There are lots of straight country lanes where it's perfectly acceptable to do 60mph
Did you read what i was saying? I was talking about narrow country lanes where there isn't room for 2 way traffic so you may have to stop to let someone go through from the other direction. If you think it is safe to drive down these roads at 60MPH then you shouldn't be driving.:eek:
Lorries are often the worse culprits. I have seen lorries that are restricted to 50- 60 MPH that insist on driving in the middle lane.
That's because it takes them an age to get past the lorry on the inside lane. It pisses me off too that they do this but I don't know of any truck drivers who'd purposely drive in the middle lane for the sake of it.
I suspect they're on a hiding to nothing if that's the case TBH.
The difference in fuel consumption between a steady 70mph and 80mph is negligible, drivers who currently wish to go quickly already do so and pay for fuel at a commensurate rate and travelling at a steady 80mph will use less fuel than travelling at 80mph and then slowing down every time you see a camera or cop-car before speeding up again.
Did you read what i was saying? I was talking about narrow country lanes where there isn't room for 2 way traffic so you may have to stop to let someone go through from the other direction. If you think it is safe to drive down these roads at 60MPH then you shouldn't be driving.:eek:
If you need a speed limit sign to tell you it's not safe to drive down those roads at 60mph you shouldn't be driving. :eek:
The difference in fuel consumption between a steady 70mph and 80mph is negligible
I disagree in the case of my car. My 2L diesel does approx 53mpg @ 70 but less than 45 @ 80mph. It's the difference between 2500 and 3000rpm in 5th gear.
I suspect they're on a hiding to nothing if that's the case TBH.
The difference in fuel consumption between a steady 70mph and 80mph is negligible, drivers who currently wish to go quickly already do so and pay for fuel at a commensurate rate and travelling at a steady 80mph will use less fuel than travelling at 80mph and then slowing down every time you see a camera or cop-car before speeding up again.
You disagree with "environmentalists who point out that cars use around 20 per cent more fuel at the higher speed."?
Clearly you do on the basis you posted, but if "Police and authorities currently turn a blind eye to most motorists who drive at 80mph, and they are rarely prosecuted" is true, then "speedier journeys for employees on jobs, reps on the road, and delivery vans" = "economy boost" kind of goes out the window.
I disagree in the case of my car. My 2L diesel does approx 53mpg @ 70 but less than 45 @ 80mph. It's the difference between 2500 and 3000rpm in 5th gear.
The fact that this info is already known to you suggests that there really won't be much of a change at all!
You disagree with "environmentalists who point out that cars use around 20 per cent more fuel at the higher speed."?
I'd need to see the data.
If you're driving a car with a small engine the difference might be big. In a bigger car the difference is negligible.
In my own car the computer tells me I'm doing anywhere from 40mpg to 65mpg at 70mph and it seems to show roughly the same mpg at 80mph.
Clearly you do on the basis you posted, but if "Police and authorities currently turn a blind eye to most motorists who drive at 80mph, and they are rarely prosecuted" is true, then "speedier journeys for employees on jobs, reps on the road, and delivery vans" = "economy boost" kind of goes out the window.
Point being that those who want to do 80mph already are and so they're already paying for that amount of fuel.
With a limit of 80mph they won't use any more fuel cos they're already doing 80mph.
Point being that those who want to do 80mph already are and so they're already paying for that amount of fuel.
With a limit of 80mph they won't use any more fuel cos they're already doing 80mph.
But they will because now they will be doing 90+ mph.
Why build high powerful cars which should go at 80MPH. I do somtimes drive at 80, but will people drive at 90 if the speed limit is raised. If your on the M25 and other roads during peak times, you can't even exceed 50. Highways have got the control to slow down traffic.
Alistair Stewart on ITV news looked uncomfortable talking about this, because he was done for speeding a few years back and was taken off Camera Action show.
If you're driving a car with a small engine the difference might be big. In a bigger car the difference is negligible.
In my own car the computer tells me I'm doing anywhere from 40mpg to 65mpg at 70mph and it seems to show roughly the same mpg at 80mph.
Now I'm fantasising about driving a car with a computer in it.
Point being that those who want to do 80mph already are and so they're already paying for that amount of fuel. With a limit of 80mph they won't use any more fuel cos they're already doing 80mph.
Sure they won't. But since (as you state) those who want to do 80mph already are, the "there'll be speedier journeys therefore economy boost" is being somewhat overstated. I'd suggest.
Sure they won't. But since (as you state) those who want to do 80mph already are, the "there'll be speedier journeys therefore economy boost" is being somewhat overstated. I'd suggest.
Don't get me wrong; I'm sure this is just a case of the government attempting to put a cherry on top of the shit-sandwich they're feeding us.
I just doubt it's a nefarious bid to gain revenue through fuel tax as some people are making out.
Wow. You're, like, more cynical than even me. :eek:
The bitter pill could be a hefty rise in fuel duty, who knows.
But the decision to raise the speed limit certainly flies in the face of trying to reduce the UKs carbon emission commitments. The only thing that would motivate them to do that is revenue.
Comments
So at 5am everyone will be driving in the 3rd lane?
I think he means that if there are 3 lanes or more the speed limit would be 80 mph on all lanes, an idea I actually like.
There are lots of straight country lanes where it's perfectly acceptable to do 60mph
They won't "come out" and say that though.
They'll say something like:
"a modest rise in the limit would mean speedier journeys for employees on jobs, reps on the road, and delivery vans."
Which, to me, sounds like complete bulwarks. :sleep:
That's because it takes them an age to get past the lorry on the inside lane. It pisses me off too that they do this but I don't know of any truck drivers who'd purposely drive in the middle lane for the sake of it.
I suspect they're on a hiding to nothing if that's the case TBH.
The difference in fuel consumption between a steady 70mph and 80mph is negligible, drivers who currently wish to go quickly already do so and pay for fuel at a commensurate rate and travelling at a steady 80mph will use less fuel than travelling at 80mph and then slowing down every time you see a camera or cop-car before speeding up again.
If you need a speed limit sign to tell you it's not safe to drive down those roads at 60mph you shouldn't be driving. :eek:
I disagree in the case of my car. My 2L diesel does approx 53mpg @ 70 but less than 45 @ 80mph. It's the difference between 2500 and 3000rpm in 5th gear.
You disagree with "environmentalists who point out that cars use around 20 per cent more fuel at the higher speed."?
Clearly you do on the basis you posted, but if "Police and authorities currently turn a blind eye to most motorists who drive at 80mph, and they are rarely prosecuted" is true, then "speedier journeys for employees on jobs, reps on the road, and delivery vans" = "economy boost" kind of goes out the window.
The fact that this info is already known to you suggests that there really won't be much of a change at all!
I'd need to see the data.
If you're driving a car with a small engine the difference might be big. In a bigger car the difference is negligible.
In my own car the computer tells me I'm doing anywhere from 40mpg to 65mpg at 70mph and it seems to show roughly the same mpg at 80mph.
Point being that those who want to do 80mph already are and so they're already paying for that amount of fuel.
With a limit of 80mph they won't use any more fuel cos they're already doing 80mph.
But they will because now they will be doing 90+ mph.
Alistair Stewart on ITV news looked uncomfortable talking about this, because he was done for speeding a few years back and was taken off Camera Action show.
Now I'm fantasising about driving a car with a computer in it.
Sure they won't. But since (as you state) those who want to do 80mph already are, the "there'll be speedier journeys therefore economy boost" is being somewhat overstated. I'd suggest.
Will they?
Even so, I'd suggest that anybody who wants to do 90mph probably already is.
Next you'll be suggesting that the only reason they actually build motorways at all is to encourage people to drive fast and burn petrol.
Don't get me wrong; I'm sure this is just a case of the government attempting to put a cherry on top of the shit-sandwich they're feeding us.
I just doubt it's a nefarious bid to gain revenue through fuel tax as some people are making out.
I can't speak for Wayne, but for me the obvious question is "why now?".
The only apparent "rationale" from the Indy article is "economy boost". Which, since it sounds dubious to me, still leaves "why now?".
Just saying.
No I'll leave that for "know it alls" like you.
FTR I no longer use motorways, the days of ferrying kids to & from Uni are history.
Maybe before the coming of a "bitter pill".
Sweeten everyone first and then slip in an unpopular issue.
Wow. You're, like, more cynical than even me. :eek:
The bitter pill could be a hefty rise in fuel duty, who knows.
But the decision to raise the speed limit certainly flies in the face of trying to reduce the UKs carbon emission commitments. The only thing that would motivate them to do that is revenue.