To think 70mph is an acceptable speed in any motorway lane?

[AvocadosBeforeMortgages]

Disclaimer: I have only recently started driving on the motorway regularly

Surely whatever lane you're in, 70mph is an acceptable speed to be doing? I keep finding that when I'm in the fast lane (eg when overtaking cars in the middle lane) at 70mph, I find I have someone driving 2 metres behind me in a way that suggests they enjoy causing a pile up. Once I'm able to get back into the middle lane they will rush past at well over 70mph.

Did I miss the memo where the fast lane became part of the German Autobahn?

If you do that you'll be accused of middle lane sitting. Apparently you are meant to speed up to the car in front, pull out at the last minute and then cut them up as you go back in even if there is another car to overtake very soon.

Nope, you're wrong.
"You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past."
Thats from the highway code.

In addition, we identify and remove periods of very low speeds on some faster roads, as these are indicative of congestion. These relate to recorded speeds of under 25 mph on motorways

That's not 'a bit congested' is it? Basically they exclude traffic at near standstill, but not a motorway chugging along at 50, which most people would consider congested enough to affect speed.

you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past

Which can be a long time, if all the cars are spaced less than the safe braking distance to pull in ....

And yet, MC, average speeds have only marginally reduced, and indeed that slight reduction ties in very well with the reduced amount of speeding at 80mph+. But by all means, you continue in your belief that the statistics are pointless and the DfT don't know what they're doing. Anecdata is so much more accurate.

But by all means, you continue in your belief that the statistics are pointless and the DfT don't know what they're doing. Anecdata is so much more accurate.

I never said that. I just pointed out that you didn't understand the statistics you were citing (which I note you've now stopped contesting). Sorry that that seems to have bothered you - I know no one likes being wrong.

No. You claimed that the reduction in speeding was due to increased congestion. You have provided nothing back up to that claim, other than what you perceive. And what exactly have I stopped contesting?

If you actually read what I was saying, I was challenging those who claimed that "everyone drives at 80mph+". But you'd rather challenge the basis of the DfT's stats rather than people making excuses for their speeding. Are you a speeding apologist too?

I said that 'I suspected' increased congestion was the explanation. You said, incorrectly, that I was wrong because their figures excluded weight of traffic - as it turns out, they exclude only situations where the traffic is at a near standstill, not all congestion. I thought you'd now conceded this as you didn't respond to that part of my message.

Nope, you're wrong.
"You should always drive in the left-hand lane when the road ahead is clear. If you are overtaking a number of slower-moving vehicles, you should return to the left-hand lane as soon as you are safely past."
Thats from the highway code

I wasn't being serious, I just meant that's what many MNers and the middle lane sitter obsessives think. If you are in the middle lane for more than 5 seconds you're a middle lane sitter and therefore fair game for undertaking.

No I haven't conceded that point. They specifically choose points that have free flowing characteristics. They use 36 out of the 10659 available cameras on the motorway network to do this. You think that's just a random choice or do you think they've actually thought about it? Deciding at what speed to exclude the data is not that simple a thing to do. You claimed that they didn't adjust if for congestion when they do, you just disagree with how they are assessing congestion. Why don't you ring them up and tell them how they are doing their job wrong.

But I've also given you another reason why you are wrong (and which you have ignored twice now) - the average speed. If congestion was the reason for reduction in speeding then you would expect the average speed to have significantly reduced as well. But it hasn't. Also, the 80mph+ speeding has reduced much more than the 70-75mph. Again, indicative that actually there has been a change in general driver behaviour.

It also accords with my anecdata. It certainly feels like there's fewer people going at silly speeds on the motorways than 10 years ago. Happily, my feelings have a strong basis to go on. The speeding apologists on here don't.

Why don't you ring them up and tell them how they are doing their job wrong.

Ok, you're just getting petulant now. I actually thought this was quite an interesting discussion about the problems and limitations of statistics, but you're not interested in that so I'm out.

Oh is that what this was? I seemed like you were just trying to pick holes in what I was saying whilst ignoring my general point. If you want a reasoned discussion you should cut down on petulance yourself ("no one likes being wrong").

Disastherdarling - how many driving disasters have you caused with your impatience?!

I disagree people are driving slower when the traffic is free flowing. I recently noticed the majority of drivers in the middle and outside lanes were sat at around 80 mph on pretty much the whole length of the M1.

And it wasn't just your usual German cars, it was no end of family SUV's and little runaround. The worst drivers I've noticed recently tend to be in Nissan Qashqai's or Volvo V40`s, a staggering lack of awareness coupled with very excessive speeds (95+)

Our limits are long overdue an overhaul, after driving on the continent; our roads feels slow, over crowded, and full of selfish drivers.

I feel much safer on European motorways which apart from the odd case all have higher speed limits. I think our low limits bunch people together and induce more risk.

Our limits are long overdue an overhaul, after driving on the continent; our roads feels slow, over crowded, and full of selfish drivers

The problem is the faster you make the roads the more useless trains become. And there's something already wrong when a door-to-door journey of 117 miles to London can be done in 125 minutes, when the equivalent train journey would take nearly an hour longer and cost more - even taking into account lifetime ownership of the car.

Even 15 years ago, I could never get my boss (who was tighter that the proverbial) to pay for a rail journey, as it was cheaper to hire a car, drive to London and park for a day.

StarCC, the UK is 4th in Europe for road deaths/population and 3rd for road deaths/distance travelled. I don't think we're doing all that bad really.

It's all well and good for cars to all be travelling faster, but lorries won't be. Having a bigger speed differential is not good for safety. And driving at 80mph is much less fuel efficient than at 70mph.

I disagree....

Cars are much more fuel efficient nowadays with better gearing and a lower drag coefficient compared to cars years ago, plus we now have the introduction of hybrid components, further reducing fuel usage.

As for speed differentials, it works on the continent, no reason why it couldn't work here. That's why we have overtaking lanes and restrictions in the lanes lorries can use.

Driving at 70 is less fuel efficient than driving at 55, it's all relative and dependant on context.

I got that you disagree... I'd be wary of what things feel like though. It is more unsafe to drive in most european countries than here. That includes motorways.

And yes the line has to be drawn somewhere, but it shouldn't be ignored that if you want to increase the speed limit you are going to increase carbon emissions compared to if you didn't.

Driving at 70 is less fuel efficient than driving at 55

More time efficient though, and time is the one thing we are all ultimately limited by.

@disahsterdahling Oh! Sarcasm detector failure on my part, sorry

I do think that unless you are overtaking you should be in the left lane where 70 is an appropriate speed. Pisses me right off when you get a lorry overtaking another lorry at a fraction of a mile per hour. Right off.

There is no such thing as a "fast lane " left hand is for normal driving middle and right is for over taking 70 MPH is the speed limit for all

I find people tend to add 10 mph on so if the6 change the limit to 80 a percentage will take that as a opportunity to drive at 90

The problem is the faster you make the roads the more useless trains become. And there's something already wrong when a door-to-door journey of 117 miles to London can be done in 125 minutes, when the equivalent train journey would take nearly an hour longer and cost more - even taking into account lifetime ownership of the car.

That's fascinating as I find the exact opposite. I can do door to door London to Manchester in just under 2h by train (fast train Virgin West coast mainline). The same journey by car takes at least 3.5h in perfect conditions, usually 4h+, often longer.

That's fascinating as I find the exact opposite. I can do door to door London to Manchester in just under 2h by train (fast train Virgin West coast mainline). The same journey by car takes at least 3.5h in perfect conditions, usually 4h+, often longer.

My door to door journey is the same time by Train or Motorbike going into London & significantly longer by Train going home (more stops).

Total Cost for the Train is £48 per day
Fuel cost for the Motorbike is £11 per day, even factoring in the Insurance (£17 per month) and Servicing (£250 per year) the bike is very obviously the most logical option.

Plus, given that I can get home anytime between 18:00 & Midnight with the shit old trains at the moment, I know I'll be home 90 minutes after leaving work if I'm on the bike.