DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 19139--------------------------------------------------
Driving law proposals could see motorway speed limits raised to
100mph to 'reduce congestion'
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: April 6, 2024, 6:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/driving-law-proposals-motorway-speed-limits-petition
Please sign here:
HTML https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/651666
#Post#: 19464--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving law proposals could see motorway speed limits raised
to 100mph to 'reduce congestion'
DIR By: tonys
Date: April 10, 2024, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you mean to post this on the 1st, in the morning?
#Post#: 19465--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving law proposals could see motorway speed limits raised
to 100mph to 'reduce congestion'
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: April 10, 2024, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tonys link ---
>
> Did you mean to post this on the 1st, in the morning?
>
--- End Quote ---
No? ???
#Post#: 19569--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving law proposals could see motorway speed limits raised
to 100mph to 'reduce congestion'
DIR By: guest968
Date: April 12, 2024, 11:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Given that (on dry roads) the advice is to maintain a 2 second
gap then the faster the traffic the longer the gap has to be, so
as speeds increase you actually get fewer cars on a given length
of road.
At any given moment in time, each lane of a road has capacity
for about 24 cars per mile (assuming average car length of
14.44') at 70mph, and about 17 per mile at 100mph.
Because car lengths remain the same though, you can pass more
cars down the road at higher speeds. But not by much - past any
given point you can get about 1682 cars per hour at 70mph, and
1716 at 100mph.
The reality though is that you're always going to get bunching
up and sudden slow-downs of traffic, particularly when volumes
are high, and the faster the "free-flowing" traffic is the worse
the temporary blockages get (people into queueing theory can
probably explain why).
That's why during peak times temporary speed limits are used to
slow traffic down, to minimise the number and severity of
temporary blockages, and to allow ones which arise to clear
quicker by reducing the rate at which new vehicles arrive.
And that idea would work better than it does if people stuck to
the temporary limits instead of stupidly and selfishly ignoring
them because they can't see why it's needed. That's the whole
point - you can't see why because the why is 5 miles down the
road. Thank heavens for the increased use of non-film ANPR
gantry cameras which make it impossible for drivers not to
follow temporary speed limits.
I suspect that upping the limit would actually make things
worse, not better.
#Post#: 19572--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving law proposals could see motorway speed limits raised
to 100mph to 'reduce congestion'
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: April 12, 2024, 11:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That is a somewhat confused post - mostly correct but seemingly
contradictory.
For the purposes of maximising road capacity, *if* the braking
distance increases exponentially with speed as per the highway
code (my opinion of which is well documented), the optimum speed
is about 11mph.
If a road is below maximum capacity, journeys will be shorter at
higher speeds.
However, *if* the "two second rule" is applied, rather than the
highway code distances, the 'length' of a vehicle effectively
becomes shorter (measured in time taken for its length to pass a
point), and maximum throughput is just below whatever speed the
French cars start to blow up.
Suggesting that motorists who have scant regard for often
arbitrary temporary speed limits are variously stupid and
selfish is perhaps not the best way to ingratiate yourself with
a motoring forum - although perhaps that's the idea.
Temporary limits at rush hour to maximise traffic flow are
largely a good idea, let down by the prevalence of arbitrary and
pointless speed limit reductions 'just in case'. Today Aesop
would be castigated for his portrayal of the boy on the grounds
that there might have been a wolf anyway, and you can't be too
careful. You can, and that is why temporary speed limits to
increase traffic flow don't work.
#Post#: 19574--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving law proposals could see motorway speed limits raised
to 100mph to 'reduce congestion'
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: April 12, 2024, 12:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Forget about this rush hour nonsense, it's unlikely traffic will
be able to travel on any motorway at the maximum legal limit at
rush hour anyway.
But being able to do 100 mph at 11 pm would save me hundreds of
hours of slow driving per year (70 mph is slow in my book).
#Post#: 19588--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving law proposals could see motorway speed limits raised
to 100mph to 'reduce congestion'
DIR By: tonys
Date: April 12, 2024, 3:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's not that long ago that an increase to 80mph was considered
and rejected. At that time one of the strange arguments was that
drivers currently exceeding 70 would no longer be breaking the
law. In other words the supporters were suggesting people would
obey the increased limit, rather than drive 11mph faster.
As for that headline "Driving law proposals could see motorway
speed limits raised to 100mph to 'reduce congestion" it's
written to suggest that this proposal (not proposals by the way)
comes from someone actually likely to influence the law.
Then again look at their other headlines. An article about fuel
price rises due to oil prices, supply chain, and exchange rate
has the headline "Petrol and diesel drivers punished by
supermarkets"
#Post#: 19592--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving law proposals could see motorway speed limits raised
to 100mph to 'reduce congestion'
DIR By: guest968
Date: April 12, 2024, 5:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> That is a somewhat confused post - mostly correct but
seemingly contradictory.
>
> For the purposes of maximising road capacity, *if* the braking
distance increases exponentially with speed as per the highway
code (my opinion of which is well documented), the optimum speed
is about 11mph.
>
> If a road is below maximum capacity, journeys will be shorter
at higher speeds.
>
> However, *if* the "two second rule" is applied, rather than
the highway code distances, the 'length' of a vehicle
effectively becomes shorter (measured in time taken for its
length to pass a point), and maximum throughput is just below
whatever speed the French cars start to blow up.
--- End Quote ---
HC stopping distances are not the same as the spacing between
cars in moving traffic, because the expectation is that the car
in front of you is not going to go from <whatever> mph to zero
instantly and without warning. The expectation is that a driver
will be looking as far ahead as possible and thus see anything
requiring braking only a few seconds after the car in front, and
that that one will take some time to stop. The HC stopping
distances are the same as a 2s gap at 40mph, less below, and
greater above.
Re the length of a vehicle, if you add 14.44' to the length of a
2s gap at Xmph then you have the distance between the front of
one car and the front of the next, which you use to calculate
how many cars will fit onto a given length of road, and the
total package of [car+gap] will take a calculable amount of time
to pass a point, so that tells you how many can pass a point in
a given amount of time.
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> Suggesting that motorists who have scant regard for often
arbitrary temporary speed limits are variously stupid and
selfish is perhaps not the best way to ingratiate yourself with
a motoring forum - although perhaps that's the idea.
>
--- End Quote ---
Of course it's not, but I'm not trying to ingratiate myself, nor
should I have to.
I'm well aware that this site has a political bias, and that it
is one that I do not share, and for the avoidance of doubt, I'm
happy to nail my (relevant to this site) colours to the mast.
I am in favour of congestion zones, low emission zones, low
traffic neighbourhoods and 20mph speed limits in built-up areas.
I think 15-minute cities are a great idea.
I think that where beneficial to public transport, of course
buses etc should be prioritised over private vehicles for road
space, traffic light phasing, no entry/right-turn/left-turn/etc
signs.
I think that this whole "war on the motorist" idea is complete
swivel-eyed conspiracy b******s, believed by people who have
swallowed the cynical self-serving lies of populist politicians
and the right-wing red tops.
Does this mean that I think cp8759 is "Tory scum"? Of course
not.
Does it mean that he, or others, think I'm "socialist scum" and
should refuse me their help if I needed it? I would sincerely
hope of course not.
[And I'd like to point out, in passing, that the introduction of
congestion zones/LEZs/LTNs/etc do not follow party political
alignments]
Does this mean that I think the authorities should be allowed a
bit of slack in their adherence to the rules and regulations for
signage, camera authorisations, notice wording and serving, etc?
Of course not. And the flip-side of that is the of-course-not
to whether drivers who ignore what they feel are often arbitrary
temporary speed limits have right on their side.
As for "stupid and selfish", I wholeheartedly stand by that.
How many times do you see posts on various internet fora
whinging about a speed limit being reduced when the traffic was
light and flowing freely? Stupidity as that tries to deny the
reality of a problem 5 miles ahead which is being tackled by
reducing the arrival rate of new cars.
How many drivers expect other ones to move left into a gap under
4 seconds long so that they can overtake, and get very
headlamp-flashy and aggressive if they don't? Selfish.
Does every driver consider the reality of what the 2s rule
means? How long that gap actually is? Extend the principle to
doubling it in adverse weather, and think of a line of HGVs
doing the legal maximum of 60mpg in the left-lane of a 2-lane
motorway or dual carriageway, and a car driver overtaking them
at 65mph. A 70mph driver coming up behind him has to recognise
that the shortest gap he can possibly pull into is 8 seconds at
60mph which is 704', over ⅛ of a mile. If he doesn't,
he's stupid. If he believes that the guy in front should move
over even if the gap isn't that long, he's selfish. If he
doesn't allow time for the 65mph driver to close in on the
vehicle then in front of him, i.e. allow an even longer gap, but
expects him to drop his speed to 60 to allow him to overtake,
more selfishness.
Look at all the drivers who regard 20mph speed limits,
low-emission zones, low traffic neighbourhoods, congestion
zones, etc as some ulterior-motive war on motorists to take away
their freedoms. Stupid.
Look at all the drivers who decry all those things because they
stop them driving what they want, where they want, when they
want, and how they want, no matter how popular and proven the
benefits are to people who are not motorists. Selfish.
Sorry, Andy, but there really are a lot of stupid, selfish
motorists out there.
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> Temporary limits at rush hour to maximise traffic flow are
largely a good idea, let down by the prevalence of arbitrary and
pointless speed limit reductions 'just in case'.
>
--- End Quote ---
Do you know that they are arbitrary and pointless, or is it just
that their point is obscure to you because you don't have
knowledge of all the facts?
Do you not believe that prevention is better than cure?
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> Today Aesop would be castigated for his portrayal of the boy
on the grounds that there might have been a wolf anyway, and you
can't be too careful. You can,
>
--- End Quote ---
Every mile of road reduced to 50 from 70 because on balance it
is judged to be beneficial "costs" you 21 seconds.
21 seconds.
What kind of life do you lead where that is a burden too onerous
to bear?
A 10-mile stretch costs you less time than it takes to make a
cup of tea.
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> and that is why temporary speed limits to increase traffic
flow don't work.
>
--- End Quote ---
There is a sound theoretical basis for them, and they might be
more effective if there was greater observance of them.
Plus, "work" has to be viewed as the aggregate effect on tens of
thousands of motorists over several miles and a time possibly
measured in hours, not just one person's individual experience
of a few miles at the cost of a few minutes.
#Post#: 19593--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving law proposals could see motorway speed limits raised
to 100mph to 'reduce congestion'
DIR By: guest968
Date: April 12, 2024, 5:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tonys link ---
>
> It's not that long ago that an increase to 80mph was
considered and rejected. At that time one of the strange
arguments was that drivers currently exceeding 70 would no
longer be breaking the law. In other words the supporters were
suggesting people would obey the increased limit, rather than
drive 11mph faster.
>
> As for that headline "Driving law proposals could see motorway
speed limits raised to 100mph to 'reduce congestion" it's
written to suggest that this proposal (not proposals by the way)
comes from someone actually likely to influence the law.
>
> Then again look at their other headlines. An article about
fuel price rises due to oil prices, supply chain, and exchange
rate has the headline "Petrol and diesel drivers punished by
supermarkets"
>
--- End Quote ---
It's GB News - what do you expect?
#Post#: 19595--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving law proposals could see motorway speed limits raised
to 100mph to 'reduce congestion'
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 12, 2024, 5:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My views for what they are worth.
1. I do not subscribe to the view re any political bias
arguments because I have met cp8759 (with whom I work closely)
and Andy Foster several times. Our exchanges of views have been
frank yet polite. I am a musician and work in terms of the
universal language of mankind (Longfellow). I do not care one
iota what politics one follows. I have played in the Herodus
Attica Theatre in Athens 1975 with the RPO. I have played squash
(1978-1980) in Politea (north of Kifissia) from where one can
see the Parthenon. Many people do not understand the root
meaning of polis.
2. I have driven many thousands of miles at speed on various
high-powered motorcycles. In Europe as far as Greece. 1981-1987
on the Yamaha XJ650 Turbo, Honda CX500 and Honda VF750SC, in
reverse order. And in my Renault convertible and other cars
thrice to Kos/Kefalonia. 2001, 2002 and 2013. The latter in
three days to Thessaloniki and with one stop in Stubai Tal.
(Krossbach). Near Brenner pass. The Inglorious Bastards and all
that.
3. In 1997 en route to Surbiton on the Yamaha from Portsmouth
(Lovedean) I had a blow out in my rear tyre (some idiot had
replaced the tyre with a tubed one and had not cleaned the
inside of the tyre!). Tubed tyres do not deflate so fast. I had
to use all of my experience to stay alive: very little back
brake, go through the gears (which many car drivers do not) and
use mostly the front brake.
4. In 1981, on the Honda CX500 (which I bought having sold a
rather nice Italian violin :-\ ), I had a puncture somewhere
between Venice and Ferrara. Being resourceful, I carried a pump
with inflatable foam, bought some chewing gum and super glue
which got us to Ferrara.
5. I have driven at speed in Germany many times - nichts
schneller 130 km - and have observed nutters flashing one from
the back.
6. I have driven to Interlaken from Zeebrugge in 12 hours.
7. I have driven from Brindisi to Venice in 12 hours.
In light of all this experience, I am not inclined to sign at
present. Also:
8. Whichever speed limit is legalised, people will always go
over it!
Another Petition should be made in my opinion to penalise the
idiots who muck about in the overtaking and fast lanes
apparently thinking they are driving a hearse. :'(
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 9
DIR Next Page