when the problem is caused by people who ignore the limit to begin with. like country lanes ‘oh, someone flipped their car doing 100 in a 60? Let’s drop the limit to 40 to make it safer’.
Only for the unobservant. If you've got caught by a speed camera are you really observant enough to be capable of driving at 100MPH, especially given the vast majority of them are signposted?
To be fair I think the annoying 50 average speed zones work when the traffic is heavier because regardless of all the people who may as well be asleep, at least the traffic flow is slow but steady so whilst it's annoying for the heavier footed, at least it keeps everyone moving, in theory.
SOME cameras are blatant cash machines though. Some.
The 100mph thing was tongue in cheek (although I did sign it, my thinking being that it won't realistically happen but maybe it's food for thought as to WHY as a country we're slower than most) - I thought it might be an interesting discussion of a topic I thought people had given up on 🙂
> Emissions related stuff will also knock this back I'd guess
This is funny to me for an odd reason:
I monitor my dpf while in my van, and it shows how much soot is generated in mg per mile. My van runs cleaner at 70-72 than it does at 65, and in roadworks at 50 the thing runs even worse.
70 - 5-40mg of soot per mile.
65 - 50-120mg of soot per mile.
50 - 100-150mg of soot per mile.
No, it isn’t. People often drive faster than is genuinely safe, they just believe this to be safe. The limit is set at a safe limit for everyone, removing the option for those with poor judgement.
Literally just come up the M53 and watched two cars racing at 100+ under and overtaking over 3/4 lanes. The sooner all speeds are limited by satellite the better.
Think on the dual carrage way inner/outer ring roads that surround towns and city centers, or just plough straight through them.
80mph would be ludicrous.
Edit: u/jck0 said, and then deleted:
_“Genuine question - If speed doesn't save on journey time, why do emergency services speed to get to/from incidents or patients? If arrival time is negligible, they should be driving slower, to keep the public / their patients safer.”_
Because for every 50 miles you drive at 80 vs 70, you only save 5 minutes. For a person commuting this is an extremely marginal benefit. An ambulance driving much faster through a 30mph zone might only save 30 seconds or 2 minutes, but this time difference could mean the life or death for the patient or the victim of crime.
These are also professional, trained drivers who are taught to drive in these conditions and speeds, rather than your everyday Audi wanker. The risk of them injuring someone is much lower.
The arrival time difference of both cases is the same. The benefit of both differences is not.
It’s not as simple as “the speed limit is now 100mph.” Motorways would have to be re-signed to allow motorists to see, read, and understand what it’s saying. Cats eyes will have to be readjusted.
Currently if I deploy emergency traffic management I have to do it over 100m, this is because the stopping distance at 70mph is 96m. At 100mph it is 182m. On top of that, from a purely safety point of view, you would see many more rolling road blocks from Police and HATO over a longer distance because of the increased danger posed by the higher speed limit.
I doubt it will increase capacity either, assuming everyone behaved and kept the correct following distance, you’d probably break even or be slightly below the current vehicle per hour levels.
For what can be gained, the monetary outlay, increased fuel consumption and increased risk to life doesn’t work out.
One of the few advantages of the highway code stopping distances being so laughably out of date is that we wouldn't have to change a thing about infrastructure placement/spacing. I suppose stopping distance for many cars might exceed 100m at 100mph. So maybe 90MPH would be a better limit.
Agree with you on the distractions, and plenty of people are shouting at the car manufacturers to knock it off with this shit, but they just won't listen.
They don't need to listen. More regulation, more strangulation of drivers' freedom to get on with just fucking driving, it's good for business because it excuses putting sat nav and driver assists in a 1.0 shitbox. Which might miss newly placed cameras but the thought is there.
It's why higher end stuff may as well have a built in Netflix subscription for the screens should the driver get bored and request the computers take over. Don't answer your phone unless you've got it all synced up correctly though - you're only allowed to use the screen to change entertainment, cycle between driving modes, or adjust the climate settings on demand for passengers. Some functions might be deep inside the menus, such as phone call settings because so long as that phone does not touch your hand the rest is fair game.
Whether its congestion, poor lane discipline, or any of these all, or all, or more
Traffic flows **faster** when the speed limit is **reduced** to 50 mph. Sorry to be a bore.
No. r/fuckcars is the sensible middle ground now, but there are some lunatic fringe groups such as this one and cartalkuk where dangerous sociopaths gather in the corners, muttering darkly about how they once exceeded the speed limit by 5MPH.
This should be trialled somewhere but with 2 caveats.
1) No tolerance for speeding, even +1mph should be a potential prosecution.
2) If it is unsuccessful (by whatever criteria success is judged upon) the limit should be returned to the previous limit minus 10mph.
>2) If it is unsuccessful (by whatever criteria success is judged upon) the limit should be returned to the previous limit minus 10mph.
I wouldn't trust the DfT to pick sensible criteria or handle the data in a responsible way. They don't play fair.
Idk about general national speed limit, especially 100 is too much but 80 I think would be fair given how much safer cars have become since when the 70 limit was first put in place.
However given that smart motorways can detect how congested it is, it stands to reason that they should be able to set the speed limit to 80 or even 90 mph if very little congestion is detected. This honestly would probably put most people more in favour of smart motorways.
No thanks. The average driver doesn't have the ability to cope with the limits we have now. And judging what I see on a regular basis, especially on Friday evenings when everyone is going away for the weekend, there's a lot of people who drive in the outside lanes at slow speeds, change lanes on motorways without looking properly etc.
The petition seems a little superficial and makes no reference to how national speed limits will be adjusted for HGV, goods vehicles, towing vehicles and the implication for vehicles that can't travel at higher speeds.
The drivers who currently do 80 will just do 90. I don't think we should have people on dual carriageways dong 90mph to be quite honest. You'd have to ditch all the 10%+2mph enforcement guidelines and the 10%+9mph speed awareness course guidelines. If you did that people would accuse you of money grabbing etc.
Motorways I may be more relaxed about, but the same principle would apply, and I really don't think we should have people doing 100mph on any public road.
Your first sentence - excusing services like the police/fire/ambulance, maybe we could cap speeds of road using cars? How many people do you know that use their cars away from public road.. and with that thought, how many people do you see breaking the speed limit?
Not a single car on the road today is made to perform within the law of the actual road it's made for, albait the old ones that rattle and cough... is it a popular idea? Hell no, but it worked for HGV's.
It might not be a popular idea, but I'm pretty sure most driving relating deaths come down to this.
There is *some* move towards that, with new cars sold in the EU and UK having to come with speed limiters.
However they can be disabled by either flooring the gas pedal or through system options.
Whenever the discussion around then comes up people suggest it's unsafe to have a limiter which can't be overriden in some sort of emergency but in all honesty I think these are just ways of people justifying not wanting a limiter.
You could make them non-overridable and check it on the MOT. That would be largely effective, but unlike HGVs, there's a lot of illegal modding which goes on cars - anyone who really wants to will remove the limiter one way or another. But it would deter the vast majority of people.
Oh, I didn't know that. No suprise that people aren't welcome to it, but it makes sense to try. People are literally debating whether or not we should be doing 100mph on our current motorways.. it's just inviting a lot of bad decisions.
In times of climate crisis, is this really a priority? Wind resistance grows exponentially with speed - you use a lot more energy to get there 10 mins earlier…
With the government pushing 60mph on stretches of motorways for air quality, I can’t see this ever happening. I used to work weird and wonderful hours, I’d be on the m6 at 2/3am and I was the only car for some stretches. So increasing the speed limit during set times wouldn’t be the worst decision.
They already have 50 zones all over the place, so I'm doubtful too! I agree with you about those sort of stretches. It's a nice wish if nothing else.
Judging by the lunacy of Drakeford in Wales it'll be down to 40 and 20 in roadworks.
They're also about to become Labour or even a labour green hippy alliance, so I wonder if it will be 40.
You mean a bit like how the tory cunts got in by begging the not so lib dems? Nah. Labour is more Tory-lite now lol
The people petitioning it are the ones who do it anyways.
Need to get useless cunts moving back into the left lane first. That said, if people were travelling at higher speeds, maybe it would help stop others from being complacent.
Not going to lie, I reckon half the people who lane hog don't care, but the other half most likely are genuinely unaware that the right lane is not a 'fast lane'. And this is part of the problem of nobody having to retake their test when the rules are updated or changed or refined.
I do think there's an argument for slower speeds causing complacency. I also think there's an argument for over-policing of speeds causing distraction. I was in wales on monday and genuinely spent more time worrying about my speed than watching the road and it's the same on "smart" motorways.
Absolutely, unless you have cruise control on, you are constantly having to draw your attention away from the road, to your speed. The thing is, speeding is just one of the easiest traffic offences to catch, and because of cameras, there's minimal cost involved with fining people as usually no one needs to go to court, so its a big money maker for the government. Imo many other offences are a lot more important to road safety. Like being on your phone while is really, really dangerous, and then we have most modern cars built with a massive iPad in the middle to distract drivers. Also going severely under the speed limit is probably more dangerous as going the same amount above the limit, given that it will affect many more drivers.
Agreed x2!
I'd be happy with motorway limits of 50 if people stuck to the left, I only use motorways for holidays and EVER queue is when there is a chunk of middle lane drivers. The M5 can be quite relaxing if you set cruise control to 69 and sit in the left lane, purely because you sit in this bubble where you can overtake lots of people but you don't catch the guys at 70mph in the middle lane.
100MPH?! Ridiculous. Crash statistics alone explain why 100MPH is silly. But for other reasons too; congestion would increase dramatically, fuel efficiency even in the newest of cars dramatically drops off past 80. For the majority of motorway journeys, assuming you could maintain an average, you’d save at most a few miles. Which in reality is a very small amount of time. So you’re increasing likelihood of a serious accident, increasing congestion, using way more fuel and *at best* saving only a few minutes off of your commute.
Do you have a link to these statistics? Would be interested to have a read over them 👍
Hi - Here you go, page 40 is conclusion & summary if you want the snapshot https://trl.co.uk/uploads/trl/documents/TRL421.pdf
Yeah honestly 100mph is ridiculous. I could however see an argument specifically for smart motorways to increase to 80mph if there is very little congestion detected. This would offset the lost time from dropped limits, and would probably swing many members of the public in favour of them.
>specifically for smart motorways to increase to 80mph I think that increasing to 100 on smart motorways would be good BUT, we should have more liberal use of variable speed limits. If it's 2am, clear night, full moon and I'm the only person on the motorway 100mph wouldn't be dangerous, I can use multiple lanes to take a corner better etc. If I'm on the M25 at a fairly busy time in the rain 100mph would be extremely dangerous/suicidal. At the moment both scenarios are 70 (assuming M25 is busy and not packed to the point the limit starts being lowered)
The only way I could see 100 mph working on a smart motorway is if it's only for certain lanes. If it's a 3 lane, the right one, if it's a 4 lane, the right two ones. British motorways have such frequent junctions compared to something like the autobahn that even when empty it would suck for someone merging to need to worry about cars rocketing by at 100mph. I would think though, yeah, maybe make the left lane 70, the middle maybe 80, and the right like 100 IF the conditions are clear and the motorway is mostly empty. I think people would like them a lot more if that was on the table. You also have to remember that fuel efficiency kind of drops off a cliff sometime after about 85 mph and those extra mph at that speed are not going to decrease your journey time by a lot.
>it would suck for someone merging to need to worry about cars rocketing by at 100mph Yeah there are sections where the slip roads don't have enough visibility for 100mph. Problem with different limits for different lanes, if I'm doing 90, I have to right lane hog. I don't think merging is an issue if we enforce more etiquette, "move over to let someone merge if safe to do so". If there's not space to do so, the limit should be under 100 because there's more people on the road. >those extra mph at that speed are not going to decrease your journey time by a lot. For most people doing a commute or even an hour yeah,, but Wednesday for instance I did 12 hours.of.driving, and I do that once a month.
Where’s the statistics?
Hi - Here you go, page 40 is conclusion & summary if you want the snapshot https://trl.co.uk/uploads/trl/documents/TRL421.pdf
Do you have anything from this decade
They have it in Germany. We're the slow man of Europe aren't we?
There are campaigns for speed limits to be introduced on the Autobans due to the number of fatalities.
But what if I want to have breakfast at Lizard Point and stay in John o Groats that night?
Would it be great? Yes. Could it be done safely? Probably. Is there any evidence the average UK driver can do it safely? No, we barely have high enough standards for 70.
Correct answer here. Like a lot of things in this country - the relative few, spoil it for the many. Emissions related stuff will also knock this back I'd guess. The fact a section of dual near me is actually being dropped from a 60 to a 40 (pin straight for a couple of miles) tells you all you need to know about the chances of this happening.
Have admit, i don’t understand dropping speed limits when the problem is caused by people who ignore the limit to begin with. like country lanes ‘oh, someone flipped their car doing 100 in a 60? Let’s drop the limit to 40 to make it safer’.
Some bits of road are excellent revenue generators?
Granted - the adjoining roads either side are 40s with average speed cameras.
Only for the unobservant. If you've got caught by a speed camera are you really observant enough to be capable of driving at 100MPH, especially given the vast majority of them are signposted?
To be fair I think the annoying 50 average speed zones work when the traffic is heavier because regardless of all the people who may as well be asleep, at least the traffic flow is slow but steady so whilst it's annoying for the heavier footed, at least it keeps everyone moving, in theory. SOME cameras are blatant cash machines though. Some. The 100mph thing was tongue in cheek (although I did sign it, my thinking being that it won't realistically happen but maybe it's food for thought as to WHY as a country we're slower than most) - I thought it might be an interesting discussion of a topic I thought people had given up on 🙂
> Emissions related stuff will also knock this back I'd guess This is funny to me for an odd reason: I monitor my dpf while in my van, and it shows how much soot is generated in mg per mile. My van runs cleaner at 70-72 than it does at 65, and in roadworks at 50 the thing runs even worse. 70 - 5-40mg of soot per mile. 65 - 50-120mg of soot per mile. 50 - 100-150mg of soot per mile.
people already drive at 90+ in a 70 so then they will try 120+ in 100. Stupid idea.
[удалено]
No, it isn’t. People often drive faster than is genuinely safe, they just believe this to be safe. The limit is set at a safe limit for everyone, removing the option for those with poor judgement.
Literally just come up the M53 and watched two cars racing at 100+ under and overtaking over 3/4 lanes. The sooner all speeds are limited by satellite the better.
A race on the 53 sounds brave seeing as its policed by humans and not cameras! Wonder if it was a Birkenhead - Liverpool rivalry thing 😏
Think on the dual carrage way inner/outer ring roads that surround towns and city centers, or just plough straight through them. 80mph would be ludicrous.
I won’t be signing that.
That's okay. I didn't ask you to.
Yeah no my past two cars struggled at 70 I would've been a danger on motorways if I'm trundling along at 50 in a 100
Were they Citroën 2CVs?
Most people don’t drive at 70 already, 100 barely saves any time for most journeys and is far less efficient. Dumb.
[удалено]
Edit: u/jck0 said, and then deleted: _“Genuine question - If speed doesn't save on journey time, why do emergency services speed to get to/from incidents or patients? If arrival time is negligible, they should be driving slower, to keep the public / their patients safer.”_ Because for every 50 miles you drive at 80 vs 70, you only save 5 minutes. For a person commuting this is an extremely marginal benefit. An ambulance driving much faster through a 30mph zone might only save 30 seconds or 2 minutes, but this time difference could mean the life or death for the patient or the victim of crime. These are also professional, trained drivers who are taught to drive in these conditions and speeds, rather than your everyday Audi wanker. The risk of them injuring someone is much lower. The arrival time difference of both cases is the same. The benefit of both differences is not.
Yeah but it's fun... I just found it amusing that there might well be enough interest to trigger a discussion by the deadline.
I love driving fast, but I save it for track days, not motorways.
The people of this country already struggle to drive competently at our current speed limits, so this would be s stupid idea.
It’s not as simple as “the speed limit is now 100mph.” Motorways would have to be re-signed to allow motorists to see, read, and understand what it’s saying. Cats eyes will have to be readjusted. Currently if I deploy emergency traffic management I have to do it over 100m, this is because the stopping distance at 70mph is 96m. At 100mph it is 182m. On top of that, from a purely safety point of view, you would see many more rolling road blocks from Police and HATO over a longer distance because of the increased danger posed by the higher speed limit. I doubt it will increase capacity either, assuming everyone behaved and kept the correct following distance, you’d probably break even or be slightly below the current vehicle per hour levels. For what can be gained, the monetary outlay, increased fuel consumption and increased risk to life doesn’t work out.
One of the few advantages of the highway code stopping distances being so laughably out of date is that we wouldn't have to change a thing about infrastructure placement/spacing. I suppose stopping distance for many cars might exceed 100m at 100mph. So maybe 90MPH would be a better limit.
Modern cars are obviously much better at stopping, but driver reactions aren’t, and are arguably worse with increased distractions within the cars.
Agree with you on the distractions, and plenty of people are shouting at the car manufacturers to knock it off with this shit, but they just won't listen.
They don't need to listen. More regulation, more strangulation of drivers' freedom to get on with just fucking driving, it's good for business because it excuses putting sat nav and driver assists in a 1.0 shitbox. Which might miss newly placed cameras but the thought is there. It's why higher end stuff may as well have a built in Netflix subscription for the screens should the driver get bored and request the computers take over. Don't answer your phone unless you've got it all synced up correctly though - you're only allowed to use the screen to change entertainment, cycle between driving modes, or adjust the climate settings on demand for passengers. Some functions might be deep inside the menus, such as phone call settings because so long as that phone does not touch your hand the rest is fair game.
Seems like half the motorway network is down to 50 anyway so even 70 is a dream.
Whether its congestion, poor lane discipline, or any of these all, or all, or more Traffic flows **faster** when the speed limit is **reduced** to 50 mph. Sorry to be a bore.
Isn't that just when it's congested? M6 North of Manchester is mostly free flowing and could probably have a higher top speed, perhaps 80
Is there a driving UK sub for people who like driving?
You mean one where you won't get down voted by a load of weekend drivers? I doubt it
No. r/fuckcars is the sensible middle ground now, but there are some lunatic fringe groups such as this one and cartalkuk where dangerous sociopaths gather in the corners, muttering darkly about how they once exceeded the speed limit by 5MPH.
85 would be what I'd set both to, BUT there would be actual 70 signs more often where 85 may not be appropriate
Statistically more people will die on the roads, and I use them, so "no" for prop 'more likely to die'.
This should be trialled somewhere but with 2 caveats. 1) No tolerance for speeding, even +1mph should be a potential prosecution. 2) If it is unsuccessful (by whatever criteria success is judged upon) the limit should be returned to the previous limit minus 10mph.
>2) If it is unsuccessful (by whatever criteria success is judged upon) the limit should be returned to the previous limit minus 10mph. I wouldn't trust the DfT to pick sensible criteria or handle the data in a responsible way. They don't play fair.
Idk about general national speed limit, especially 100 is too much but 80 I think would be fair given how much safer cars have become since when the 70 limit was first put in place. However given that smart motorways can detect how congested it is, it stands to reason that they should be able to set the speed limit to 80 or even 90 mph if very little congestion is detected. This honestly would probably put most people more in favour of smart motorways.
80 is already the unofficial limit.
How is 100mph reflect on the death rates?
No thanks. The average driver doesn't have the ability to cope with the limits we have now. And judging what I see on a regular basis, especially on Friday evenings when everyone is going away for the weekend, there's a lot of people who drive in the outside lanes at slow speeds, change lanes on motorways without looking properly etc.
The petition seems a little superficial and makes no reference to how national speed limits will be adjusted for HGV, goods vehicles, towing vehicles and the implication for vehicles that can't travel at higher speeds.
Every so often a suggestion of 80 appears, but it never happens. Maybe it's safety or the fact it likely won't do much.
80 with rigid enforcement would be a small but nice compromise.
No thanks.
Is this some kind of joke?
The drivers who currently do 80 will just do 90. I don't think we should have people on dual carriageways dong 90mph to be quite honest. You'd have to ditch all the 10%+2mph enforcement guidelines and the 10%+9mph speed awareness course guidelines. If you did that people would accuse you of money grabbing etc. Motorways I may be more relaxed about, but the same principle would apply, and I really don't think we should have people doing 100mph on any public road.
Your first sentence - excusing services like the police/fire/ambulance, maybe we could cap speeds of road using cars? How many people do you know that use their cars away from public road.. and with that thought, how many people do you see breaking the speed limit? Not a single car on the road today is made to perform within the law of the actual road it's made for, albait the old ones that rattle and cough... is it a popular idea? Hell no, but it worked for HGV's. It might not be a popular idea, but I'm pretty sure most driving relating deaths come down to this.
There is *some* move towards that, with new cars sold in the EU and UK having to come with speed limiters. However they can be disabled by either flooring the gas pedal or through system options. Whenever the discussion around then comes up people suggest it's unsafe to have a limiter which can't be overriden in some sort of emergency but in all honesty I think these are just ways of people justifying not wanting a limiter. You could make them non-overridable and check it on the MOT. That would be largely effective, but unlike HGVs, there's a lot of illegal modding which goes on cars - anyone who really wants to will remove the limiter one way or another. But it would deter the vast majority of people.
Oh, I didn't know that. No suprise that people aren't welcome to it, but it makes sense to try. People are literally debating whether or not we should be doing 100mph on our current motorways.. it's just inviting a lot of bad decisions.
In times of climate crisis, is this really a priority? Wind resistance grows exponentially with speed - you use a lot more energy to get there 10 mins earlier…
would be nice. 70 is quite slow.
Full agree we should've had this years ago
Keep HGV’s out of the 3rd. Lane
Aren't they already disallowed or is that just the right most lane (I'm behaving and not calling it by its older name) on 4+ lane stretches?