UK Debate raising the speed to 80mph

DeletedUser

Hey guys,

What do you think is right about raising the speed limits to 80mph, yes you would get to places faster, but would this mean alive? but do you think this is wrong as we should all be using electric cars witch would never make it to 80mph for more than 50miles?

you decide what they should do raise the speed or not?
 

DeletedUser

It should be done because it is of use to those who can utilize this properly. Those who can't will fall prey to evolution and we'll make for a more robust species.
 

DeletedUser

If the speed limit is 80mph that doesn't mean you HAVE to drive at that speed. Electric car now suuuuuuck and if you buy one and complain that you can't drive at 80mp/s you're an idiot.
I know GRB has a lot of speed cameras and trying not to excede 50mp/h is a bit hard and it's even harder when you can get a ticket for driving at 51mp/h. You always have to check your speed, instead of looking at the road. Now raising that to 80mp/h won't change that.
 

DeletedUser

I don't want to turn this into an electric car thread. This is all I want to add. I've said electric cars suuuuck and I stand by it. People say they are the future and I don't disagree with them*, also they are great for the enviroment but they aren't great cars as long as you drive them for 5 hours and charge them for 20. Oh... and there's thing about where to charge them. The only way to do it now is from your house using an extension cord...

*actualy there is a little way I disagree. I personaly have a lot of expectations from hydrogen powered cars. As soon as they make the fuels cells cheaper and less fragile, great things will come out of this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser28032

Personally i believe that it is safer to drive at a steady constant speed with your eyes on the road than it is if you're having to suddenly slow down for a speed camera or if you are constantly having to check how fast you are going in order to avoid the points and fine.
Though to be honest i'd much rather they banned average speed camera's because they are simply evil
 

DeletedUser16008

Meh ! speed limits be damned dont drink learn to drive properly and do as you wish... yea thats right stuff the speed limits and all the safety crap... modern vehicles stop and react far faster than 30 years ago in fact 300% faster so why not raise the speed limit 300% to keep it balanced ?

yup i break the speed limit all the time ... bad Vic baaad ...live a little I say
 

DeletedUser30834

The more speed the better given the road can support it safely.

But there is the catch. A lot of roads will not be able to support 80mph safely for larger vehicles and vehicles needing some repairs. This will probably lead to people still going 80 when they can and paying more fines. I don't know if this will be by design or ancillary to the situation. I don't hold a lot of optimism for the creditability of most governments.

As to the electric cars and even the interest in hydrogen fuel cell cars, its all a dead end anyways.. Hydrogen PerOxide is the way to go. H2O2 is compact, fluid, and easily interchangeable and at concentrations less then 55% as safe or safer then gas. Can be made with efficiency of much like when charging batteries or fuel cells yet if has the ability to be fueled on the spot like Gasoline and other much more volatile chemicals we use every day. The waste can be easily captured and stored on the vehicle or vented directly to the atmosphere. Basic theory of operation would be to either directly mechanically drive the vehicle or to drive a generator that powers an electric motor on the vehicle or even combine it with an electric vehicle for a hybrid type vehicle.
 

DeletedUser16008

80 is for motorways max limit roads... electric cars have nothing to do with it at all. In fact stuff cars get a bike and have some real fun... yknow the things with 2 wheels that scare your mom and dad ;)
 

DeletedUser30834

I like the concept of a motorcycle instead of a car. But doesn't it rain a lot in GB? Would make for an uncomfortable ride at 80mph with rain drips pelting you and felling like nails driving into your skin. Then getting off and feeling like you just jumped out of the shower after running out of hot water.
 

DeletedUser16008

yup it rains a lot and the roads are s bends all the time...made for sport bikes being wet and cold is just the way it is.
 

DeletedUser

I did a few calculations on the back on an envelope, assuming 35mpg @70mph and petrol @ £7.25/gal (approx £1.40/l) and rolling resistance proportional to speed squared.

Fuel cost of 70m journey @ 70mph = £14.50
Fuel cost of same journey @ 80mph = £18.12
Additional cost = £3.62
Time saved 7.5 mins.
Cost per hour travel time saved = £28.96

Since bearing, gearbox, brake etc. wear will also be much greater at higher speeds, the cost per hour of travel time saved will certainly be north of £30/hour.
The median takehome wage in the UK is around £10/hour.
Unless you earn over about £100k/year you would be better off working fewer hours than driving faster than 70mph to gain time for the things you want to do.
A higher speed limit is only a perk to the very rich, and a placebo for everyone else.
{All units are imperial as standard in the UK}
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser16008

If you look at this with figures as Eli here is showing it dosnt take into account anything about the real world at all no one lives like this.Eli maybe you need to do those calcs based on the average most economical speed of 56mph as thats where the annorak brigade suggest everyone drive for max savings but actually very very few do. You cant tear along at max speed all the time roads, traffic, weather conditions often dont make this at all possible even if you wanted to.

80 is a proposed max limit reserved for probably motorways only, currently its 70 and has been for decades, on a 3 lane motorway the fastest will nearly always be exceeding 70 mph anyway in fact its usually between 80 and 90, this is currently against the law and any infringement of +10% or over can be met with a fine the logic behind the change is based on a few things.

Studies show no real difference in accidents at the higher proposed speeds than current ones, it would take most out of the lawbreaker bracket currently 70 +10% = 77 to 80 +10% = 88 where the average fast lane is already. Add to that the technology of transport being infinitely better in all respects than 20 or 40 years ago for me its a no brainier.

On the contrary its not anything to do with the rich having a benefit from this over anyone else as anyone or everyone wishing to stay within legal acceptable limits would be able do so. All cars can safely maintain this speed and if the fuel cost bothers you so much either downsize your engine or start using diesel or LPG. Use better fuel efficient tyres incidentally the most effective fuel efficient tip is to make sure your tyre pressures are always correct.

its a sensible move although its nowhere near fast enough for me the German Autobahns with no speed limits are the kings of the highways and the way id personally like to see things. Before anyone freaks about no speed limit at all Compared with other European nations, Germany's autobahn is relatively safe. Studies have shown the rate of fatal accidents is no higher in stretches without speed limits than in speed-restricted areas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

At present, there is a definite need to cull the human species, what better way than increasing the Darwinian factor? Studies have shown, through extensive testing of laboratory humans, providing this species with additional rope to hang themselves results in an increase in accidental hangings. It is thus reasonable to assume an increase in the imposed speed limits will encourage incidents of accidental steering wheel impalements and vehicle ejections (a colleague suggested including an ejection seat for those humans who frequently fail to put on their seat belts, but a separate study indicated an ejection seat merely expedites the inevitable and is thus an unnecessary expense).

As the expense for increasing the speed limit is marginal, it is a reasonable step to culling. However, an increase of 10mph (the discussion being UK, wouldn't it be kph?) is insufficient to substantially decrease the human population, particularly considering their breeding habits. An equally effective approach would be neutering (a cost effective alternative may be to legalize oversized tires on large trucks. Four studies all determined a correlation between small male reproductive organs and large trucks, while one study found similar results with that of oversized tires. All five studies indicated substantially lower testosterone levels in the males, but an increase in testosterone - and accompanying body hair - in the females. It has been suggested this may not necessarily be the result of owning or driving such vehicles, but instead merely a compensatory consequence).

Further decreasing the size of European vehicles (whilst reducing their manueverability at higher rates of speed) is already in effect, but additional steps will need to be instituted if we're to have any hope of removing dumbasses from the reproductive cycle.
 

DeletedUser16008

It is thus reasonable to assume an increase in the imposed speed limits will encourage incidents of accidental steering wheel impalements and vehicle ejections (a colleague suggested including an ejection seat for those humans who frequently fail to put on their seat belts, but a separate study indicated an ejection seat merely expedites the inevitable and is thus an unnecessary expense).

As the expense for increasing the speed limit is marginal, it is a reasonable step to culling. However, an increase of 10mph (the discussion being UK, wouldn't it be kph?) is insufficient to substantially decrease the human population, particularly considering their breeding habits. An equally effective approach would be neutering (a cost effective alternative may be to legalize oversized tires on large trucks. Four studies all determined a correlation between small male reproductive organs and large trucks, while one study found similar results with that of oversized tires. All five studies indicated substantially lower testosterone levels in the males, but an increase in testosterone - and accompanying body hair - in the females. It has been suggested this may not necessarily be the result of owning or driving such vehicles, but instead merely a compensatory consequence).

Further decreasing the size of European vehicles (whilst reducing their manueverability at higher rates of speed) is already in effect, but additional steps will need to be instituted if we're to have any hope of removing dumbasses from the reproductive cycle.

You could always set a rule where there has to be at least 3 in the car thereby increasing culling figures and no its not KPH its MPH imperial system here seeing as the US is an ex crown colony you were imparted with the sensible system, you also drive on the correct side most of the time ;) We also have something called bends here making the larger wallowing cars pretty useless compared to the smaller better handling ones.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser28032

At present, there is a definite need to cull the human species, what better way than increasing the Darwinian factor? Studies have shown, through extensive testing of laboratory humans, providing this species with additional rope to hang themselves results in an increase in accidental hangings

No because as Victor's just said we're already driving at those speeds all the government is doing is shifting the goal posts in order to take this into account and thus legalising it, Why? i am not sure the only thing that springs to mind is that it would reduce the number of people being caught by speed traps.

the discussion being UK, wouldn't it be kph

No, only Europe uses kph, its mph over here
 

DeletedUser

I was told once that speed limits were put at 65mph max in order to conserve energy, not to make it safer to drive as cars are more efficient at lower speeds.

*as far as 'survival of the fittest' is concerned, it does not apply. The people who cause car wrecks are usually not the ones who die in them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser14006

Based on my 3 years driving experience I would say the speed limit does not need to be increased, primarily because I regularly overtake police on the motorway going about 80mph, they have not once pulled me over so I suspect they already take the view that sticking to 70mph is a load of nonsense.
 

DeletedUser28032

That and the average police car doesn't actually have a speed gun mounted inside of it, its the van parked at the side of the roaad you have to watch out for :)
 

DeletedUser16008

That and the average police car doesn't actually have a speed gun mounted inside of it, its the van parked at the side of the roaad you have to watch out for :)

umm cough i wish that were true, if its a motorway patrol unit its a fair chance they are tooled up to the eyeballs one of my best mates brother was motorway patrol. And yea Derek thats one of the reasons to raise it to stop everyone breaking the law (technically)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top