Oh, dear. Oh, dear, you’ve got to smile. GEM Motoring Assist, having swallowed the whole “speed kills” mantra, surveyed drivers about their attitudes on higher speeds on motorways. The results – for anyone with a modicum of common sense – were entirely predictable.
Only 20 per cent of the 350 motorists surveyed by GEM Motoring Assist, however, said that speeding should be more closely monitored, and over half of drivers surveyed said that the national speed limit should be increased.
Of course it should. Higher speeds will allow the traffic to spread out. This, combined with more effective use of lanes will ease journeys. Also bear in mind that motorways are inherently safe as everyone is travelling in the same direction.
GEM said this was “not the result it wanted to hear” as it is strongly opposed to suggestions, by transport secretary Philip Hammond, that motorway speed limits should be raised to 80mph.
Well, don’t ask the question, then…
80mph would only bring us in line with France, which manages a two-lane system perfectly well. While much of their motorway network is less densely used, around the conurbations it isn’t much different to the UK system – except for the lane discipline and the higher speeds. Philip Hammond is right, GEM Motoring Assist is wrong.
Added Mr Williams: “It is shocking that a large number of motorists are in favour of raising the motorway speed limit as research shows that this would considerably increase the number of casualties, levels of carbon emissions and fuel consumption. Safety is our top priority for UK drivers and we hope that by warning the public of these dangers we can help raise awareness and in turn make roads a safer place.”
Shocking, eh? That tells me just how out of touch with reality Mr Williams is. And, his subsequent twaddle is straight out of the green religionists’s handbook of cockwaffle. Given that this survey was limited to a mere 350 drivers, so is at best, dubious, I can’t help wondering just what “research” Mr Williams claims supports his theory. And how much is “considerably”? How is this measured? Who has come up with the figures? The reality is that it is nonsense. I have travelled around the outskirts of Clermont-Ferrand and Paris at 130kph often enough to realise that Williams is talking patent piffle.
Might I also pause here to point out that as GEM Motoring Assist is clearly siding with the enemy, I will never use their services. With friends like this, motorists don’t need enemies.
Mr Williams was unavailable for comment today as Oxfordshire has re-started its theft cameras so he had to go for a great big WANK.
Never fell for the fuel saving arguement either. My 5 year old Mondeo deezil redlines at 4500rpm, yet at 2500rpm does exactly 95mph. I don’t see slightly over half engine speed as being in the region of excessively thirsty.
The best way of conserving fuel isn’t through driving slowly, it is though driving smoothly. Driving at 95mph and easing off gently well in advance of a hazard is more fuel efficient than driving at 70mph and braking at the last minute. But you knew that already 😉
What in the name of Christ is a breakdown recovery company getting involved in political advocacy for anyway?? FFS
I see that Oxford has turned all its speed cameras back on, at the insistence of the police traffic superintendent…
They CLAIM it’s because deaths have gone up since switchoff in August but don’t say if speed is solely responsible or if the severe weather at Christmas had something to do with it.
And then said foot-in-mouth superintendent admits to the media they decided to switch ’em back on last year anyway, before they would have known about any increase!
Mrs L made that same point about severe weather when she saw the news item on the television this morning. Also, Swindon’s experience seems to contradict with what the police would like us to believe.
Dunno. Doesn’t seem to stop them, though. Hopefully their sales will suffer as a consequence.
“Added Mr Williams: “It is shocking that a large number of motorists are in favour of raising the motorway speed limit as research shows that this would considerably increase the number of casualties, levels of carbon emissions and fuel consumption.”
Ah, the familiar refrain of the joyless, puritan zealot. Whenever a quote starts with “It is shocking…” you just know what the thrust of the quote is going to be about!
Ah, but of course, it’s for ‘our own good…’
So that’s all right then.
And did anyone else noticed that the theft cameras are now going to cost £800K a year to be run by the police as opposed to the £600K a year when run by the council?
Anyroad up, if Wanker Willy wanted to get the answers that he wanted to hear, he should have conducted his survey solely among members of brake. Any fule gno that.
His arguement seems to be total bollocks. Casualties, CO2 emissions and fuel consumption?
As you say, the motorways are the safest roads for a number of reasons including driving in the same direction, plus its not backed up by any evidence.
CO2 emissions does not deserve to be dignified by a response, and as for fuel consumption, we pay for the fuel so its up to us what we do with it.
The Register cover the Oxfordshire decision:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/01/oxfordshire_speed_cameras/
I think 85 mph would be the correct top speed to set, where that is safe.
Longrider, what do you think of the French thing, where they have signs saying x speed and y speed when it’s raining?
Hey Longrider,
you know you’re in the top 100 political blogs on Wikio?
(you’re 99, good for you!)
http://www.wikio.co.uk/blogs/top/politics?start=80
Considering the answers for the top ten responses I wonder if they didn’t ask the right questions to get the answers they did want to hear.
1. Tailgating
2. Driving whilst using a mobile phone
3. Driving in the middle lane when the left hand lane is empty
4. Changing lanes without adequate observations or signals
5. Driving on the hard shoulder to avoid traffic
6. Entering a motorway from a slip road without adequate observations or signals
7. Driving too slowly
8. Speeding
9. Use of the outside lane by LGV’s
10. Stopping on the hard shoulder when there is no emergency
Sounds more like the asked drivers what concerned them most about motorway driving than asking what actually is dangerous. Use of the middle lane and hard shoulder aren’t exactly highly dangerous.
It’s a sensible approach in that it acknowledges that a safe speed will vary according to the conditions. On motorways is it 130kmh/110kmh and outside of that, the limit is reduced by 10kmh during rain even though not signposted.
I suspect that you are right. But then it looks as if they aren’t very good at conducting surveys anyway.
Illogical road safety argument.
Child ‘A’ runs out of own front garden without looking, dashes straight across 30mph road, and is hit by motorist ‘B’ who was doing 29mph.
If he had been doing 40 or more – his car would have been passed & long gone.
Which is the most dangerous scenario HERE; a) speeding above arbitrary indicated limit; b) driver concentrating on keeping just-legal; c) Parents not teaching/caring for their child?
Mjolinir:
Your first point doesn’t really work, leaving aside the impossibility of calculating risk from events that haven’t happened you might as well say that if the car had only been doing 20mph it wouldn’t have got there yet. If you are saying that life is full of contingencies and attributing accidents to only one cause is usually incorrect I would agree. Circumstances vary, the people who seem to drive at 45mph whatever road they are on are perhaps some of the most dangerous.
Interstingly from the GEM Survey report,
“Many people are unaware the Highway Code states that drivers must take a 15 minute break for every 2 hours of continuous driving.
Really?
“While the Highway Code might state that drivers should take breaks every two hours rather than ‘must’ we support the sentiment,”
Reality is restored
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=24455#p237644
I see that Eddie Stobart died last week aged 56. Am I the only one who thought it funny he didn’t make it to 57?