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.

To digress slightly, yesterday I drove up the M20 from the Channel Tunnel to the M25 and for an awful lot of the journey the speed limt was 50 because of road works. I chose to drive in the slow lane because there were a lot of drives - of lorries and cars - who had clearly obtained an official dispensation from the speed limit in the other two lanes. Technically I could have driven at 50 in the outside lane but I didn’t want to be tailgated.

Technically I could have driven at 50 in the outside lane but I didn’t want to be tailgated.

Well no, you couldn't, unless you were overtaking, which by what you have said, you would not be doing at 50mph.

Dd has a limiter on her pick up, it's an ex hire vehicle.

I actually think it's quite dangerous and really should get it taken off so this thread is a good reminder.

To Dramatical

Since the speed limit on the whole carriageway was 50 that applied to all 3 lanes so yes I could have done 50 in the outside lane

Re limiters, couldn't everyones cars be limited at say 100mph? That would be enough speed to 'avoid accidents', go abroad etc, but stop those occasional idiots who do 110/120/130mph on the motorways

The idea I had the other day was that everyone should be allowed to go 10mph over the speed limit, on every road. But going any over that would have zero tolerance. Would account for how modern cars are much safer, brake better etc, and also weed out those who think its safe to go 50 in a 30 or whatever.

I've objection to an adjustable limiter, which is now technically possible. I'm not so keen on absolute limiters. It would be frustrating to drive behind a vehicle set for 80kph (which is about 50mph) because that's the limit where they are from. It would be annoying to drive in Germany or somewhere with roads where there's a higher/no limit, and your vehicle is limited to a lower limit. Plus all the points people have made about driving off public roads, like going for a track day.

I would ban lorries fitted with limiters from overtaking each other when there's only two lanes, especially when it's uphill. I have spent quite a bit of time stuck on the A34 because of this, behind a truck which just can't pull past the one it's trying to overtake.

I hope the limiters are calibrated precisely to the set speed limit.

I occasionally get stuck behind somebody hogging the outside lane of the motorway doing a steady 65 mph. Presumably convinced by their over reading speedo they are actually doing 70.

@bridgetreilly - a lot of people couldn't read the whole article, because it's behind a paywall.

Here's one that isn't...
www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/27/all-new-uk-cars-to-have-speed-limiters-by-2022-under-eu-plans

It's a ridiculous idea and potentially quite dangerous.

If you want to overtake someone doing below the speed limit on a single lane carriageway then the safest way is to get past as quickly as possible which may involve temporarily breaking the speed limit.

"If you want to overtake someone doing below the speed limit on a single lane carriageway then the safest way is to get past as quickly as possible which may involve temporarily breaking the speed limit."

You could argue that if you can't get past without breaking the speed limit, you shouldn't try and overtake. I read somewhere that you need a minimum of a 10mph difference in speed.

The situation I worry about are the loons that put their foot down when you are alongside them rapidly heading towards a bend that was a safe distance away when you started overtaking, but is now getting decidedly dodgy. To compound the situation, usually, the car behind you has closed up the gap so you can't drop back and pull in either.

If you want to overtake someone doing below the speed limit on a single lane carriageway then the safest way is to get past as quickly as possible which may involve temporarily breaking the speed limit.

Alternatively you could read the situation in a sensible manner and not overtake.

No.

But cars that drive in the middle or outside land for more than 3 minutes without actually overtaking another car should explode and kill their stupid occupants.

You sound like a safe driver

I am the one going at 70 at 2am on a motorway. So not true that nobody does that speed

Are you my OH?? Going through 'roadworks' at 3 am he was driving at the posted 50mph!

Yet when we lived in Germany and we were heading down to the coast after school on Fridays he would tell me to drive, as I would get us through the Ruhr before the rush hour got too bad!

Alternatively you could read the situation in a sensible manner and not overtake.

That's not an alternative, that's what you should do all the time. My point was purely that executing an overtake quickly and efficiently is safer than being restricted.

So it's safer to over take rather than drive behind another car? Is that a proven fact?

PB. I can't work out your point on the last post. You literally contradict yourself.

I think such a move would do more damage to car sales then any kind of Brexit could ever do.!

This is an act of stupidity on behalf of the European Union
Perhaps Volvo knew this was a foot hence trying to counteract with a policy to limit all new cars next year to 112 MPH.

This i think is similar to what currently happens in Japan . However, the GPS systems in Japan allow for these limiters to become redundant if the car is on a Racetrack example via a track day ETC.

The current 70 mph limit would be hilarious , but devastating for the following car companies.
Ferrari Porsche Maserati BMW Mercedes sales of their new cars in Europe would absolutely fall through the floor !.

Heard the one about the £250 K Ferrari that's slower that a Reliant Robin.

All the cars above are bought mostly on the assumption of what speed they 'could' in theory do . Who is going to buy a Ferrari/Porsche that will achieve 70 mph.and be slower than a 1960s Hillman Imp.

The AA and others are complaining too loudly. We might try to justify that we need to go faster to escape danger. We don't. We need to anticipate better and if anything drive more slowly.

Rest assured, when we get (and we will get them) self-drive cars, we will all be much safer. There will be fewer crashes, and hardly any traffic offences. We might need to allow a few minutes more for travel, as we won't be able to speed.

This will free police to what they should be doing. It will bring changes to society and the economy that at the moment will be very hard to anticipate.

Intelligent vehicles that know where they are may well stop all crime involving cars and motor vehicles (no moped crimes). Add fingerprint sensors to vehicles to prevent their theft.

We will need very serious penalties for any unscrupulous mechanics interfering with the automatic mechanisms.

people may not even need to own cars, as driverless cars might be called up on demand. Taxis will change. Lorries will certainly change. "Johnny cabs" anyone?

"Heard the one about the £250 K Ferrari that's slower that a Reliant Robin."

It will only be slower until the first bend. It will get to the first bend sooner too.

This was on R4 just now on You & Yours.