60 MPH Limit on Motorways

[GMcL]

Originally Posted by DaveNP

Where I do have a problem is areas like the M4 through Newport in South Wale where they impose a 'variable' 50 mph limit 24 hours a day with a message about pollution, the problem is that in the truck I then have to ride down the hill using the exhaust and service brakes to keep the speed down and then have to hit the accelerator to get up the next hill instead of letting the truck build up speed and inertia downhill to carry me some way up the next hill without using the accelerator.

Let's guess where the air pollution measuring equipment is located, bottom of the dip by any chance where the heavier pollutants fall after you've gunned it up the hill ?

Everyone should have a discount year this year after lock down, fewer cars on the road = less pollution or, is everyone who is on the road blasting around at 200 mph ?

[DaveNP]

Probably inside the Brynglas Tunnels - to make sure the fumes can't blow away

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/m...0air%20quality.

Will it work?

Back in 1965, the year that I learned to drive, long before many contributors to this forum were even born, the 70 MPH trial speed limit was made permanent. This was at a time when many cars (mine included) couldn't even reach 70, 80 was considered fast and three figure speeds supercar territory.

Safety standards were basic, front seat belts on new cars, but not the wearing thereof, were made compulsory that same year. Emission control was rudimentary in the extreme. Today, most family cars can do the 'ton' with ease and safety and emissions have both improved massively in the last 50 years.

Many now feel that 70 is perhaps too low, which does not reflect current practice. With motorways now generally moving nearer to 80, there has long been an expectation that the limit should be increased to that figure, but be more rigorously enforced. Denmark did this successfully, raising the existing, but widely ignored, 110 KPH limit on their motorways to 130.

Will people keep to 60, especially on a near empty motorway? Can it be effectively policed, enforced? Will it improve the environment? Or will it be largely ignored, perhaps becoming another cash-cow for the Government? Would wider use of variable speed limits be a better alternative to a blanket speed limit? And what about a minimum motorway speed limit?

Thoughts?

Regards, John.

It's criminally insane and will cause accidents. The other day i was on a dual carriageway with the cruise set at an indicated 77mph (true 70mph by GPS) and traveling faster than the inside lane when some idiot in a VW panel van with a sticker on the back saying it was restricted to 70mph pulled out in front of me. He was only doing 65mph and even after overtaking with his foot hard down only managed to reach 68mph causing a large tailback in the outside lane. No doubt there was a near miss or three at the end of the tailback!

Then another VW but one of the small cars (Polo, Up or something) did the same trick as the van had done. Obviously not restricted but on a rare uphill incline didn't have the grunt to reach 70mph - same end result.

There were several more similar incidents when some sanctimonious halfwits pulled out at 50-60mph from the inside lane causing the outside lane to brake heavily and then wait while it crawled past the vehicle it was overtaking at just 1mph more than the overtaken vehicle.

There is by inference, a minimum speed limit on a motorway - mopeds aren't permitted as they only do 30mph tops. I believe (but not sure) the actual minimum is 50mph unless otherwise indicated (for example roadworks) but there is the little known offence of driving too slowly for the road conditions carrying maximum penalties of 9 points and/or a £10k fine.

Originally Posted by StanC

Reducing the speed of traffic certainly cuts the fuel consumption of vehicles, with corresponding reductions in overall emissions, so I can see the logic in what is proposed. It won't be popular with some, though.

Stan.

Not necessarily so - most cars built in the past 30 years are designed to be more efficient at higher speeds - for example the best economy i've ever had from my non-Volvo car was on a 120 mile round trip along the A14 on two consecutive evenings, similar time each day, similar weather conditions so are comparable trips. The first i stuck to an indicated 70-80mph and returned 40mpg, the next night i thought "What the hell!" and gave it some beans and increased the speed by ~10mph. That gave me 43mpg so proving, on that occasion at least, faster was more economical. I ought to point out here that at the increased speed, it equated to an engine rpm that altered the inlet tract length (making it shorter) thereby improving efficiency.

Originally Posted by GrantV50

On short stretches, we should be looking at increasing to 100MPH. Modern cars are capable of this speed, and braking from this speed.

I totally agree, as long as the drivers are capable of reacting correctly at that speed - it would make life much easier! As per my comments above about cars built in the past 30 years, probably a lot less pollution too!

Originally Posted by AndyJudge

getting quite fed up with the constant persecution of the motorist & sticking lower limits on everyone to ease pollution etc.

Simple way to reduce pollution is to get cars off the roads by moving more freight by rail & making the use of public transport to move people cheaper & more convenient.

Another easy way to improve matters is for the government to stop seeing the motorist as a cash cow and actually do some maintenance on the roads, what the original RFL was set up for - Road Fund Licence - but it was diverted in the late 60s/early 70s and eventually renamed for what it really is now - VED - Vehicle Excise Duty or an ownership tax.

Lower speed limits don't always decrease pollution (unless you drive a diseasel) as most modern engines (even diseasels) are designed to be more efficient at higher road speeds so the best economy is in fact at or above 70mph.

When John (the OP) learened to drive, as he rightly pointed out the 70mph limit was only experimental and brought in for a number of reasons. Most cars weren't even designed to operate constantly at that speed back then and didn't have tyres or brakes that would cope with it. Things like big Jags, Rovers, big Fords/Vauxhalls could all crack the magic ton and 70mph was easily achieved albeit in 3rd gear usually. Now most cars will do it in second or at least well past 60 in second.
Back then, most cars had drum brakes, discs were the preserve of high performance machinery - now even basic cars have discs all round, often ventilated on the front as well.
In the late 60s, very few cars had discs all round, P6 Rovers, XJ6s/12s and XK-Es, 140/160 Volvos if memory serves and i think the Citroen DS did too as part of it's LHM steering/brakes/suspension system. There may have been other "higher echelon" cars that had discs all round but i'm talking about the mainstream cars that would have most likely been using the motorways.

Also a lot of tyres back then were cross-plies, not really up to sustained high speed driving, radials were in their infancy and for the most part only H rated (130mph) at the most.
Those and other reasons are why the experimental 70mph limit was brought in. All the tree-huggers saw it as saving the planet so the govt gained the green votes as a result not realisng those tree-huggers would be pootling along at 35mph in their 2CVs causing traffic jams of cars howling along behind in second waiting for a chance to get past, meanwhile belching out more pollution than the 2CV would ever save in its lifetime.

Also reducing the speed limit on motorways will force traffic onto the A roads where they can do the same speed legally and sneak a few stretches where they can hit 70-80mph and get home quicker.

The govt will well and truly shoot themselves in the foot with this one! As if smart motorways with no hard shoulders weren't bad enough!

[green van man]

My understanding is and always was that the minium speed on a motorway was 30 mph. Hence the restriction on mopeds and invalid trikes.

Paul.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by green van man

My understanding is and always was that the minium speed on a motorway was 30 mph. Hence the restriction on mopeds and invalid trikes.

Paul.

You could be right Paul but even a 49cc moped will reach 30mph so my line of thought (and i'm sure i was told by a police officer decades ago) was that it is 40mph.

That said, if someone was doing only 40mph on a motorway they would likely be told to get their toe down or get off the motorway by the Traffic Officers unless of course a variable speed limit was in force for roadwoks or similar.

[DaveNP]

From the Highway Code there isn't a minimum speed limit on the motorway generally, there is a restriction on motorcycles under 50cc, and slow moving vehicles (highway code), if my memory serves correctly there used to be a requirement that vehicles had to be capable of achieving 30mph but that seems to have gone.

If one uses the Dartford tunnel, which isn't actually a motorway despite being a link between J1 and J31 of the M25, there is a minimum limit of 10mph, the tunnels are very closely monitored and traffic flows regulated so that should be possible, on other parts of the motorway network we all know all too often 10mph would be impossible.

[dingov70]

60 MPH , how the blue blazes do you get so go so fast ??????

[Bashy]

Originally Posted by DaveNP

From the Highway Code there isn't a minimum speed limit on the motorway generally, there is a restriction on motorcycles under 50cc, and slow moving vehicles (highway code), if my memory serves correctly there used to be a requirement that vehicles had to be capable of achieving 30mph but that seems to have gone.

That is correct, there is no legislation stating a minimum motorway speed limit, I think the alleged 30mp comes about because mopeds are not allowed and they are restricted to 30mph.

I know for a fact that my D5 is less economical at 70 than it is at 60, and again and 50, 40 and so on. figures are examples, not each jump down...

I think 100mph should be on all triple carriageways and those sections that allow this, should be in the 3rd overtaking lane only and NOT allowed to be used for speeds less than 90, unless traffic permits slower speeds, so no miss daisy pulling out on you.

[Laird Scooby]

Originally Posted by DaveNP

If one uses the Dartford tunnel, which isn't actually a motorway despite being a link between J1 and J31 of the M25, there is a minimum limit of 10mph, the tunnels are very closely monitored and traffic flows regulated so that should be possible, on other parts of the motorway network we all know all too often 10mph would be impossible.

The Dartford Tunnel is actually part of the A282 as is the QE2 bridge above it. All too often though despite going through the pipe at 30-40mph, as soon as you reach the M25 again the traffic comes to a standstill!

[Clan]

Originally Posted by Whippy

Already happening on 'smart' motorways, places like Sheffield are almost permanently at 60 on the M1. When all cars are speed limited and taxed via your satnav the complete and utter **** up that is motoring today will seem like a blissful halcyon memory.

You and I were lucky and saw the very best days of motoring from about 1970 when cars started getting faster , more economical and fun .. you didn't worry too much about speed limits unless you could see a police car in your mirror until about 2000 when speed limits are now everywhere and vary every half mile . Cars started getting boring and are just seen as a tool like a washing machine from around 2000 and its just getting worse .