This forum is in read-only mode for archive purposes, please use our new forum at https://community.justflight.com
Forum Home Forum Home > Just Chat > Just Chat - General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 80 mph speed limit.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

80 mph speed limit.
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2011 at 4:30pm
Bet you'd accept a cheque for 50 quid though. Big%20smile
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2011 at 6:31pm
Not without asking why you wrote it first.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
Hot_Charlie View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 1839 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hot_Charlie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Oct 2011 at 10:53pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

A while back, I had to take my car to Kwikfit to have an enormous dent in the wheel hammered out. I was amazed the tyre stayed on. Good news was Kwikfit didn't charge me.


Good god. Surprising from the rip-off champions of Britain.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Oct 2011 at 8:43am
Yep, I was very pleased. No charge for the valve they replaced either. It took the guy quite a while to hammer it into shape.
 
they don't charge for punctures either. Patch, new valve, and on your way.
 
Why do you regard them as rip-off champions Hotty? I've always been pleased with their prices.
 
 
Back to Top
767nutter View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Location: Norfolk, UK
Points: 1330 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 767nutter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Oct 2011 at 1:21pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

Yep, I was very pleased. No charge for the valve they replaced either. It took the guy quite a while to hammer it into shape.
 
they don't charge for punctures either. Patch, new valve, and on your way.
 
Why do you regard them as rip-off champions Hotty? I've always been pleased with their prices.
 
 
 
i am not going to kwikfit again, after they tried to rip us off by saying work needed doing to my wifes car to pass the MOT when it didnt. I ended up taking it to a different garage where they gave us a free MOT and the car passed with flying colours. Ended up going to VOSA to complain and get a refund after kwikfit initially refused.
Back to Top
Rich View Drop Down
Just Flight Staff
Just Flight Staff
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Points: 8543 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rich Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Oct 2011 at 1:31pm
You know my thoughts on raising the limit on the motorway. I think it frees the Police up not to have to prosecute people who are doing what the majority of road users do on the motorway, include the Police themselves when just driving around on non-emergency duties, and let their speed creep between 70-80.
Raise it to 80 and make it clear that there is no room for interpretation or extra few percent of leeway on top and that is that. Makes sense for the Police and makes things clearer for road users (why should one person get fined for doing 74MPH whilst another can sit there next to a Police car doing 77MPH and be fine).   
Interestingly, I heard the other day that all the stopping distances and all the other empirical data in the Green Cross Code is all based on the Ford Anglia. That should be a good enough example of how outdated the information stats are worked out from. Anyone think their car would be in any danger of losing a breaking test against an early 1960's Anglia?

However, I do think that it's more of a case of the government looking for easy policies to will appeal to a large number of voters when proposing this, rather than for any practical reasons. It has a lot of merits, but generating hundreds of millions of pounds in economy savings is not one of them!


Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Oct 2011 at 3:36pm
You know my thoughts on raising the limit on the motorway. I think it frees the Police up not to have to prosecute people who are doing what the majority of road users do on the motorway,
 
Did you see the statistics above?
 
And the bit that indictaed that if you give them 10MPH, they speed even more than before the increse. So actualluy, it doesn't free the police up at all.
 
Quote
USA 89 km/h to 105 km/h Fatal crashes increased by 22%
Speeding increased by 48%
 
Raise it to 80 and make it clear that there is no room for interpretation
 
And you'd have to enforce the speed limit better than now. Or "no room for interpretation" is meaningless.
 
Still wastes more petrol a valuable resource, still results in more fatal accidents, still emits more CO2.
 
 
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Oct 2011 at 5:12pm
Quote Still wastes more petrol

Depends on the vehicle.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
767nutter View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Location: Norfolk, UK
Points: 1330 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 767nutter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Oct 2011 at 5:37pm
Raise it to 80 and make it clear that there is no room for interpretation or extra few percent of leeway on top and that is that
 
there would need to be a small amount of leeway, not every speedometer is 100% accurate, and if a traffic officer see's someone going at 82mph and the driver is thinking he/she going dead on 80 it would be unfair to fine him/her. 
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Oct 2011 at 7:22pm
Originally posted by VulcanB2 VulcanB2 wrote:

Quote Still wastes more petrol

Depends on the vehicle.

Best regards,
Vulcan.
 
No it doesnt. The extra energy has to come from somewhere.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Oct 2011 at 7:23pm
Originally posted by 767nutter 767nutter wrote:

Raise it to 80 and make it clear that there is no room for interpretation or extra few percent of leeway on top and that is that
 
there would need to be a small amount of leeway, not every speedometer is 100% accurate, and if a traffic officer see's someone going at 82mph and the driver is thinking he/she going dead on 80 it would be unfair to fine him/her. 
 
True, years ago it was quite a margin I recall. Although the margin of error is far bigger in terms of overestimating speed. Something like 14 kph I read.
Back to Top
VulcanB2 View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 13365 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote VulcanB2 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2011 at 1:12am
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

Originally posted by VulcanB2 VulcanB2 wrote:

Quote Still wastes more petrol
Depends on the vehicle. Best regards, Vulcan.


 

No it doesnt. The extra energy has to come from somewhere.

In your world cars lose efficiency the second they start moving then.

Surely you are smart enough to know that driving faster than 10 MPH but slower than 200 MPH will result in an increase of fuel efficiency, then a decrease past a certain point? This "certain point" is not the same between different models of cars.

In the case of the 206 I got best economy around 70-80 MPH of ~52 MPG (and the best part was that I drove it 520 miles on a single tank of 11 gallons - I chickened out and refueled but I'm sure I didn't really need to stop at a gas station though I was not going to trust the needle into the far side of the red line - I was 30 miles from home and put in 10.1 gallons including right to the top of the filler). Dragging through town at 20-30 MPH saw a paltry 12 MPG. So......

Best regards,
Vulcan.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2011 at 9:21am
Surely you are smart enough to know that driving faster than 10 MPH but slower than 200 MPH will result in an increase of fuel efficiency,
 
No need to be rude.  Wink  And it's faster than 0 mph but slower than 55 actually, for any car you are likely to see on the road.
 
See graph, and note how above 55 we enter the "uneconomical range". Where none of the cars are at peek fuel economy.
 
70 plus is well into the uneconomical range, where you can expect a significant decrease in economy for that 10mph increase in speed. I don't know any car that would be more economical at 80, that 70.   
 
If you can find me one I'd be very interested. But if you do, I doubt it will apply to the average car you see on the road.
 
On average, the most economical speed for most cars is about 52. Any faster and you are fighting against a huge amount of drag. In fact the US limit of 55 a while back, was set at that because it was deemed to be the approximate figure above which wind resistance became an important factor.
 
US cars below, but you get the picture.
 
Quote File:Fuel%20economy%20vs%20speed%201997.png
 
Efficiency and econonmy....
 
Quote

Fuel economy at steady speeds with selected vehicles was studied in 2010. The most recent study[16] indicates greater fuel efficiency at higher speeds than earlier studies; for example, some vehicles achieve better mileage at 65 than at 45 mph (105 rather than 72 km/h),[16] although not their best economy, such as the 1994 Oldsmobile Cutlass, which has its best economy at 55 mph (29.1 mpg), and gets 2 mpg better economy at 65 than at 45 (25 vs 23 mpg). The proportion of driving on high speed roadways varies from 4% in Ireland to 41% in Netherlands.

There were complaints when the U.S. National 55 mph (89 km/h) speed limit was mandated that it could lower, instead of increase fuel economy. 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). Other vehicles tested had from 1.4 to 20.2% better fuel-efficiency at 55 mph (89 km/h) vs. 65 mph (105 km/h). Their best economy was reached at speeds of 25 to 55 mph (see graph).[16]

 
And note, the above speeds were far lower than 80MPH.
 
Dragging through town at 20-30 MPH saw a paltry 12 MPG. So......
 
Big%20smile And there's your error i'd say... driving through town is notoriously inefficient. It's stop start motoring. Precisely why manufactures state a town driving fuel consumption figure, and a motorway fuel consumption figure.
 
Look at the graph above for a "steady" 20 mph drive.
 

 
 
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2011 at 10:01am

So thats 11% less efficient at 80, compared with 70.

 

Quote Speed Kills MPG

Unfortunately, it's true. Your car's gas mileage decreases once it gets past its optimal speed. For most cars, this is around 55-60 mph. This means that every time you go over this speed, you're essentially wasting gas and money - and creating unnecessary greenhouse gases.

You'd be surprised to learn that a slight decrease in your highway driving speed can significantly reduce your gas consumption, while only adding a few minutes to your travel time.

How much?

According to studies backed by the department of energy, the average car will be at its advertised MPG at 55 mph. But as the speed increases:

      - 3% less efficient at 60 mph
      - 8% less efficient at 65 mph
      - 17% less efficient at 70 mph
      - 23% less efficient at 75 mph
      - 28% less efficient at 80 mph

http://www.mpgforspeed.com/
Back to Top
AirbusLad View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot
Avatar

Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Location: Brighton
Points: 2936 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AirbusLad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2011 at 12:02pm
Well on another note i've just bought myself a Triumph Daytona 600cc so at least i wont be held up by slow moving cars now
MacBook Pro | 15inch Hi-Res Antiglare Widescreen Display | Quad core Intel i7 2.3GHz | 8GB DDR3 | 512GB Solid State Drive

iPad 3 16GB Wi-Fi
iPad 2 16GB Wi-Fi
iPhone 4S
iPhone 3GS
Back to Top
767nutter View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Location: Norfolk, UK
Points: 1330 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 767nutter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2011 at 10:09pm
Originally posted by MartinW MartinW wrote:

Originally posted by 767nutter 767nutter wrote:

Raise it to 80 and make it clear that there is no room for interpretation or extra few percent of leeway on top and that is that
 
there would need to be a small amount of leeway, not every speedometer is 100% accurate, and if a traffic officer see's someone going at 82mph and the driver is thinking he/she going dead on 80 it would be unfair to fine him/her. 
 
True, years ago it was quite a margin I recall. Although the margin of error is far bigger in terms of overestimating speed. Something like 14 kph I read.
 
is that for the 70mph limit ( of the top of my head id say 14kph is 9mph )? I was told for any limit a difference of 10% was added and at the discretion of officers 2mph can be added on top of that.
Back to Top
767nutter View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 09 Jul 2008
Location: Norfolk, UK
Points: 1330 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 767nutter Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Apr 2012 at 1:55am
Read a few days ago that when the 80mph limit comes in there will be no leeway, anyone going at 81mph can be stopped and fined. I am now thinking this is some sort of sly way for the government to get more money out of motorists.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Apr 2012 at 9:11am
Precisely.
 
Fined for 81mph is nonsense, most motorists drift 10,11,12 mph over the limit from time to time already, with a 70 limit. We aren't robots.
 
A 70 with 10 mph leeway is no different to 80 with no leeway.
 
Essentially what it means is that the speeds we will be driving will be no different, they won't be any faster... just that they have taken away the margin of error that was included and called it 80.
 
Therefore, motorists will be lulled into a false sense of security, drive at 80, and when they drift 1 mph over, they get fined.
 
Another Conservative con trick.
 
And what about speedometer inaccuracy? the whole point of allowing some leeway is to compensate for instrument inaccuracy and minor human error rather than deliberate speeding.
Back to Top
Hot_Charlie View Drop Down
Chief Pilot
Chief Pilot


Joined: 02 Apr 2008
Points: 1839 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hot_Charlie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Apr 2012 at 9:38am
What they need is to make a "hard" 80mph limit. 70mph, or maybe 75mph could be specified as an "advisory" limit for dual carriageways and m'ways. This would then put the onus on the driver (who afterall is responsible for the safe operation of their vehicle, to ensure they remain below the limit of 80mph. No need to argue over speedo accuracy, +10%. Just a hard "if you exceed this, no excuses" limit. Also the penalties for exceeding the limit can then be set in stone: exceed it by "w" and get fined "x"; exceed it by "y" and get fined "z" etc.

Fair, and a way to reward sensible and responible drivers - and more importantly it removes the "wishy washy" nature and "judgement" of the current system. It could also be applied to every limit below too.
Back to Top
MartinW View Drop Down
Moderator in Command
Moderator in Command
Avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Points: 26722 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MartinW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Apr 2012 at 10:03am
That scenario already applies.
 
The speed limit is 70, however if you are 10 over [your hard limit] you are usually okay. Above that you usually get fined.
 
Basically they shouldn't have changed it at all, because it amounts to the same as we have now, more or less.
 
New signs, reprogramme cameras, more money for the tax payer to pay, for nothing.
 
Of course if you specify a strict 80, many will drive up to that speed and a tad over, their fault if they get fined yes, but that's what the government wants to encourage... more revenue from those who make an error.
 
Your hard 80 doesn't work in terms of speedometer inaccuracy, you could have those who drive at 78 and shouldn't be fined, but because of instrument inaccuracy were. Makes more sense to have a 70 limit that you must aim for, but you can't be fined unless you are a percentage above that... as we have now. 
 
If you have a hard 80 you aren't protecting motorists from the instrument inaccuracy they probably aren't even aware of.
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down