Optimal speed for economical m'way driving?

Soubrette

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

That would suggest an inherent failing in French driving standards to me, rather than a simple comparison of speed limits.

I can't help thinking that if the accidents had been lower than the UK, then you would be happy to use the figures to prop up your arguments rather than admit to an 'inherent failing in UK driving standards':rotfl:

I would be interested to know where these statistics have come from wdyw

Sou

AdrianHi

Just for fun looked up a few bits of reseach on the topic of speed and accidents, the following from the USA sums up the general flavour:

• That the evidence shows that the risk of having a crash is increased both for vehicles travelling slower than the average speed, and for those travelling above the average speed.
• That the risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much faster than the median speed.
• That the severity of a crash depends on the vehicle speed change at impact.
• That there is limited evidence that suggests that lower speed limits result in lower speeds on a system wide basis.
• That most crashes related to speed involve speed too fast for the conditions.
• That more research is needed to determine the effectiveness of traffic calming

This would seem to back up the point that if you have the motorway more or less to your self 180mph is safe enough if you have the car capable of doing that speed, but a change in conditions such as a bend, traffic joining the road, bad weather or whatever might require you to slow to 40mph if that's what the conditions demand.
70mph is a somewhat arbitrary speed arrived at as this was the maximum speed most cars available in 1965 could do when the limit was introduced and subsequently made permanent in 1967. It had absolutely nothing to do with promoting road safety or fuel saving and much more to do with the fact a few politicians thought AC testing their latest Cobra to 180mph on the M1 might be dangerous.... well that would depend on the conditions at the time wouldn't it!!!

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Soubrette wrote: »

I can't help thinking that if the accidents had been lower than the UK, then you would be happy to use the figures to prop up your arguments rather than admit to an 'inherent failing in UK driving standards':rotfl:

I would be interested to know where these statistics have come from wdyw

Sou

Unfortunately for you, I would actually agree that there is an inherent failure in UK driving standards. This failure is not addressed with speed limits. It is addressed with improved training and greater roads policing (by human beings in cars).

tomstickland

That the severity of a crash depends on the vehicle speed change at impact.

Blimey, noone would have thought that to be true!

tomstickland

laalaa wrote: »

These comment has really made me angry:mad:

You need to separate emotion from logic.

NO! you shouldnt set your cruise control to 80mph, you should set it to 70 as thats what the speed limit is. Dont start going on about speedos and true mph. Its a lame excuse that those who like to speed, use to try and justify your excess speed.

Set cruise control to 80 and because speedos have to overread the true speed will be less than 80.

The difference that an extra 10mph can make if an accident occurs is astounding, but you'd rather drive that extra 10mph because its unlikely you will get prosecuted?

The reason that they're unlikely to be prosecuted is because it's widely accepted that travelling at slightly over 70mph on a motorway is not horrendously dangerous.

I have absolutely no repsect for people that find its acceptable to drive at ridiculous speeds.

But is 75mph ridiculous.
I have no respect for people who think that safety can be considered merely by the measurement of speed.

Its people like that, that kill and severly injure the "sensible" drivers and their children everyday.

What about someone travelling at 60mph but not paying attention?

If you had the job of telling someone their loved one was dead, or having to clean up the loved one so their relatives could see them in the mortuary, maybe you'd think twice...or then again maybe not

I've driven past several accidents over the years. I've never thought to myself "my god, that's awful, if only I'd been driving at 65mph that would never happen to me". I usually think "that looks bad, I wonder what went wrong to cause that, as a I accelerate back up to the same speed as before I saw the accident."

AdrianHi

Given that the traffic flow is either 60mph on the inside lane with the lorries or 80mph+ on the outer two lanes, then considering the above research that finds travelling at the same speed as everyone else is safest, the last thing you should be doing is setting the cruise control at 70mph, it's more dangerous, your not going with the flow.

Some of my above comments are based on reading a UK government publication that actually states while they will not be raising the speed limit above 70mph, enforcement will not take place until your are doing in excess of 80mph. Given that car speedometers read typically 7%-8% high anything up to an indicated 85mph and your not going to get prosecuted and you will be safer because your going with the flow of traffic... unless conditions dictate a slower speed of course.

markw5

Our leasing company tell us that 62mph is the most economical speed. How do they ever get to meetings?

tomstickland

Well, I've been quite surprised by my 70mph experiment. It doesn't seem to take that much longer to get anywhere.

scbk

I've driven about 60,000 miles in the last 18mths with a target speed of 60 (about 57 in real life), and funnily enough I didn't take days to get everywhere/fall asleep/die of boredom etc.
Purely for money reasons, I'm not too bothered about speed limits, my nsl is 50 but I'll do 60 unless it's not safe to do so

tinkerbell84

I shave about 45 minutes off my commute (each way) by averaging 90 rather than 70