I was thinking the same thing when I typed that. I knew someone would come along with that bit!
It’s the stretch around Heathrow, and I can’t help but suspect part of the ‘improved traffic flow’ is because of people unfamiliar with a road slowing to a steady 70 at the first suggestion of any possible action (camera, sign or anything). I really doubt that the same idea would have the same effect on a stretch of road which is never patrolled by any police or speed cameras, and which is mostly used by daily commuters.
I think it depends on where you are in the tristate area. I have lived and driven in all three states for quite some time, and there’s a lot of variance in speed limits depending on where you are. The closer to Cincinnati you are on interstates, the slower the limit is (55mph on I-71 and I-75 near the city), so enforcement varies with the varying limits, because once you get just outside the more congested areas, the limit jumps to 65mph.
KY has 65mph pretty much everywhere, and in Indiana, the limit is 70 on interstates.
I prefer 70. I think it’s a good, reasonable limit. Go slower if you wish, just please stay to the right for the rest of us.
You make that sound like a trivial task!
For Brit Dopers mainly, and tangentially relevant to the thread:
Have you ever noticed that loads of people brake as soon as they see a Gatso, even if they are already driving under the limit? I used to motorcycle along the A2 (Medway-London) where Gatsos grew like wild poppies, and one of my main concerns was people jumping on the anchors as soon as they saw one, without even bothering to note that they weren’t actually speeding.
I know this wasn’t directed at a US citizen, but “gatsos” is a fascinating word for cops (know the origin/what does it mean?) and “jumping on the anchors” is a pretty cool phrase for “slamming on the brakes”.
Seems you Brits, while technically our bitch these days, CAN still be useful!
Please, I am SO kidding. Just interested in the origin of the phrases.
dude is this a whoosh or do you just not understand how little sense that statement makes?
speed doesnt increase risk in a linear way, its exponential. going from 40 mph to 80 mph has 4 times the stopping distance not 2, meaning you need 4 times the ability to spot danger and 4 times the reaction speed to keep the risk the same.
when the guy says “you can go twice as fast” the dude on the bike does…this is the video I use to demonstrate the Quadrupled energy aspect of speed.
A “Gatso” isn’t a cop - it’s a [del]speed[/del] safety :rolleyes: camera.
If you’re going fast enough, all danger comes at you from the front.
Wow, that really surprised me! For two reasons I guess. One, 62/68 mph is quite slow for a major road. Is that the max speed everywhere? I’ve never been to Australia, but I imagine it kind of like Nevada, with a bunch of big cities and medium sized towns connected by roads going through a lot of wide open space. On long straight flat highways with nothing else around for miles, much higher speeds are quite safe and driving that slow feels kind of like purposely talking slower than normal would feel. Two, my impression of Australians as no BS type of people who would have speed limits based on the actual road conditions and not some arbitrary number.
Over here, there’s two different definitions to speeding. One is the legal one, going faster than posted limits. No one here takes that seriously because some arbitrary national speed limit is inherently absurd. Most speed limits here are not based on actual road and environment conditions. There’s just no way to say that driving at 75mph on a barren road in the middle of the desert is as dangerous as 75mph on a congested highway going through an urban area. Speed limits here are often based on things that have nothing to do with the road conditions like politics and creating revenue for local districts.
The second definition is “driving faster than is safe for the particular road conditions”. Most people here do take that seriously. This includes not just going too fast (which is a factor of secure control of the vehicle, not an arbitrary number), but also being reckless - weaving in and out of traffic, not merging politely, revving engines, racing other cars, etc. Obviously the posted limit is silly, whereas 55 is way too slow for many roads under normal conditions, even 30mph would be too fast if it were say foggy or icy.
And pragmatically speaking, people will drive at the speed they feel is safe and normal regardless of what is posted. The only difference is, if traffic is sparse there will more danger from cars going at inconsistent speeds, and there will be more districts making ticket money.
Since it seems apropos to open with a quote about driving fast:
I thought I’d include one that mentions running out of gas as a consequence to driving too fast.
On the freeways I drive on, (Ventura, Los Angeles, and Orange County freeways) 80% of the people drive 10-15MPH over the speed limit (75-80). (I’m talking about times there isn’t prohibitive traffic, of course!) 15% of the people drive 55-75, and the other 5% fly past us like we’re standing still. I’m in the 80% range, I generally drive about 75.
I’m sure no level of government is blind to the fact that most people drive over the speed limit. “If” they lower it, are people going to drive 10-15MPH over the speed limit (65-70) or are they going to continue to drive 75-80?
The biggest problem, of course, is enforcing the law. The ratio of people who commit the crime of driving over the speed limit to people who are caught and punished according to the law is crazy - what’s the point of changing the law when you aren’t enforcing the current one?
If people drove 65 instead of 75-80, it would reduce their gas usage more than if you institute a new law which you can’t or won’t enforce. I’d drive 65 if I knew that I’d get a ticket for it 50% of the time - just driving to work and back would net me 1 ticket a day, so I’d have to switch to driving 65 if they had enough highway patrol to but 50% of all speeders as opposed to 0.5% or less.