Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login

Speed limit on motorways to rise to 80mph

last reply
62 replies
2.7k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Quote by starlightcouple
care to comment on that ben? give me some facts ben.

Don't hold your breath star, you'll end up another statistic :lol2:
Quote by GnV
Don't hold your breath star, you'll end up another statistic :lol2:

70 percent of statistics are made up anyway.
Shockingly, only 40 percent of people know this.
wink
Bell
Speed may not be the initial cause of a crash, but more speed will certainly make the consequences worse. THAT is physics and I don't need to produce 'evidence' to prove it.
You want to work it out for yourself here is everything you need. F=ma.
Quote by bell412

Don't hold your breath star, you'll end up another statistic :lol2:

70 percent of statistics are made up anyway.
Shockingly, only 40 percent of people know this.
wink
Bell
and the other 85% didn't express an opinion one way or the other :lol2:
Quote by GnV

Don't hold your breath star, you'll end up another statistic :lol2:

70 percent of statistics are made up anyway.
Shockingly, only 40 percent of people know this.
wink
Bell
and the other 70% didn't express an opinion one way or the other :lol2:
:laughabove::laughabove::laughabove::laughabove:
Statistics can always be fabricated and interpreted to suit the view of ther people trying to make the point. Bet with a simple google search you can find statistics for keeping the level at 70 mph. I dont do statistics I do experience of which I have a lot of driving on the motorway. Only MHO but the arseholes speeding in the outer lane normally already going over 80 on crowded monday morning and Friday afternoons (If you can on some friday afternoons) That are the major problem. Allowing them to go faster in any road condition as it has not yet been said that you cant do 80mph in pissinbg down rain and blanket fog is a recipe for disaster. More peole will die, maybe only slightly but who cares still more people wil die.
To many pountless pointsd in this thread also. One for example cars are now too powerful for the speed limits rolleyes Who cares, limit all cars from new and existing ones within five years at owners expense. Should produce some nice business and maybe a rethink on designing cars that are too powerful for the roads they are designed to drive on.
Quote by Ben_Minx
I have no interest in banging on about trivia.

Ben,
some trivia for you though, lol
The first speed limit legislation was created in the United Kingdom with the Locomotive Acts (automobiles were in those days termed “light locomotives”). The 1865 Act introduced a UK speed limit of 10 mph (16 km/h) which was then reduced to 4 mph (6 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3 km/h) in towns by the 1865 Act (the 'red flag act').
The first person to be convicted of speeding is believed to be Walter Arnold of East Peckham, Kent, who on 28 January 1896 was fined for speeding at 8 mph (13 km/h). He was fined 1 shilling plus costs. Passage of the Locomotives on Highways Act 1896, which raised the speed limit to a "furious" pace of 14 mph is celebrated to this day by the annual London to Brighton Veteran Car Run.
Nice to see that some things have moved on
Purely looking at the current UK 70mph speed limit and the review/consultation announced, he 70 mph National Speed Limit was introduced as a temporary measure in December 1965. (It is often blamed on Barbara Castle, but at the time the Minister of Transport was Tom Fraser.) However itwas confirmed as a permanent limit in 1967, by which time Barbara Castle (a non-driver) had become Minister of Transport. There was surprisingly little debate at the time: the fact that the average family car of the time could only just exceed 70 mph perhaps had something to do with this. It should be noted that this limit applied to all previously "derestricted" roads, not only motorways.
Given that we have one of the most heavily regulated and 'policed' (in the broader sense with Police, VOSA, Highways Agency, etc.) motorway networks in the world and an increasing use of variable speed limit sections, e.g. sections of M25, M42, M1, and M6 (to name but 4) then I have no objection per se to an increase in the UK motorway only speed limit to 80mph.
Irrespective as to whether there is an increase or not, perhaps a look at the French system - 130kph (80mph) in good conditions and if raining this reduces to 110kph (70mph) might be a useful idea (perhaps in the UK when raining 65mph or even 60mph might be better ?)
According to the Association of British Drivers;
International evidence shows there is no correlation between maximum motorway speed limits and accident and casualty rates. Consequently, some stretches of the West German Autobahn network have an excellent traffic signalling system which supports a variable speed limit regime with no upper limit! This demonstrates that it is possible to have an inherently safe road without the equivalent of our 70mph maximum!

From here;
Quote by tweeky
Statistics can always be fabricated and interpreted to suit the view of ther people trying to make the point.

i think everyone here at some time or another has used a link where stats are used.
are you saying that as an example the stroke link figures are fabricated?
like with most things in life some things are fact and some things are false.
time will tell if the raising of the limit will up the death rate or not, what i do know is that it will in some circumstances be logical. like at 2 in the morning on an empty motorway.
as has been mentioned here, the french idea i have always thought was a beter option to have. 80 when things are fine and cleer and 60 when heavy rain or fog. but what is heavey rain? peeple look at every thing in different lights and angles.
what i do know is that peeple cleverer than me have studied the facts and decided that the new limit will become law. and there is nothing at all that any of us can do about it.:notes:
Quote by Bluefish2009
According to the Association of British Drivers;
International evidence shows there is no correlation between maximum motorway speed limits and accident and casualty rates. Consequently, some stretches of the West German Autobahn network have an excellent traffic signalling system which supports a variable speed limit regime with no upper limit! This demonstrates that it is possible to have an inherently safe road without the equivalent of our 70mph maximum!

From here;

have i not said that alredy bluefish in this thred?
oh yes here it is.
Quote by i
if you look at german roads where in parts there is NO speed limits, the death rates are suprisingly very low.

:thumbup: great minds then. wink
your like a sly old fox blue.rotflmao
Quote by starlightcouple
According to the Association of British Drivers;
International evidence shows there is no correlation between maximum motorway speed limits and accident and casualty rates. Consequently, some stretches of the West German Autobahn network have an excellent traffic signalling system which supports a variable speed limit regime with no upper limit! This demonstrates that it is possible to have an inherently safe road without the equivalent of our 70mph maximum!

From here;

have i not said that alredy bluefish in this thred?
oh yes here it is.
Quote by i
if you look at german roads where in parts there is NO speed limits, the death rates are suprisingly very low.

:thumbup: great minds then. wink
your like a sly old fox blue.rotflmao
I thought it would be nice to demonstrate it with a nice graph
Steady, you'll be encouraging me into your back garden with tit bits next lol
Quote by starlightcouple
Statistics can always be fabricated and interpreted to suit the view of ther people trying to make the point.

i think everyone here at some time or another has used a link where stats are used.
are you saying that as an example the stroke link figures are fabricated?
like with most things in life some things are fact and some things are false.
time will tell if the raising of the limit will up the death rate or not, what i do know is that it will in some circumstances be logical. like at 2 in the morning on an empty motorway.
as has been mentioned here, the french idea i have always thought was a beter option to have. 80 when things are fine and cleer and 60 when heavy rain or fog. but what is heavey rain? peeple look at every thing in different lights and angles.
what i do know is that peeple cleverer than me have studied the facts and decided that the new limit will become law. and there is nothing at all that any of us can do about it.:notes:
One expert will intepet results another way to another. It happens all the time in all kinds of fields. Just as a one off looking a Blues graph and I am no expert lol However Road deaths in the USA are higher than here even considering the lower spped limit. Is this surprising taking into account the average size and weight of a vehicle in the USA compared to the uk? I dont know the variation but dead obvious with the much larger engine size's the USA vehicles will weigh in heavier.
You keep saying aboout a variable limit but this is not one this is flat 80mph. You are correct to this is to become law so lets all stop debateing please lock the the thread as this is not a democracy and we should all shut up now and go away rolleyes
Quote by tweeky
You are correct to this is to become law so lets all stop debateing please lock the the thread as this is not a democracy and we should all shut up now and go away rolleyes

what a funny old reply.:roll:
Quote by tweeky
Statistics can always be fabricated and interpreted to suit the view of ther people trying to make the point.

are you stating that the british stroke foundation or the heart foundation or cancer research organisations are altering there figures? or are you possibly saying that there stats are indeed not factual?
stats can be very accurate indeed but there are some that cause to missleed peeple i agree. the links that i supllied in this thread to answer another members comments i think are acurate and factual. unless you know otherwise of course? :notes:
Quote by starlightcouple

You are correct to this is to become law so lets all stop debateing please lock the the thread as this is not a democracy and we should all shut up now and go away rolleyes

what a funny old reply.:roll:
Quote by tweeky
Statistics can always be fabricated and interpreted to suit the view of ther people trying to make the point.

are you stating that the british stroke foundation or the heart foundation or cancer research organisations are altering there figures? or are you possibly saying that there stats are indeed not factual?
stats can be very accurate indeed but there are some that cause to missleed peeple i agree. the links that i supllied in this thread to answer another members comments i think are acurate and factual. unless you know otherwise of course? :notes:
So, we all agree that 80 mph is GREEEEAAAATTT (in a Tony The Tiger Styleeee)
Brilliant says I!!
About time.
Bell

even tony has given the thumbs up
:thumbup:
Quote by starlightcouple

You are correct to this is to become law so lets all stop debateing please lock the the thread as this is not a democracy and we should all shut up now and go away rolleyes

what a funny old reply.:roll:
Yeh cus thats exactly the way you come accross. Its happeneing anyway so whats the point in the debate seems to be what you were saying
Quote by tweeky
Statistics can always be fabricated and interpreted to suit the view of ther people trying to make the point.

are you stating that the british stroke foundation or the heart foundation or cancer research organisations are altering there figures? or are you possibly saying that there stats are indeed not factual?
stats can be very accurate indeed but there are some that cause to missleed peeple i agree. the links that i supllied in this thread to answer another members comments i think are acurate and factual. unless you know otherwise of course? :notes:
In the above examples people work towards a common goal. Its a different scenario when you are looking at opposing views, then you can read the results statistics etc with your own slant on Them. Mrs Tweeky told me earlier today to look at it from a womans perspective, so I gazed out of the kitchen window.
Quote by starlightcouple
are you stating that the british stroke foundation or the heart foundation or cancer research organisations are altering there figures? or are you possibly saying that there stats are indeed not factual?

The thing that is factual in statistics is that they wrote them and displayed them. Stats are not facts. They are someones opinion based on mathematical theorum to show that the theory could work.
Richard Doll "proved" the link of cancer to asbestos and then a year later to smoking. Yet over the years there have been more studies showing the flaws in his research. They are not saying smoking or asbestos is not a factor but they were pointing out how his factors could have skewed the results to be in favour in what he wanted to prove.
Stats are not lying, but someone needs to see if there are other studies showing a different aspect before believing the originals.
Dolls original work and the way he worked it out still applies today. To every death they add a 1 if the person was a smoker, irrelevant if the cancer could have been caused from something else i.e. work, lifestyle, location, etc. The reason they don't is because the amount of people that they could eliminate all other factors is so small the the statistal data would be meaningless.
Is it not worth still looking then? I hope so, and I donate to Cancer Research as this is one where I hope they find the cure.
Dave_Notts
Quote by bell412

You are correct to this is to become law so lets all stop debateing please lock the the thread as this is not a democracy and we should all shut up now and go away rolleyes

what a funny old reply.:roll:
Quote by tweeky
Statistics can always be fabricated and interpreted to suit the view of ther people trying to make the point.

are you stating that the british stroke foundation or the heart foundation or cancer research organisations are altering there figures? or are you possibly saying that there stats are indeed not factual?
stats can be very accurate indeed but there are some that cause to missleed peeple i agree. the links that i supllied in this thread to answer another members comments i think are acurate and factual. unless you know otherwise of course? :notes:
So, we all agree that 80 mph is GREEEEAAAATTT (in a Tony The Tiger Styleeee)
Brilliant says I!!
About time.
Bell
Another well known ad, should apply to you if you think the bit in bold is correct lol
Quote by tweeky

You are correct to this is to become law so lets all stop debateing please lock the the thread as this is not a democracy and we should all shut up now and go away rolleyes

what a funny old reply.:roll:
Quote by tweeky
Statistics can always be fabricated and interpreted to suit the view of ther people trying to make the point.

are you stating that the british stroke foundation or the heart foundation or cancer research organisations are altering there figures? or are you possibly saying that there stats are indeed not factual?
stats can be very accurate indeed but there are some that cause to missleed peeple i agree. the links that i supllied in this thread to answer another members comments i think are acurate and factual. unless you know otherwise of course? :notes:
So, we all agree that 80 mph is GREEEEAAAATTT (in a Tony The Tiger Styleeee)
Brilliant says I!!
About time.
Bell
Another well known ad, should apply to you if you think the bit in bold is correct lol

it would have had a better impact to use this specsavers add tweeky
and proof that old people cause accidents on rural roads
Quote by Dave__Notts
The thing that is factual in statistics is that they wrote them and displayed them. Stats are not facts. They are someones opinion based on mathematical theorum to show that the theory could work.

ah mr notts so this comment from the dft website that i produced earlier in this thred is not factual?
it clearly states in there " The number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police fell by 16 per cent from 2,222 in 2009 to 1,857 in 2010. This the lowest figure since national records began in 1926."
so what part of there figures are fact and which part is just a stat?
how many of those peeple are dead or dead, or are simply just unfortunatly dead?
in some cases you may well be correct but in the links i supplied i beleeve there figures are facts and not stats. unless you can prove any different with your own stats?
this site is amazing. you make a comment and peeple ask you to produce evidence, and when you do that the figures are not facts they are only stats. this site has an ability for peeple to jump about what others write even when you produce factual evidence some still try and come up with other things to push forward there own cause.
sorry mr notts that is not aimed at you but just an observation. maybe i am gulity of that as well possibly? now someone will spend there time hunting down everything i have written to see if they can catch me out no doubt. the fact is mr notts i am sure that the british stroke foundation or the dft are not in the habit of making figures up. the governemnt may well do this with say unemployemt figures to distort the truth, but those site i have produced figures from i would think they have no agendas at all in there figures.:thumbup:
so i beleeve there figures are correct and they are just that, figures.
Quote by starlightcouple

The thing that is factual in statistics is that they wrote them and displayed them. Stats are not facts. They are someones opinion based on mathematical theorum to show that the theory could work.

ah mr notts so this comment from the dft website that i produced earlier in this thred is not factual?
it clearly states in there " The number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police fell by 16 per cent from 2,222 in 2009 to 1,857 in 2010. This the lowest figure since national records began in 1926."

I have spent some time now, number crunching, theorising and analysing these figures and have come to the conclusion, statistically, less people died on our roads in 2010 than 2009 :thumbup: ............................................. :giggle::giggle::giggle:.....................................
Quote by starlightcouple

The thing that is factual in statistics is that they wrote them and displayed them. Stats are not facts. They are someones opinion based on mathematical theorum to show that the theory could work.

ah mr notts so this comment from the dft website that i produced earlier in this thred is not factual?
it clearly states in there " The number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police fell by 16 per cent from 2,222 in 2009 to 1,857 in 2010. This the lowest figure since national records began in 1926."
so what part of there figures are fact and which part is just a stat?
how many of those peeple are dead or dead, or are simply just unfortunatly dead?
in some cases you may well be correct but in the links i supplied i beleeve there figures are facts and not stats. unless you can prove any different with your own stats?
this site is amazing. you make a comment and peeple ask you to produce evidence, and when you do that the figures are not facts they are only stats. this site has an ability for peeple to jump about what others write even when you produce factual evidence some still try and come up with other things to push forward there own cause.
sorry mr notts that is not aimed at you but just an observation. maybe i am gulity of that as well possibly? now someone will spend there time hunting down everything i have written to see if they can catch me out no doubt. the fact is mr notts i am sure that the british stroke foundation or the dft are not in the habit of making figures up. the governemnt may well do this with say unemployemt figures to distort the truth, but those site i have produced figures from i would think they have no agendas at all in there figures.:thumbup:
so i beleeve there figures are correct and they are just that, figures.
And such is the problem with stats and facts in this type of debate.
In one of the previous links I read it did say that death rates would rise minimally due to this rise it worked out to about 10% rought 13 deaths. This is offset against boosting the economy even said reps could get where they are going quicker rolleyes It might be correct might not be but assuming it is I'll bet you and I dont notice that much of boost in the economy but I'll also bet those 13 peoples familys will miss them like crazy.
I have a problem with the concept that increasing speed limits makes journey times shorter. I do not believe that it does.
Quote by Ben_Minx
I have a problem with the concept that increasing speed limits makes journey times shorter. I do not believe that it does.

I think your correct Ben. If it does it is so little
Quote by starlightcouple

The thing that is factual in statistics is that they wrote them and displayed them. Stats are not facts. They are someones opinion based on mathematical theorum to show that the theory could work.

ah mr notts so this comment from the dft website that i produced earlier in this thred is not factual?
it clearly states in there " The number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police fell by 16 per cent from 2,222 in 2009 to 1,857 in 2010. This the lowest figure since national records began in 1926."
so what part of there figures are fact and which part is just a stat?
how many of those peeple are dead or dead, or are simply just unfortunatly dead?
in some cases you may well be correct but in the links i supplied i beleeve there figures are facts and not stats. unless you can prove any different with your own stats?
this site is amazing. you make a comment and peeple ask you to produce evidence, and when you do that the figures are not facts they are only stats. this site has an ability for peeple to jump about what others write even when you produce factual evidence some still try and come up with other things to push forward there own cause.
sorry mr notts that is not aimed at you but just an observation. maybe i am gulity of that as well possibly? now someone will spend there time hunting down everything i have written to see if they can catch me out no doubt. the fact is mr notts i am sure that the british stroke foundation or the dft are not in the habit of making figures up. the governemnt may well do this with say unemployemt figures to distort the truth, but those site i have produced figures from i would think they have no agendas at all in there figures.:thumbup:
so i beleeve there figures are correct and they are just that, figures.
I can see where you are confused Star.
A figure of deaths is what is called raw data. From the raw data comes the statistical theory. Thats when the fun starts by the interpreting of the data.
The figures are just figures of deaths, but they are not stats.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
I can see where you are confused Star.
A figure of deaths is what is called raw data. From the raw data comes the statistical theory. Thats when the fun starts by the interpreting of the data.
The figures are just figures of deaths, but they are not stats.
Dave_Notts

not confused at all mr notts. flipa
they have quoted the number of actual deaths for that particular year. to put a figure up that is just a stat would be misleeding. i do not think they would do that. :thumbup:
on occasion mr notts i ignore peeples own comments when i know they are wrong and will not admit to that. :thumbup:
i shall once again bid your farewell as it is cleer to me that whatever anyone says here if it is not to your thoughts then you are prepared to just go around and around in circles. wave
in my mind i have submitted FACTUAL evidence to support what i stated at the start of this thred. the trouble is mr notts that some peeple just never know when to just say i was wrong.
i am sorry but i am right in these figures i have given from reliable sources. end of reely. :bounce:
oh and it is obvius that if your travel at 80mph instead of 70mph you will get there quicker. basic logic that one.
if it was down to me i would make it 130mph limit and we could arrive before we have left. rotflmao:rotflmao:
Quote by starlightcouple
not confused at all mr notts.
they have quoted the number of actual deaths for that particular year. to put a figure up that is just a stat would be misleeding. i do not think they would do that.
on occasion mr notts i ignore peeples own comments when i know they are wrong and will not admit to that.
i shall once again bid your farewell as it is cleer to me that whatever anyone says here if it is not to your thoughts then you are prepared to just go around and around in circles.
in my mind i have submitted FACTUAL evidence to support what i stated at the start of this thred. the trouble is mr notts that some peeple just never know when to just say i was wrong.
i am sorry but i am right in these figures i have given from reliable sources. end ot reely.

The figures are correct. However, if, for example many fewer miles were driven in the year with the lower figures, eg because of the escalating cost of fuel, then the number of deaths per miles travelled might have gone up. If this were the case then the roads would actually have become more dangerous despite the total number of deaths going down.
One set of facts does not always tell the whole story - that is why people, especially politicians and newspaper editors, can use a set of facts to 'prove' their case and another set of people can 'prove' the exact opposite using the same set of facts.
Facts are facts, statistics are usually interpretations of facts, often with an ulterior motive.
Quote by northwest-cpl
One set of facts does not always tell the whole story - that is why people, especially politicians and newspaper editors, can use a set of facts to 'prove' their case and another set of people can 'prove' the exact opposite using the same set of facts.

that is very true and that is why the DOT give a set of figures each yeer. the yeer i gave i think was 2010. they also have yeer 2009 and 2008 where there are different sets of figures.
as far as i know the dot get there facts and figures from the police. that in my mind makes it a fact pure and simple. :thumbup:
Quote by starlightcouple
that is very true and that is why the DOT give a set of figures each yeer. the yeer i gave i think was 2010. they also have yeer 2009 and 2008 where there are different sets of figures.
as far as i know the dot get there facts and figures from the police. that in my mind makes it a fact pure and simple. :thumbup:

By one set of facts I mean the set of year on year figures that you quote. Did they give a second set of facts as well, eg total miles travelled, or a third set of facts, eg weather data, or any other facts that could influence death on the road, since these could easily affect the total number of deaths in any one year.
No one is questioning whether your facts of the total number of deaths over 3 years are correct and that total deaths have decreased. It is easy to collect a figure for the total number of road deaths - this is the raw data that Dave mentions.
However, explaining how those facts came about is a matter of interpretation and would need facts about other events that could explain why the deaths have decreased. If the deaths decrease by 25% but the miles travelled has decreased by 50% (as an example) then roads are relatively more dangerous even though the total number of deaths has gone down. That would be using raw data (facts) to perform statistical analysis and from there trying to understand why the figures have gone down.