Maybe, but still some of the Rural B-roads, national speed limit is easily do-able.

Don't fall for the safety grounds of implementing this. It's about money. Soon every road will be earmarked for, or actually have, a speed camera every mile or two.

Add to that the growing number of CCTV cameras along the way, supposedly to check for accidents or flytipping, but actually there to make sure we do as we're told.

I know some people deny it's anything like 1984, or find the use of that book as an argument annoying (like saying LFS is still alpha), but it really is looking like an accurate prediction than just an exciting book.

Quote from mookie427 :

if people bothered to do a bit of research instead of relying upon The Times, you'd find that the speed limit will only be cut to 50 on rural, single carriageway roads

*edit* oh, snap!

OK so what classifies as a rural road? Take the A36 from Salisbury to Southampton for example, a road I drive very often. You can guarantee despite being nearly always rammed, that'll be defined as a rural road. It goes through several towns, where 40mph limits are already imposed.

Moreover how often do you see 60mph limits in urban areas? Nearly all main roads in urban areas are restricted to 40 or 50mph anyway.

And finally, most dual carriageway roads have 70mph limits, so obviously aren't affected.

there is a prime example of a road that needs a lower speed limit just outside Oxford - it's a single carriage way country road, with 2 single lane hump back bridges coming very soon after each other, the speed limit on that section of road is already 50mph but in reality it needs to be closer to 30, as there are 2 pubs by the bridges with people coming out of them, kids and children that sort of stuff. Yes the bridges have traffic lights on them but it only takes one numpty going way too fast round the blind bend leading to the first bridge to cause a major crash

Quote from mookie427 :

there is a prime example of a road that needs a lower speed limit just outside Oxford - it's a single carriage way country road, with 2 single lane hump back bridges coming very soon after each other, the speed limit on that section of road is already 50mph but in reality it needs to be closer to 30, as there are 2 pubs by the bridges with people coming out of them, kids and children that sort of stuff. Yes the bridges have traffic lights on them but it only takes one numpty going way too fast round the blind bend leading to the first bridge to cause a major crash

I agree that sounds like a bad choice of speed limit, which is why it needs special attention, not just a blanket 50mph limit everywhere.

A lot of it is down to common sense, there are hundreds if not thousands of roads in the UK where 60mph is too fast, there are probably an equal amount where going faster wouldn't be a problem. Of course common sense is never common.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I know some people deny it's anything like 1984, or find the use of that book as an argument annoying (like saying LFS is still alpha), but it really is looking like an accurate prediction than just an exciting book.

Well, a fine is a bit less severe of a punishment than being dragged off to room 101. And as far as I know, there isn't some mean looking bloke with a moustache watching me through my TV screen.

But do we really need to be driving faster than 50mph? People get really bothered when the speed limit gets lowered, when they rarely exceed 50mph anyway.

That's not the point. If we don't want to drive at the speed limit then that's our choice. The government shouldn't intervene to remove what few choices we have by enforcing it on the token effort of saving one life in 70 million.

speak for yourself. I usually go faster than the speed limit, when there's less traffic on highways/freeways/major roads (as long as it isn't adverse road conditions). When i was working out bush, i used to come home once a month for the weekend, to catch up with mates/family etc. It's a 1300km round trip.

about 6.5 hours each way, at 110kmh (the maximum allowed speed limit in this state) Being as i had to drive it on my own (no driver swaps) usually after a 12 hour shift on a friday (fatigue) i used to have to stop for a break, being as it was such a long haul. The road goes thru towns etc that you have to slow down for, which is fine, but theres one seciton that is 180km of nothing, and i do mean NOTHING. I can see no reason why a piece of road like that shouldn't have a higher speed limit, being as the biggest risk is hitting wildlife (and i'm prepared to take that risk, if it saves me an hour or 2 off a 6.5 hour trip)

The single reason theyre doing this is so they wont have to change any signs, saving them a fortune, and they can put cameras on loads of roads and make an absolute bomb. If you think its for any other reason than making money, you're deluded.

The government seems to be under the notion that "Speed Kills".... But it doesn't.

Crashing Kills, and im pretty sure that speed doesn't cause all crashing in the country.


This is just a government scheme to make money.

If they sensibly introduce the limit on rural roads that are known problems then there is no issue. The shore road between Alness and Invergordan used to be 60mph and would have at least a death on that road ever 2/3 months, some of them good friends as well. But 6 months ago, the speed limit was dropped to 50mph and along with other safety measures there hasn't been a death on that road yet (touch wood).

As I said, if done sensibly, there is no cause for concern, it's if it's a blanket limit on all roads then it becomes a problem.

Quote :

The government seems to be under the notion that "Speed Kills".... But it doesn't.

Agreed. Inappropriate speed kills. Depending on the situation, that may be 90mph or 35mph. A blanket 50mph just... doesn't work.

Quote from 5haz :

Everyone breaks the national speed limit anyway, I'm sure most people think it means go as fast as you want.

And many UK people says that americans are stupid

Quote from DarkTimes :

There is no justification or reason to own a car, and if you think you have one, you're deluding yourself.

I hate the environment, I love killing fauna, and I want to annoy people who complain about the noise my car makes...

That's 3 justifications and reasons for me to own a car.

Quote from SamH :

I swear this government is just looking for ways to piss us off. It doesn't matter how right-wing they move, they just can't let go of their inherent desire to find ways to impact our daily lives. It's all part of their need to make themselves feel important, active and involved.

I'm absolutely in favour of the move to reduce speed limits through rural villages from 30 to 20mph. That makes sense to me, and the statistics to support that trend, regarding road deaths, are well-established.

However, there is absolutely nothing, anywhere, in any study that's ever been done to suggest that a change from 60 to 50mph in national speed limit zones will deliver an even slightly measureable, let alone tangible, justification for this. And yet they've already DECIDED on the number.. before they even begin to spend public money to justify it.

In national speed limit zones, where junctions exist, there has already been a campaign of increasing road sign warnings, and in many places reducing the speed limit on approach to these places. This new "idea" is only about finding new ways to spend public money and introduce more repressive methods of circumventing due process by mechanising fixed penalty speeding fines.

It's sickening. Scew nu laba, scew the cons, I'm going with the only party with big enough bollox to tell Bush to screw himself and his Iraq war.

I agree with your post Sam, but Bush has already screwered himself.

If they REALLLLY wanted to improve the safety of our roads, they'd make it harder to get a bloody license and actually train people to drive properly!!

If there were hundreds of air disasters each year that were a result of pilot error, they would decide to train them properly, and say goodbye to people who couldn't make the grade.

Who would complain about that. But no, they act like their test is infallible, like they do everything they can to improve road safety, so persecuting people for speeding is the only option- whilst in the mean time someone on autopilot does 30mph past a school with parked cars at the roadside at 3:30 in the wet, and are seen by the "safety camera" as a responsible safe road user.
"He just stepped out, there was nothing I could do, I wasn't speeding."

I look forward to seeing what Top Gear have to say.

Bloody government. Bunch of pass-the-buck, responsibility-dodging, easy-option-taking, token-gesturing, big-picture-missing revenue-grabbers.

Considering British roads are among the safest in the world this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Millions of tonnes of metal travelling millions of miles per year at high speed, and only a few accidents. That's an amazing achievement, not a problem.

Speed's not the issue. In Australia people drive much slower than we do and yet their roads are more dangerous.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Don't fall for the safety grounds of implementing this. It's about money. Soon every road will be earmarked for, or actually have, a speed camera every mile or two.

I think that if that were every to happen, revolving numberplates could actually become reality, and widespread amongst many road users.

Quote from durbster :

Considering British roads are among the safest in the world this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Millions of tonnes of metal travelling millions of miles per year at high speed, and only a few accidents. That's an amazing achievement, not a problem.

Agreed absolutely. If they insist on spending millions upon millions on the roads, how about they spend that money by widening and otherwise sorting them out, rather than putting Big Brother cameras every goddamn mile of tarmac'd pony-and-cart track.

Quote from Bean0 :

Seems like it is only going to apply to 'rural' roads...

I'll take some pictures of rural single carriageway roads and let you judge if they are safe to do 60 on - but I can tell you know a dead-straight 2 mile long road with no elevation changes certainly shouldn't be a 50...

I think you're all missing the point. It's not about the driving, nor is it about the deaths on the road.

Change the speed limit, people break it, fines feed the economy. Recession over.

I'm actually with Crashgate on this one. While A-road fatalities obviously happen, I'd hazard a guess that more people are killed and injured in 30mph zones than national limit areas.

Cars are built to higher safety standards than when the limits were introduced; people break as easily as they always have.

Quote from Dajmin :

I think you're all missing the point. It's not about the driving, nor is it about the deaths on the road.

Change the speed limit, people break it, fines feed the economy. Recession over.

I'm actually with Crashgate on this one. While A-road fatalities obviously happen, I'd hazard a guess that more people are killed and injured in 30mph zones than national limit areas.

Cars are built to higher safety standards than when the limits were introduced; people break as easily as they always have.

There is no way in hell they could raise enough money through fines to cover the hole that the recession is making.

There are rural roads were 60 mph is not safe, regardless of car safety. Maybe I see it more as I live in the Highlands and travel mainly on rural roads and see it every year young (typically male) drivers driving too fast on these roads.

The issue I have is how will this be policed and how will the decide which road is 50 and which road is it safe to do 60?

The article said:
The new 50mph limit is intended to reduce the high death toll on rural roads, where, in 2007, 69% of car crash fatalities took place. It will apply to single carriage A, B and C roads. Local authorities will have the power to raise the limit to 60mph on the safest roads, but will have to justify it.

Yet most of the posts here are on the basis of there being no statistics to back it up.

The statistic above is from, and I quote
New research by the Department for Transport has found that reducing the speed limit could save 200-250 lives a year and also reduce carbon emissions.

Change is a very difficult thing to accept, especially for those set in their ways who do not accept they are doing anything wrong - and with driving often people are not doing anything wrong. Indeed, you could take an idiot doing 120mph average speed and drive like that for 5 years and not die. Indeed, speed doesnt kill.

What kills is accidents, and when accidents happen speed is bad. Now I know some of you, those who live in Norforlk for instance, will have very little concept of why doing 90mph on a country road is bad. That's because your country roads are the Hertfordshire equivellent of a motorway. Not everywhere is like that however.

Accidents happen when you slip up and when the person you hit fails to avoid you. It's not a case of doing 70mph is something wrong so there is no need to take this personally.

Now some pencil pusher has stated that statistically that road deaths should reduce by 200-250 if the limit is reduced on a certain type of road and the new limit is intended to be applied to those roads.

With this in mind, assuming the statistical analysis is accurate, then I say lets have an extra 250 people alive next year.

Quote from Becky Rose :

With this in mind, assuming the statistical analysis is accurate, then I say lets have an extra 250 people alive next year.

Government stats a year ago said the economy was fine too!

Quote from Becky Rose :

The article said:
The new 50mph limit is intended to reduce the high death toll on rural roads, where, in 2007, 69% of car crash fatalities took place. It will apply to single carriage A, B and C roads. Local authorities will have the power to raise the limit to 60mph on the safest roads, but will have to justify it.

Yet most of the posts here are on the basis of there being no statistics to back it up.

The statistic above is from, and I quote
New research by the Department for Transport has found that reducing the speed limit could save 200-250 lives a year and also reduce carbon emissions.

Change is a very difficult thing to accept, especially for those set in their ways who do not accept they are doing anything wrong - and with driving often people are not doing anything wrong. Indeed, you could take an idiot doing 120mph average speed and drive like that for 5 years and not die. Indeed, speed doesnt kill.

What kills is accidents, and when accidents happen speed is bad. Now I know some of you, those who live in Norforlk for instance, will have very little concept of why doing 90mph on a country road is bad. That's because your country roads are the Hertfordshire equivellent of a motorway. Not everywhere is like that however.

Accidents happen when you slip up and when the person you hit fails to avoid you. It's not a case of doing 70mph is something wrong so there is no need to take this personally.

Now some pencil pusher has stated that statistically that road deaths should reduce by 200-250 if the limit is reduced on a certain type of road and the new limit is intended to be applied to those roads.

With this in mind, assuming the statistical analysis is accurate, then I say lets have an extra 250 people alive next year.

To be honest, I don't really agree with this. There will be speeders that hit slower cars. Now if those cars were going faster that wouldn't happen. The fatality rate will be close to the same. I've been in friends cars zipping through heavy traffic at over 80mph I guess they were just smart drivers. And for myself, I wouldn't certainly do it through that amount of traffic.