To think cars should legally have speed limited to 70mph?

[clairemcnam]

The upper speed limit in the UK is 70mph. So why does the Government not just pass a law saying that all cars should have a speed limited so that is the fastest it can go? Sure I know some people would disable it, but in general it would stop most people going faster than 70mph.

Fine I am happy for those who understand these things to set speed limits. But I am also going to stick to them, and not think I am above the law.

And actually you can be fined for driving too slowly on a motorway.

I wish speed limits were simply advisory rather than mandatory. Road conditions vary all the time, ditto traffic levels, and it may be perfectly safe to do 100mph on a dry empty motorway one day, but dangerous to even exceed 20mph on the same road in thick fog the next.
When I was an on call hospital doctor, I regularly drove at well over the speed limit- up to 100mph on my dual carriageway.
I was stopped once by the local constabulary, who ran my car off the road to pull me over, but they were very apologetic and waved me straight on when I explained I was heading to trauma theatre. It was a delay I could have done without.

The law should be respected and obeyed, but taking away the ability of individuals to break laws, whilst sounding great in theory, is a very slippery slope towards a nanny state which rapidly becomes a police state.

I quite agree. Now, where can I buy a Smith and Wesson .38 special ?

Inappropriate speed is what's dangerous.

I drive miles and miles daily. The most dangerous driving I see is often the too slow driver:

• 43mph on a dual carriageway and refusing to move on to let cars on at slip roads
• 40mph in a 60mph, but continuing at 40mph in a 30 zone
• 51mph in the middle lane of the A1M and another
• 53mph in the middle lane of the A1M a mere 2 miles later.
• a car overtaking at 62mph for 3 miles on a 70mph dual carriageway

It's bloody dangerous and boils my piss, puts the lives of my family in danger.

And yes, I do speed beyond 70mph to get as far away from these wankers as possible.

Thank god we don't live in an awful nanny state like you suggest OP.

@Babdoc Prat.

The most dangerous driving I see is often the too slow driver

I think it's excessive speed differentials that are more dangerous. Which is why I despair seeing cyclists wobbling along at 15 on a dual carriageway where everyone is at 70.

That said, it would be a collective shock in the UK if minimum speed limits were more widely used ....

Just bear in mind that you may think you are doing 70 but your speedo can read up to 10% more. So 70 can easily only be 64, making you an even bigger liability.

Is the logic of this post: if you are doing the speed limit according to your speedometer you are dangerous - presumably because everyone else will be breaking the law and you are getting in their way? (Although the argument for doing faster than 70 seems to be the need to get out of someone's way quickly )

Also why because someone has admitted to - shock horror - obeying the speed limit is it immediately assumed that they are a middle lane driver?! Does obeying one law mean that you will break another to even it out? In the same way that people who break the speed limit can feel good about themselves because they follow other laws. Or are they such good drivers that they can make up their own?

if speed limits are lower it'll be safer'

Who has suggested that?

I live in Australia and I have noticed two things that are relevant here.

1. Under-taking is allowed (although technically not on motorways but it still happens). I was shocked at first, but it really really helps the flow of city traffic. Meaning wankers don't bleat about the difference between 64 and 70.
2. UK drivers are so angry. When I get in the car with my relatives in the UK, I swear some of them will die at the wheel of a heart attack. As for a pp who clearly speeds and then uploads dash cam footage of slow drivers?! Does it not use the time saved speeding to do that? Also driving on a dual carriage way peering into other cars' windows to see the driver texting, has got to be dangerous. Eyes on the bloody road!

Limiters are very annoying. We rented a van to drive from the East coast to Iowa. 1300 miles limited to 65mph.

It was the most frustrating 19.5 hours

The law should be respected and obeyed, but taking away the ability of individuals to break laws, whilst sounding great in theory, is a very slippery slope towards a nanny state which rapidly becomes a police state.

I quite agree. Now, where can I buy a Smith and Wesson .38 special ?

I probably didn't phrase that well - I meant people's ability to break laws by changing their behaviour whilst using everyday legal tools that have a normal useful purpose, not illegal weapons whose only purpose is violence.

These posts always interest me. One of the reasons we have a speed limit of 70 is to allow sufficient opportunity for your car to be visible when drivers moving more slowly check their blind spot before overtaking. If you are driving at 80 you are less easy to notice and a car is therefore more likely to pull out into you and crash. You are also more likely to skid and crash into other cars if you have to stop suddenly. If you want to drive excessively fast, that is your prerogative. Just remember, if you smash in to a car driving at 70 in the middle lane and kill the children in the back, it will not be that driver's fault. It will be yours.

Is the logic of this post: if you are doing the speed limit according to your speedometer you are dangerous - presumably because everyone else will be breaking the law and you are getting in their way? (Although the argument for doing faster than 70 seems to be the need to get out of someone's way quickly confused)

Nope. If your car over reads by 10% you think you’re doing 70 but you’re actually doing around 64.

If the person behind you’s speedo is reading 6% over then they think they’re doing 70 and that you are doing less because they will catch you up as they are going 66.

And the person who overtakes you whose speedo is reading 2% over is doing what they think is 70 but is actually doing 68.

So you all think you’re doing 70, therefore nobody will speed up, but you’re actually all doing different speeds, using more lanes and holding people who are actually doing 70 up.

As for a pp who clearly speeds and then uploads dash cam footage of slow drivers?!

I upload footage of dangerous drivers. Not always slow drivers, but just pointing out that it’s not necessarily speed that makes someone dangerous.

Does it not use the time saved speeding to do that?

I think of it as my civic duty.

Also driving on a dual carriage way peering into other cars' windows to see the driver texting, has got to be dangerous. Eyes on the bloody road!

Its not hard to spot someone texting. They tend not to be in control of the car and you can see which way they are looking in their rear view mirror. Oddly enough, when I’m looking through my windscreen it’s not hard to see the driver of the car in front’s face in their rear view mirror. I call it using my eyes. I’m not staring at them and no peering needed.

I think it's excessive speed differentials that are more dangerous. Which is why I despair seeing cyclists wobbling along at 15 on a dual carriageway where everyone is at 70.

Yes, it's the cyclists' fault. They should be cycling at 70 mph too.

There’s a NSL (60mph) dual carriageway bypass here

The NSL on a dual carriageway is 70, not 60.

My BMW has a speed limiter. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.......because it's limited to 155mph. The dealer says it can be removed if I want to pay to have it done, to give me another 20mph to pay with. Haven't bothered.

Nothing wrong with having compulsory limiters, lots of vehicles do already, or (esp in the case of e cars) have low top speeds full stop. It wouldn't be at all unsafe, and would stop the tail gating morons who drive at +100.

I'd suggest the government combine it with raising NSL to 80, because 70 is so low to be meaningless on motorways.

I am obsessional about speed limits as I worked in a trauma service. I know what speed can do.

People who exceed the limit frankly make me sick.

But I do not think you can insist that cars are made so that they cannot go over the speed limit, because there may be very rare circumstances where action to avoid an accident might involve briefly exceeding the speed limit.

I'd suggest the government combine it with raising NSL to 80, because 70 is so low to be meaningless on motorways.

The reason it's 70 on the motorway is because the authorities fully expect people to break it routinely by up to 10 mph, and they feel that 80 is the maximum before it becomes a real danger. If they raised the limit to 80, people would still break it by 10mph, and people driving routinely at 90 is not something they are prepared to tolerate.

Thing is though people don't just drive on normal roads/motorways in the UK. As PP has said, people go over to Europe and drive there on holiday, or some people (particularly those with performance cars) like to take their cars to Germany JUST so they can drive on the Autobahn where they can enjoy their cars more. Other people go on track days - again, so they can enjoy the full power of the car they've spent a lot of their hard earned money on. Not everyone buys a car just as a thing to get them from A to B - some people really enjoy cars and the whole driving experience and take their cars to places where they can properly do that. I doubt a track day would be much fun in a car limited to 70mph!

I like speed cameras. I’d have loads more of them, enforce limits rigorously and pour the gazillions of pounds raised into all sorts of worthy areas from the NHS to education. Sure, do 100 on the motorway. The bill’s in the post.

Is everyone here aware that at 20mph or less a child is almost 100% more likely to die from being hit by a car than at 30mph?