Guess how many...

[Pheebs]

I'm sure people here are safe drivers when it comes to it.

Motorway wise, most of the time (weather and traffic permitting) I will tend to nip above 70mph but not by much. On roads none national speed limit I will 99% of the time stick to the limit (although they've just changed all of the roads around here to 20mph which has thrown me a bit)... just because I'm a bit of a law abiding swot when it comes to things like that I also find it makes little difference going any faster.

I know some people have expressed they have elite driving skills (not meaning to pick but your kind self Mister Willhelm)... but I think this doesn't matter in the slightest. I consider myself quite an observant person and seem to have always been told I am very "aware and observant" especially when driving... and yet I've been driving down a 30mph road and from behind a car this kid has just ran out. I missed him (God knows how) and when continuing down the road I saw some of, I presume his mates, hidden round the corner of a building with pretend guns.

It was normally a "non kid zone" road... I've driven it hundreds of times... there were no schools near by or other people at the time.

I genuinely couldn't have second guessed that kid was there.

Had I hit him, at 30 he may of stood a chance. Any more than that he would have been dead.

It's things like that which makes me think that no matter how "good" I am and perhaps, how above average my perception is, accidents can still happen.

You also have to consider you're not alone on the road (and if I'm sounding patronising I don't mean to be!) YOU may be a bloody amazing driver, but that doesn't mean the dude coming towards you on the opposite side of the road is. What's to say he won't just suddenly swerve at you? Or on the motorway, someone playing with the radio swerve out suddenly and thwack you? Also, what if you're vehicle mucks up? My Pa's car went doolally on him on the motorway, ended up locking and spinning him round and down the motorway backwards at speeds over 60mph into a lamp post. He survived... but had he been going any faster God knows what would of happened.

Unless you're spidey man you canny see these things coming and so to me... anyone who thinks they feel they can speed because they have better perception is a bit rubbish really

[Pheebs]

Basically, to all those people who speed and think they're okay doing so, if you hit a child and killed them when speeding... and were told if you weren't they would have survived... how would you cope?


I'm not trying to be holier than thou as I do speed at times in my life (I think everyone does) but yeh. I would say I'm a changed person and do stick to speed limits more often than not after witnessing car crashes up close and also spending a few days filing away cases with photos attached of incidents on the road.

[Will]

It's a fair comment. But if a child crossed the motorway, if I hit them at 70 or 80 it's still going to damage my car a lot

In heavily built up areas/neighbourhoods/schools I always am more cautious - I dare say that people who play their loud music and chatting on their phones doing 20mph are more dangerous than me doing 35. But that's just my take on it - there are always ways of preventing accidents and being careful, you don't have to drive at 20mph to stop yourself from killing someone.

[Burble]

Originally Posted by Pheebs

Basically, to all those people who speed and think they're okay doing so

Speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed kills.

I freely admit that I exceed the speed limits but only when it's not inappropriate to do so. That means in 20, 30 and 40 mph zones I stick to the speed limit but when I'm presented with a nice twisty road I'm not going to pootle along at 60mph.

[iCraig]

That's the thing, if speed killed then motorways would be the most dangerous roads. We go the fastest there, so the most killing would go on?

But it doesn't, in fact, they're the safest roads aren't they IIRC? Ironic, and probably why government "campaigns" never touch on the fact, that technically, the people going the fastest, are less likely to be in an accident. It's all about the road itself and in context. Something that can't be squeezed into a 20 second advert unfortunately, so the lowest common denominator sort of message is used, that if you drive fast you'll kill children.

35mph isn't dangerous in itself. 35mph outside of a busy school is very stupid and risky.

35mph on the same road, when empty at 4.05am, isn't very risky or stupid at all. Yet they both have the same legality, and if you did 35mph, which is was totally safe, you'll be penalised.

Same with driving conditions. If it's snowing heavily, you can barely see, grip is limited, and you're on a 60mph. It's insane to do 60, yet, if you do, as you hurtle past like a maniac, the "safety" camera set to catch "dangerous" drivers won't bat an eyelid as long as you're doing 60. When, in fact, you should be doing half that at least.

I think that, in a nutshell is why drivers get frustrated at the cameras, and the campaigns shoved down our throat.

[Pheebs]

Sorry I was kind of more emphasising the 30mph roads and such, not motorways Your standard built up area!

Originally Posted by Burble

Speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed kills.

I freely admit that I exceed the speed limits but only when it's not inappropriate to do so. That means in 20, 30 and 40 mph zones I stick to the speed limit but when I'm presented with a nice twisty road I'm not going to pootle along at 60mph.

I'm like you then. It's people who speed and think they're safe in doing so in the lower limit, built up areas.

Even if it's 4pm and no kids are about - exactly like my encounter with the kid running out from behind a car - you can't ever guarantee that will not happen, so why risk going an extra 5 - 10mph (which won't really get you anywhere much faster) when knowing there will always be a very slim chance you could infact hit and kill someone (or something! Lets not forget those pesky cats and dogs that get loose and do a runner across the road!)


I don't have qualms with people who push the pace on open roads/motorways with few people about... it's the city areas that bug me!

I dunno. I think a lot of my influence is from my experiences through the bobby. I guess when you see the accidents happening and their outcomes all the time you kind of change your tune a bit.

[A Place of Light]

Originally Posted by Del Lardo

I was taught that unless there are adverse conditions like bad weather, obstructions etc you should always aim to drive at the speed limit. You do 25 in a 30 on your test and you will pick up a fault unless there is a damn good reason for you to be doing that speed.

True, but that's to show you can make good progress when the conditions allow. That and the fact that if we all drove the way we are expected to on our test then we would all talk a lot longer to get to our destination.

Originally Posted by Del Lardo

I have taken that lesson on and use it on the motorway and drive at 70mph when it is safe to do so.

Absolutely, but that's not what you said previously and that's what we're talking about here. You said you tend to cruise at around 80mph, and my point was (and still is) that there is nothing to gain by cruising at 80 instead of 70 other than increasing your fuel consumption and your risk of picking up a few points. The time saved, unless you're journey is something like 200+ miles is miniscule and you'll arrive slightly less relaxed than if you'd been driving at a lower speed.

Originally Posted by Del Lardo

If people want to tootle along at 60mph then go for it but when they are doing it in the outside lane of a motorway then they are hindering the progress of other vehicles where the driver chooses to drive at the legal speed limit in the same way that someone driving at 25mph in a 30mph zone is hindering the progress of the drivers behind them.

100% agree.
If you want to plod along at 60mph on the motorway then that's fine.....just have enough common sense to stick to lane 1.

Originally Posted by Del Lardo

My experience of 100k+ miles of motorway driving is that most inattentive driving comes from those pootling along at 60mph in the middle lane in their own little world*. At the same time the most aggressive driving comes from those who are barrelling along at way over the speed limit. Neither style of driving is safe IMO..

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Del Lardo

As for the time saving argument... I drive from Cambridge to the Heathrow area most weeks which is ~70 miles on the motorway. If I drove at 70mph it would take me 1 hour. If I drove at 60 mph it would take me 1 hour & 10 minutes. So over the course of a year at 60 mph I would spend another 17 hours in the car for no good reason. That's 17 hours a year where I can be discussing interesting things with you on BD!

Yes, but that would involve you averaging60mph or 70mph in each case, not treating either of those as a maximum. If you and I tool the same journey, with me aiming to cruise at 70 and you at 80, then I could keep to my cruising speed for pretty much all of the journey (traffic permitting) which would give me an average speed not much less than my permitted maximum. You, on the other hand, would be forced to slow from your maximum to 70mph whenever you saw plod or a camera before accelerating back upto 80mph when "the coast was clear"......putting your average not only noticeably less than your vmax but also not a great deal more than mine. Add that you'd have the extra stress of constantly looking for marked/unmarked police cars and cameras and the net result would be you arriving a matter of minutes more than I did with you using more fuel and feeling slightly more mentally taxed than I.

[Jhadur]

Originally Posted by A Place of Light

100% agree.
If you want to plod along at 60mph on the motorway then that's fine.....just have enough common sense to stick to lane 1.

Technically speaking (not sure if it's legally speaking or not) if you aren't overtaking anything then you should always be driving in Lane 1 no matter what your speed.

[A Place of Light]

Originally Posted by LeperousDust

Go for it.

APoL do you actually drive ?

It's unlikely that anyone on this forum has spent more time behind the wheel than I.
Possible, but unlikely.

Originally Posted by LeperousDust

I generally don't speed per se, apart from driving to and from uni/home because i can literally save 2 hours a journey, it costs me a bit more in fuel granted, but i'm willing to pay that to not have to spend the extra 2 hours in my car. Likewise i'd pay the train to go faster if i could! I'm personally not a fan of the random arbitrary speed limit.

Two questions spring to mind.
If you can save TWO HOURS on your journey by speeding (assuming we're talking about compared to sticking to the limit doing the same journey on the same day at the same time). then:-

A) How long a journey are we talking about?
and
B) What kind of maximum/cruising speeds do you acheive on this journey?

300 miles at an average of 100mph =3 hours.
300 miles at an average of 70mph= 4 hours and 20 mins approx.

You can see where I'm going with this?

Originally Posted by Garp

Off the top of my head, a car engine is most efficient at 55mph. It's the main reason why speed limits in the US are set at 60, and have been ever since fuel shortage a few decades ago.

Aren't the speed limits in the US either 55mph or 65mph?

Originally Posted by Garp

According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_ec...conomy_studies on modern engines the most efficient speed is now around 65mph.

I suggest you read your article more thoroughly.

My engine has no idea how fast the car is travelling at. All it knows is the load it's required to pull and the revs it's running at. 5000RPM in 5th gear and 5000rpm in third gear only differ in one respect. the load on the engine is increased as the wind resistance at 5000RPM in 5th is greater than at 5000RPM in 3rd.....therefore the fuel consumption will be greater in the higher gear in this example. From 30mph wind resistance becomes a factor, therefore the faster you go above 30mph the harder the engine has to work to pull the vehicle. This means that the optimum economy will be acheived by driving at a point somewhere just above tickover RPM in whatever gear turns this into a speed of 30mph or under.
This is also one of the reasons why, when teams attempt to break the world record for miles per gallon they tend to stick to 30mph and not 55/66mph.

A few quoted from your article:-

"Driving at 45 rather than 65 mph (72 rather than 105 km/h), results in about one-third the power to overcome wind resistance, or about one half the energy per unit distance, and much greater fuel economy can be achieved"
"The 1997 Toyota Celica, got 1 mpg better fuel-efficiency at 65 than it did at 55 (43.5 vs 42.5), although almost 5 mpg better at 60 than at 65 (48.4 vs 43.5), and its best economy (52.6 mpg) at only 25 mph (40 km/h). "

Note: automatics don't always fall under this for the simple reason that many have fewer gears than a manual AND the fact the driver doesn't typically have complete control over shift times.

The reason 55/65mph is cited so often is for a few good reasons.
It's a realistic (or used to be years ago but now we're stuck with it) cruising speed for a long journey, whereas there are no long roads with a 30 limit. It's also a good compromise between fuel economy, journey time and safety.

[A Place of Light]

Originally Posted by iCraig

That's the thing, if speed killed then motorways would be the most dangerous roads. We go the fastest there, so the most killing would go on?

But it doesn't, in fact, they're the safest roads aren't they IIRC? Ironic, and probably why government "campaigns" never touch on the fact, that technically, the people going the fastest, are less likely to be in an accident

Your principle is correct but your example is not.
Motorways are the safest roads because there are fewer hazards to negotiate on them than on any other road. You don't have junctions/traffic lights/cyclists/pedestrians and a whole host of other hazards/distractions to deal with.