I am not sure whether I am being pedantic, but I think the Government intend to consult about raising the Motorway speed to 80 mph. After the consultation, and parallel research in to potential effects - like increased Co2 emissions - and journey time impacts. The Government will then decide on implementing the speed limit increase (or not).

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

The speed limit on most major freeways here in the US is about 65mph, with most drivers doing about 80mph, and the limit seems to be selectively enforced by state police.

Our Federal Government can only set speed limits on federally-funded highways, all other limits are set at the state level.


Personally, I think they should raise the speed limit to 90mph on federal highways. Most multi-lane highways have signs that say "Slower traffic keep right" meaning those old Ford Fiestas can stay to the right and out of the way. Traffic on the right isn't expected to go over 45-55mph.

The Federal Government can not set speed limits in the USA. What it can do is refuse to send money to State Governments that don't follow its suggestions.

Many states have 65 in urban areas and 70-75 in rural areas.

Before you wish for 90 and slow traffic keep right, please study California as they have a law putting big rigs in the right two lanes and limiting them to 55. See if you want that kind of problem before you ask for 90. Or drive I-15 between Barstow and Stateline, where 100 isn't uncommon.

I hear in Texas there is selection based on the license plate. Out of state gets pulled over for 1 over and in state gets a pass.

---

I stand corrected re: federal highways/funding.

I haven't seen too many speed limit signs here in Illinois that are above 65mph.

Each state would obviously have to review their existing laws, and I encourage them to do so to increase the rate of travel. Perhaps removing the right lane restriction from big rigs and/or simply keeping them in the slower lane.

There is quite a lot of media comment, and views against, in the UK ATM.

From a practical point of view, bearing in mind the cost of fuel is £1.38 per litre (= to £6.28 per UK gallon and £5.22 per US gallon = $8.40 per US gallon). I have noticed the number of cars that are driving fast seems to have fallen.

When driving on dual carriage ways and motor ways I see the cars running at between 70mph and 75mph. Clearly there is the odd faster car, but these are more noticeable by their faster speed and much much fewer than, say, last year.

Personally, I think that if the limit is raised to 80mph, that the number of people driving at 90mph will be very few ... primarily down to the cost of fuel.

Just a thought?

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

The speed limit on most major freeways here in the US is about 65mph, with most drivers doing about 80mph, and the limit seems to be selectively enforced by state police.

Our Federal Government can only set speed limits on federally-funded highways, all other limits are set at the state level.


Personally, I think they should raise the speed limit to 90mph on federal highways. Most multi-lane highways have signs that say "Slower traffic keep right" meaning those old Ford Fiestas can stay to the right and out of the way. Traffic on the right isn't expected to go over 45-55mph.

Clearly you haven't driven through Texas. Many Texans consider the "passing" lane as their personal driving lane and refuse to leave it even when a car is on their bumper flashing lights and honking a horn. the only way to make them get out of the lane is to pass them get back in the passing lane and slow down so that they will want to get around you in the regular lane. Then you get to speed up. If they go back to the passing lane, repeat procedure.

BTW for decades Texans didn't need to take driving instructions. THey need only pass a written test and a simple driving test. Which may explain the poor skills on the road. also unfortunately we have a Highway maximum speed of 70 mph which makes driving all the more fun.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The speed limit on most major freeways here in the US is about 65mph, with most drivers doing about 80mph, and the limit seems to be selectively enforced by state police.

Our Federal Government can only set speed limits on federally-funded highways, all other limits are set at the state level.


Personally, I think they should raise the speed limit to 90mph on federal highways. Most multi-lane highways have signs that say "Slower traffic keep right" meaning those old Ford Fiestas can stay to the right and out of the way. Traffic on the right isn't expected to go over 45-55mph.

Clearly you haven't driven through Texas. Many Texans consider the "passing" lane as their personal driving lane and refuse to leave it even when a car is on their bumper flashing lights and honking a horn. the only way to make them get out of the lane is to pass them get back in the passing lane and slow down so that they will want to get around you in the regular lane. Then you get to speed up. If they go back to the passing lane, repeat procedure.

BTW for decades Texans didn't need to take driving instructions. THey need only pass a written test and a simple driving test. Which may explain the poor skills on the road. also unfortunately we have a Highway maximum speed of 70 mph which makes driving all the more fun.

Nope, I have never been to Texas, but my experience is oddly quite similar. On a 6-lane highway (3 lanes in one direction), its not uncommon to drive in the "fast" lane on the left and be passed in the middle lane. Meh, I've done it plenty of times.

The driving test here in IL is just as simple too. I drove around a block to get my license... literally.

But just like using flight sims to teach pilots, I think driving sims have helped the overall driving skills of many video game players. Another reason why I think it's OK to drive 80mph and the limit should be raised.


@Chris S
I actually drive my car all the way down to fumes, then I refill and top off at an even number.

Come to LA LA Land and drive around a bit. Experience I-405 around SR-118 where it is 14 lanes south and 12 lanes north. Try I-210 in Pasadena 5+1 lanes each way where the left lane is the slow lane. (+1 is carpools only) Have a go on I-710 also known as the truck route from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (busiest in the USA) They are presently closing it on weekends to replace the potholes. Take the I405 over the Sepulveda Pass. Get some local flavor and take I-10 from downtown to Santa Monica in the morning. Go over to the East LA interchange on I-5. Then to round out your tour take a drive on the Historic Arroyo Seco Parkway. Enjoy a stop sign at the end of your onramp!

---

Clearly, the drivers around my patch and I behave differently to those around London. Also, when driving on the rural lanes one can clearly identify townie drivers by their impatience.

I saw one try and pass a combine the other day. This beast was completely filling the lane and the townie still tried to overtake (unsuccessfully after he fell in the ditch, and spent half a day rescuing his bent car).

When I refuel my car, I wait until the low fuel warning sign comes on (leaving me 2.5 gallons)and then fill until the pump stops. I then top to the nearest 50 pence.

Did that today and took 67.7 litres (14.9 UK gallons). That cost me £92.00 ($150). But I had covered over 500 miles (800 km) since I last fueled, giving today's average of 33.6 mpg (from a 3.0 litre turbo engine).

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

To be fair John, you do live in a fairly rural part of the country. I live in South London and virtually all my driving is done on the M3, A3(M), M4 and the M25, and I can assure you that most are doing 80mph already. It is also not unusual to see a Porsche go whizzing by at a Ton+.

If you can afford to buy those sort of cars, fuel costs are irrelevant. People don't fill their tanks to the brim these days, neither do they buy X gallons or Y litres. People buy set amounts of fuel each week in multiples of £5, whatever they can afford. When the price of fuel goes up, they get less petrol for their money, so they drive less miles, but it won't affect the speed they drive at.

I'm not so sure. IIRC the majority of miles traveled are for business purposes, these miles are likely to be traveled regardless of the price of fuel. Those business travelers that are money conscious will decrease their speed to increase fuel economy. Also, we should be wary of using anecdotes in place of evidence, my own experience tends to show the opposite of the rural vs urban traveler, when I lived in Berks I traveled many more miles (both for business and for pleasure) than when I lived in East London.

The evidence tells us that in the UK road accident fatalities are a quarter what they were in 1965, despite the increase in road usage over the same period. No doubt there are many factors that have contributed to this decrease, not least amongst them more widespread awareness of the dangers of driving while under the influence of alcohol. No doubt car construction has also contributed, though I imagine that seat belt wearing is also a significant change in road user behavior over the past 46 years. Another component could be a change in climatic conditions, with less severe winters there may be fewer occasions where road conditions are treacherous.

It is not hard to imagine that increases in the difficulty of the driver's license test could also be a contributing factor, again, while being careful to note this is an anecdote, my grandfather informed me that his test was to drive a motor cycle around a town square, prior to being licensed to drive any car or motor cycle. The test today includes a theory component that was introduced in July 1996. I believe the data supports the notion that risk awareness increases with age, thus the view that driver ability is decreasing may be, in part, a result of an increase in the viewer's driver ability (due to increased risk awareness) over the same period.

It might be interesting to compare the data from Germany and the UK, where many of these factors are likely to have had similar effects. The data shows that road fatalities in that country are down by a similar amount (1/5 as many road deaths in 2008 compared to 1970). Of note is the recent ban on alcohol for new drivers in Germany. This data leads me to believe that, while speed limits may play a part in road safety, other factors could well be more significant.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

And apart from anything else, if it's never got on average more than a couple of gallons in it, there is less risk of an explosion in a crash

The more air in the tank the greater the risk damage from the explosion as the liquid doesn't explode.
[edit]Race cars use rubber bladders as the tank so they are always 100% full to reduce risk of explosion.

---

I have another answer to fuel-air explosions, my fuel is derv which will only ignite above 300C (compression ignition).

Derv does not brew up to the sensitive extent that petrol does. A lesson all parties learnt in WW2 during tank battles. The diesel powered tanks were less likely to burn than petrol power, helped with HE and armour piercing rounds.

As I understand, now most military only use derv or JP8 (jet fuel). The troop carriers, motor cycles, tanks, etc, are all powered using JP8 - 1 fuel for all transport, including ships and jet/propeller powered aircraft.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

@ Bobby - I'm gonna do you the courtesy of reading through your post properly before making a considered response. After a quick skim I don't think I'm going to be agreeing with you, but we will see :-)

Sure thing. For clarification I should add that my comments (including "while speed limits may play a part in road safety, other factors could well be more significant") are in the context of motorway speed limits, and not speed limits for urban traffic. When pedestrians and bicycles can be a factor, the evidence is clear, higher speeds lead to fatalities.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

lets not forget that traction control, stability control, better designed tires, antilock brakes, and a multitude of (liberal induced) safety features make driving safer. I do think that people also drive less carefully knowing that these safety features will help protect them from their own idiocy

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I would like to see re-testing every 5 years for everyone over 70, but it would cost too much.

I would counter propose that they can raise the speed limit to 80mph on motorways, but that speed shall be restricted to those that have passed the Advanced Driving Test and display the appropriate windscreen sticker. Unfortunately, although a good idea, it would be impractical to enforce it.

I would also propose that new drivers having passed their test, should be required to display the green P Probationer plates for 3 years, and be restricted to the current 70mph limit. Again a good idea but unlikely to be taken up.

He! He!

I am a member of the IAM having passed my Advanced Drivers Test and a requirement to join.

So, on Chris's proposal, would I also be exempt from taking a driving test every 5 years as I am also an old fart?

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

You have hit on the one non-improving variable in the mix - the human driver ...

Since the 1950s, roads have improved and are generally upgraded to make them safer when accidents show some commonality and the deed for alteration.

Vehicle construction, vehicle safety technology and crash/crush resistance has improved beyond recognition since then. Also, engine technology of all types has massively improved ... but not the driver skill.

Perhaps, it should be compulsory that all drivers undergo the Advanced Drivers Test within 10 years of passing their test. If they don't show the higher skills this new driving qualification demonstrates, then they should be restricted to slower lower powered vehicles?

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

You have hit on the one non-improving variable in the mix - the human driver ...

I'd say that drivers have improved due to greater awareness of the dangers of driving while under the influence of alcohol, and the lowering of the limits at which this is measured. I believe the data shows that not only does alcohol impair a driver's technical ability (reduced reaction times, etc), it also reduces risk awareness.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

You are correct Bobby.

That is a combination of social acceptability and fear of points on, or losing, the driving license.

However, although there is a considerable drop in drink-driving offenses, there is increasing evidence of drug related accidents - people who have smoked weed or taken hard drugs then driven. The social unacceptability or this has now to be tackled.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

OK, one considered response coming up, and I'll present my credentials before hand. I have been regularly driving since 1963, covering nearly 1/2 million miles to date. Some years ago I was a part time Driving Instructor with my local Driving School, evenings and weekends. If you've not had to "dual" a learner about to jump a red light, you haven't lived! :-)

Thanks for the considered response.

I'm not so sure. IIRC the majority of miles traveled are for business purposes, these miles are likely to be traveled regardless of the price of fuel. Those business travelers that are money conscious will decrease their speed to increase fuel economy.

I think there are 4 main classes of mileage. Public/Commercial transport & goods lorries, business mileage, commuting, Social domestic & pleasure.

My "I'm not so sure" comment was intended to address your comment that people drive fewer miles when fuel prices increase, in part by suggesting that much driving cannot be avoided when prices increase. Of the four classes of mileage, I'd say two ("Public/Commercial transport & goods lorries, business mileage") clearly fall under the umbrella of "business purposes" , and a third ("commuting") is predominantly a business purpose (traveling to/from work). For the third, I believe there is some evidence to support the notion that cost is a consideration (e.g. car pooling). On "business mileage", I understand that it is typical for many organizations to reimburse fuel charges on the basis of mileage rates, for employees of such organizations, the cost of fuel may be a consideration that motivates more fuel efficient car usage.

Another component could be a change in climatic conditions, with less severe winters there may be fewer occasions where road conditions are treacherous.

Judging by the last few winters here I don't think the AA would agree with you! Last year most of Kent was cut off with snow.

I did say "could be". To establish whether it is we'd need meteorological data showing such things number of occasions with temperatures below freezing, annual hours of sunshine, etc. Just as one swallow does not make a summer, one severe winter does not establish a trend in climate patterns.

The evidence tells us that in the UK road accident fatalities are a quarter what they were in 1965, despite the increase in road usage over the same period.

Seat belts, drinking, and vehicle construction all play a part, but so too does more stringent MOT tests. You just don't see old bangers falling apart like you did in the 1960's, I know I drove one! As impoverished apprentices we patched up exhausts with baked bean cans & gungum because we couldn't afford a new one.

There are less deaths simply because of medical advances in emergency treatment and resuscitation. We now have paramedics in high speed vehicles, getting to motorway accidents far quicker than the following ambulances. We also have Air Ambulances that can fly a patient to a trauma unit in minutes. None of that was around in the 1960's so of course the death rate has fallen.

What I would like to see is the figures for seriously injured people compared over the years. With the higher speed crashes we are seeing I bet they haven't gone down, and may well increase if this law goes ahead. Less people may die but how many more will end up in wheel chairs?

While not covering the period from 1965 to the modern day, the figures here do show that all categories of injuries for all class of injured have decreased over the past 10+ years. It is also implicit in these figures that the aggregated total number of miles traveled has increased over that period.

my grandfather informed me that his test was to drive a motor cycle around a town square, prior to being licensed to drive any car or motor cycle.

My dad aged 98 has never had a test as he got his first licence in 1932, and they were not introduced until 1935. AND he is still driving, although he agrees with me that perhaps it is time to stop now. He can still get insurance but he doesn't feel safe himself, which is the key point. Shame others aren't as responsible.History

Does this anecdote support your view that driver ability has decreased over time? If so, how?

The test today includes a theory component that was introduced in July 1996. I believe the data supports the notion that risk awareness increases with age, thus the view that driver ability is decreasing may be, in part, a result of an increase in the viewer's driver ability (due to increased risk awareness) over the same period.

Two things here. It is widely believed but never admitted, that the theory component was introduced simply to weed out the many thousands of foreign immigrants that couldn't read English road signs, and saving money by not testing them if they failes the preliminary assessment. The problem that remains is anyone with an International driving licence can drive here, even if you can't speak or read a word of English. That is not safe to me.

If the intent of the theory test was as you suggest, does having a smaller proportion of drivers on the road that are unable to read English road signs support your view that driver ability has decreased over time? Alternatively, are you suggesting that the number of potential drivers that fail the theory hurdle is exceeded by the number of road users operating under the provisions of an Internation license? If the latter, do you have the data to support this?

Secondly, risk awareness does not increase with age across the board, I regularly see silly old farts in their 70's and 80's who simply shouldn't be on the road. Their eyesight clearly isn't all it could be (pun intended) and their spatial awareness seems to be zero. I would like to see re-testing every 5 years for everyone over 70, but it would cost too much.

There is an obvious criticism of this objection, and one I made in my earlier post, the plural of anecdote is not data, and as noted earlier, I believe we should be wary of using anecdotes in place of evidence. Further, the objection does not show whether the "old farts" in question have increased their risk awareness over their own life time. I will accept that my initial comment was a little deficient, rather than "risk awareness increases with age", I should have said "risk awareness tends to increase with age". It should be noted that analysis of data helps establish changes in a given population, typically there are outliers, and while we may have a tendency to remember these outliers, they may not be representative of the population being observed.

This data leads me to believe that, while speed limits may play a part in road safety, other factors could well be more significant.

I think that sheer speed is the main result of most major accidents. As stated before, I simply don't believe that the average driver has the ability to control and drive a vehicle safely at 90mph. You can argue with me until the cows come home, but you won't shake that conviction.

I would counter propose that they can raise the speed limit to 80mph on motorways, but that speed shall be restricted to those that have passed the Advanced Driving Test and display the appropriate windscreen sticker. Unfortunately, although a good idea, it would be impractical to enforce it.

I would also propose that new drivers having passed their test, should be required to display the green P Probationer plates for 3 years, and be restricted to the current 70mph limit. Again a good idea but unlikely to be taken up.

I just despair at times. UK roads are full of incompetent and lunatic drivers,and all they are going to do is to make it worse for everyone.

It was not my intent to shake you of any convictions you may hold. It was my intent to introduce some data to aid consideration of the government's proposal. I would argue that evidence based policy decisions are more likely to have successful outcomes than opinion based decisions. I would not argue that the evidence accumulated in this thread is comprehensive.

Given the data on accidents I would suggest that it is hard to conclude that the prevalence of incompetent and/or lunatic drivers on UK roads is higher today than in the past, indeed, there seems to be much would lead to the opposite conclusion.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

You are correct Bobby.

That is a combination of social acceptability and fear of points on, or losing, the driving license.

However, although there is a considerable drop in drink-driving offenses, there is increasing evidence of drug related accidents - people who have smoked weed or taken hard drugs then driven. The social unacceptability or this has now to be tackled.

Absolutely, the effects of substances other than alcohol should be studied and appropriate legislation introduced. It may be that some substances have a generally beneficial effect; stimulants, for instance, may assist driver alertness.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...