Is it time for the speed limit to be reviewed?

There's been talk for years about increasing or decreasing the speed limit for years. Should the limits be increased or decreased considering:

• Car technological advancement
• Congestion
• Fuel Consumption
• Safety

The speed limit on motorways should be raised to help the network to function more efficiently, a report for the Government has concluded.

Motorists would benefit most if traffic travelled at a 'target speed' of 78mph, it said.

This would enable quicker journeys, without seriously jeopardising safety.

The report by the Highways Agency examined the overall costs and economic benefits of travelling at speeds of between 30mph and 100mph - taking account of time at the wheel, fuel burned and accidents.

It concluded that 78mph was the most economical and 'appropriate' average speed, despite a rise in fuel consumption and more 'costly' crashes when vehicles travel faster than the current 70mph limit.

Similar calculations were also conducted for dual carriageways, where the most beneficial speed was found to be 71mph.

But traffic on single carriageway trunk roads was found to be most efficient at 54mph - 6mph lower than the present 60mph limit.

The report said: "At these targets, the network would operate in a balanced, safe, reliable and economic way to benefit society and users."

However, the Highways Agency report stopped short of recommending the changes, due to associated rises in exhaust emissions from vehicles travelling faster.

Congestion is estimated to cost British industry £15 billion annually.

The report revealed that an accident typically causes an hour's delay for 1,300 vehicles at a cost of £12,280 in fuel, missed appointments and time catching up - around £10 each.

The report, entitled "Development of a speed limit strategy for the Highways Agency" was carried out by the Government's former transport research laboratory, TRL.

It was commissioned by the Highways Agency, which manages local speed limits.

A complicated calculation established the average cost per kilometre based on hours spent at the wheel, the price of fuel on the journey and the cost of accidents in terms of vehicle damage, delays and injuries.

Quicker journeys 'would benefit individuals and businesses', it found but there would be some trade-off in accident costs.

The Department for Transport, which sets national limits, said it will be studying the report.

A DfT spokesperson said: "There are no current plans to change national speed limits but the department will look at the findings of the report."

Last night the Association of British Drivers said the current limit was no longer viable, and called for a rise to 80mph.

"This archaic 70mph limit has been with us for over 40 years and is well past its sell-by date,' said ABD policy adviser Nigel Humphries

[Spiderman]

Yet on the flip side the govt is talking about 20mph limits in ALL residential areas and our old friend Ken has even said that he would like to see a "speed camera on every corner" more of that here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...e_id=1770&ct=5

The muppets.

[G]

Speed limits need to be reviewed. None of this blanket residential areas are 30 Motorways are 70 crap.

Speed limits should be specific to the area in question and variable for the time of day.

For example motorways, 50mph peak times (7am-10am & 4pm-6pm), 70mph other times, 90mph off peak times (10pm - 4am)

Something variable along those lines would work with suitable camera like on the M1, M42 and M25.

Schemes like nothing over 7.5t overtaking between 6am - 8pm have also been proven to help traffic flow immensly.

The M42 and M25 are my two least favourite roads to drive on. I hate the camera markings on the road every 200 yards. It seems like total overkill. Would varied limits not just cause more confusion?

[G]

I unfortunately do 40k+ miles a year and and the only roads I pretty much can gaurantee will stay moving at a reasonable speed are the road with variable speed limits like the M42.

They work very well at keeping heavily congested roads moving.

They certainly are not fun roads to drive, anyone who thinks they are is mad, but they keep moving despite the massive volumes of traffic.

2 million drivers get caught speeding every year. It shows something isn't quite right with the system. I'd like to see how effective the M42 is when busy, the M6 is begging for something to work. I've never drievn on it at any time without being caught up in traffic.

2 million driver getting caught speeding every year, i bet the police would say "its working" this change in speed limits and camera everywhere are going to catch even the best behaved driver, its a money making scandal nothing to do with safety.

[fizzwheel]

The only time I've been down the M6 and its been traffic free was late at night, i.e between 11 and 4 in the morning.

M42 does work with the variable limits and I'd rather be crawling along at 40mph than stopped in gridlock. I hate it when the traffic speeds up and then everybody stops again purely due to traffic volumes.

Mind you if lane discpline was more deeply instilled in drivers and everybody didnt sit in the outside lane then it wouldnt be so bad anyway.

I also think the limits need reviewing, I also think that if the big trucks could do more than 56mph on the motorway then that would help things move more freely to.

In a modern car / bike I see nothing wrong with 90mph being set as the motorway limit, its how fast I drive / ride on it all the time away when traffic allows me to. I'd have no problem with the 90mph limit being rigidly enforced either.

It would also I think allow the poilce more time to nick people for dangerous driving etc etc rather than concentrating on speeders.

[G]

Cameras for safety is definately bolloxs.

Cameras for keeping congested traffic flowing definately works whether it generates money or not, and is without a doubt worth it.

Yet the M6 toll is always completely empty! I'd use it but I'm a tightwad