Motorcycle speed limits

A motorcycle has a weight of aproximatly a quater of a small car, and some of the larger spv weight twice that. As such the energy due to the speed of a motorcycle is propartionaly lower. We have lower speed limits for heavy vehicles and when trailers are involved.

Modern motorcycles are high performance machines, which are capable of very high speeds and have the brakes  and handeling to match. When a motorcycle crashes, it is usually the rider who comes off worse, so there is very little risk to the wider public. The rider would only have themself to blame.

Therefore the speed limits for modern motorcycles should  be increased. this would be in line with trucks who have lower limits, It may also improve the flow of trafic as motorcycles would quickly move through trafffic remaning out of the way of other drivers.

Sugget say, for 20, 30, and 40 limits remain the same. But 50 for card, 60 for bikes. 60 goes to 70, 70 Dual carrige way is 80 for a bike, and motorways are 100mph. Many motorcycles would not go at these speeds, as it would be too hard work for the rider for a long period.

Why is this idea important?

A motorcycle has a weight of aproximatly a quater of a small car, and some of the larger spv weight twice that. As such the energy due to the speed of a motorcycle is propartionaly lower. We have lower speed limits for heavy vehicles and when trailers are involved.

Modern motorcycles are high performance machines, which are capable of very high speeds and have the brakes  and handeling to match. When a motorcycle crashes, it is usually the rider who comes off worse, so there is very little risk to the wider public. The rider would only have themself to blame.

Therefore the speed limits for modern motorcycles should  be increased. this would be in line with trucks who have lower limits, It may also improve the flow of trafic as motorcycles would quickly move through trafffic remaning out of the way of other drivers.

Sugget say, for 20, 30, and 40 limits remain the same. But 50 for card, 60 for bikes. 60 goes to 70, 70 Dual carrige way is 80 for a bike, and motorways are 100mph. Many motorcycles would not go at these speeds, as it would be too hard work for the rider for a long period.

Raise motorway upper speed limit

As a current professional driver (and former police officer), I believe serious consideration should be given to raising the upper speed limit from 70mph to 80mph (or even 90 mph).  Most drivers can be observed on any day of the week,  travelling at 80 mph – when not restricted to the 50mph "average speed" in the multitude of road works enforced by cameras. 

Why is this idea important?

As a current professional driver (and former police officer), I believe serious consideration should be given to raising the upper speed limit from 70mph to 80mph (or even 90 mph).  Most drivers can be observed on any day of the week,  travelling at 80 mph – when not restricted to the 50mph "average speed" in the multitude of road works enforced by cameras. 

Remove speed limits on most roads except 20mph and less.

Basically I believe that there should be no speed limits. The flow of traffic will work its own path and the roads will naturally be a safer place.

 

I do believe that on some roads, school zones that a speed limit does need to be enforced.

Why is this idea important?

Basically I believe that there should be no speed limits. The flow of traffic will work its own path and the roads will naturally be a safer place.

 

I do believe that on some roads, school zones that a speed limit does need to be enforced.

Speeding shouldn’t incur points on your license

Sure, we all understand WHY we shouldn't speed, but on today's roads littered with speed cameras it is possible to lose a license to points in a single journey.

It's fully acceptable, if a little bit like profiteering to hit speeding motorists with £60 fines for each offense, but with SO MANY speed cameras it's excessive to put points on peoples license.

Why is this idea important?

Sure, we all understand WHY we shouldn't speed, but on today's roads littered with speed cameras it is possible to lose a license to points in a single journey.

It's fully acceptable, if a little bit like profiteering to hit speeding motorists with £60 fines for each offense, but with SO MANY speed cameras it's excessive to put points on peoples license.

Make the speeding laws work FOR road safety

There undoubtedly are many laws on the statute book that need drastic revision or outright repeal and it is to the credit of the present government that these are being examined.

Of course there are also laws that are perfectly reasonable if they are used properly for the purpose for which they were intended but are being abused for purposes other than that intended. The anti-terrorism legislation is a well recognised example of how a law intended for one purpose has been corrupted for use for other objectives. Another example that touches a very large number of people in the UK is the way in which road traffic laws, particularly speed regulation, are being abused. One might forgive an element of abuse if the objective of improving road safety was being achieved but unfortunately there is a plethora of data to demonstrate that the very opposite is the actual situation. The law is being routinely abused and corrupted by those who should be upholding it and to add insult to injury it is being abused to the detriment of road safety.

Motoring cases are, for the most part, subject to summary trial. Of course the whole basis of the summary trial is contrary to one of the basic precepts of our legal system which demands that the accused is tried by a jury of his peers. But, important as it is, I shall leaving that aside for now.

One of the basic safeguards to try to ensure the veracity and integrity of evidence is that no-one can be convicted of a criminal offence unless there is at least two independent positive corroborating evidences demonstrating guilt. The situation with speeding offences is that a single officer or civilian camera operator provides all the evidence. What should happen is that the officer/operator must first form an opinion that a specific vehicle is exceeding the speed limit. This is called Prior Opinion. Only then may he turn to the “camera” to provide verification of the speed. Leaving aside the proven unreliability of the information produced from such devices, while the requirement for 2 evidences may just about be satisfied in no way can it possibly satisfy the requirement for independence. In reality what happens is that the officer/operator uses his “camera” to go on a fishing trip to try to detect a vehicle exceeding the limit and when he does succeed he retrofits his prior opinion that the vehicle was speeding. The officer/operator will swear black and blue that he formed his opinion prior to using the camera but examination of the video, if there is one, invariably demonstrates that, unless the officer/operator has the speed and agility of Superman it is inconceivable that he could perform both tasks consecutively in the correct sequence.

Even when the officer/operator is demonstrated to have been lying to the court his evidence is accepted to convict the often innocent and almost always perfectly safe driver. It is a stain on our hitherto excellent road safety record and a very black stain on the reputation of British justice. I am also convinced that these injustices are adversely affecting the relationship between the law abiding general public and the police. I believe that perfectly safe drivers who are “fleeced” by this process well, and I believe often do, resolve never again to give the co-operation to the police upon which they depend for their effective operation.

Again, if road safety were improving and only dangerous drivers were being targeted as a result of this activity albeit illegal a tacit “blind eye” might be turned to what is going on but that is not the case. Thousands, perhaps millions of perfectly safe drivers have their lives adversely affected and in some cases destroyed by a process that has also massively damaged road safety. It has no redeeming qualities.

There are those who say “if you break the law, i.e. speed, you must suffer the consequences”. That is the absolute view but the pragmatists know perfectly well that laws are not and cannot be written to encompass all situations so common sense musty be used in the application of the law. An excellent case demonstrating this is the law against assisting suicide versus those who help someone to avail themselves of Dignitas. Clearly they break British law but common sense demands they will not be prosecuted. The law is not and can never be absolute.

You might think that I wish to see all speed regulations abolished. If you did you would be wrong. It is true that a lot of work needs to be done to make them realistic and effective but to abolish them would not be wise. What I would like to see is properly resourced traffic patrols back on our roads with their clearly stated mission to improve road safety. Specifically they must not be tasked by any means to improve clear-up statistics or to be quasi revenue agents. For the most part, education and training is the answer but for the few who are reckless and dangerous they would have the traffic laws, including speeding, to take these bad and dangerous drivers off the road.

We must regain the position of being in the vanguard of countries for Road Safety and return to a position articulated by the MP who, when he introduced them to the UK, stated that safe, responsible drivers should have no fear of speed limits.

Despite the length of this document, for which I apologise, there are many more facets to this and a lot of information and data to back up what I say here.
Although I am frankly sceptical that this will be addressed, I am prepared to supply the data and information of which I speak and to work with anyone who genuinely wishes to fix this appalling situation.

Why is this idea important?

There undoubtedly are many laws on the statute book that need drastic revision or outright repeal and it is to the credit of the present government that these are being examined.

Of course there are also laws that are perfectly reasonable if they are used properly for the purpose for which they were intended but are being abused for purposes other than that intended. The anti-terrorism legislation is a well recognised example of how a law intended for one purpose has been corrupted for use for other objectives. Another example that touches a very large number of people in the UK is the way in which road traffic laws, particularly speed regulation, are being abused. One might forgive an element of abuse if the objective of improving road safety was being achieved but unfortunately there is a plethora of data to demonstrate that the very opposite is the actual situation. The law is being routinely abused and corrupted by those who should be upholding it and to add insult to injury it is being abused to the detriment of road safety.

Motoring cases are, for the most part, subject to summary trial. Of course the whole basis of the summary trial is contrary to one of the basic precepts of our legal system which demands that the accused is tried by a jury of his peers. But, important as it is, I shall leaving that aside for now.

One of the basic safeguards to try to ensure the veracity and integrity of evidence is that no-one can be convicted of a criminal offence unless there is at least two independent positive corroborating evidences demonstrating guilt. The situation with speeding offences is that a single officer or civilian camera operator provides all the evidence. What should happen is that the officer/operator must first form an opinion that a specific vehicle is exceeding the speed limit. This is called Prior Opinion. Only then may he turn to the “camera” to provide verification of the speed. Leaving aside the proven unreliability of the information produced from such devices, while the requirement for 2 evidences may just about be satisfied in no way can it possibly satisfy the requirement for independence. In reality what happens is that the officer/operator uses his “camera” to go on a fishing trip to try to detect a vehicle exceeding the limit and when he does succeed he retrofits his prior opinion that the vehicle was speeding. The officer/operator will swear black and blue that he formed his opinion prior to using the camera but examination of the video, if there is one, invariably demonstrates that, unless the officer/operator has the speed and agility of Superman it is inconceivable that he could perform both tasks consecutively in the correct sequence.

Even when the officer/operator is demonstrated to have been lying to the court his evidence is accepted to convict the often innocent and almost always perfectly safe driver. It is a stain on our hitherto excellent road safety record and a very black stain on the reputation of British justice. I am also convinced that these injustices are adversely affecting the relationship between the law abiding general public and the police. I believe that perfectly safe drivers who are “fleeced” by this process well, and I believe often do, resolve never again to give the co-operation to the police upon which they depend for their effective operation.

Again, if road safety were improving and only dangerous drivers were being targeted as a result of this activity albeit illegal a tacit “blind eye” might be turned to what is going on but that is not the case. Thousands, perhaps millions of perfectly safe drivers have their lives adversely affected and in some cases destroyed by a process that has also massively damaged road safety. It has no redeeming qualities.

There are those who say “if you break the law, i.e. speed, you must suffer the consequences”. That is the absolute view but the pragmatists know perfectly well that laws are not and cannot be written to encompass all situations so common sense musty be used in the application of the law. An excellent case demonstrating this is the law against assisting suicide versus those who help someone to avail themselves of Dignitas. Clearly they break British law but common sense demands they will not be prosecuted. The law is not and can never be absolute.

You might think that I wish to see all speed regulations abolished. If you did you would be wrong. It is true that a lot of work needs to be done to make them realistic and effective but to abolish them would not be wise. What I would like to see is properly resourced traffic patrols back on our roads with their clearly stated mission to improve road safety. Specifically they must not be tasked by any means to improve clear-up statistics or to be quasi revenue agents. For the most part, education and training is the answer but for the few who are reckless and dangerous they would have the traffic laws, including speeding, to take these bad and dangerous drivers off the road.

We must regain the position of being in the vanguard of countries for Road Safety and return to a position articulated by the MP who, when he introduced them to the UK, stated that safe, responsible drivers should have no fear of speed limits.

Despite the length of this document, for which I apologise, there are many more facets to this and a lot of information and data to back up what I say here.
Although I am frankly sceptical that this will be addressed, I am prepared to supply the data and information of which I speak and to work with anyone who genuinely wishes to fix this appalling situation.

DONT JAIL PEOPLE JUST FOR SPEEDING.

I find it absolutely absurd that people have been jailed purely for speeding when no road traffic accident  has happened &  no one has been injured whatsoever . Its stupid that someone can be jailed for  "IF" something had happened because of thier going too fast.

Why is this idea important?

I find it absolutely absurd that people have been jailed purely for speeding when no road traffic accident  has happened &  no one has been injured whatsoever . Its stupid that someone can be jailed for  "IF" something had happened because of thier going too fast.

Allow HGV’s to temporarily increase speed for essential overtaking manouvres, to prevent two HGV’s spending miles attempting to overtake each other whilst prevented by their engine speed restrictors

HGV's should be allowed short periods of time to overtake other HGV's, rather than be restricted to 59mph. The current restiction regularly produces two long tail-backs of traffic, often several miles long, which tie up two motorway lanes until the vehicles pass one another.

Allowing short periods of acceleration for overtaking could still be managed and be recorded on the tachographs, and it would significantly reduce congestion on motorways, and importantly reinstate the necessary differences in speed which make motorways work for overtaking and move traffic back towards the slower left hand lanes which would also make the roads safer.

Why is this idea important?

HGV's should be allowed short periods of time to overtake other HGV's, rather than be restricted to 59mph. The current restiction regularly produces two long tail-backs of traffic, often several miles long, which tie up two motorway lanes until the vehicles pass one another.

Allowing short periods of acceleration for overtaking could still be managed and be recorded on the tachographs, and it would significantly reduce congestion on motorways, and importantly reinstate the necessary differences in speed which make motorways work for overtaking and move traffic back towards the slower left hand lanes which would also make the roads safer.

Motoring (mostly speed) offenses – more police power + fairness

Currently, if a motorist is caught speeding, the police automatically have to refer certain speeds over the limit to the courts.  I myself am waiting for a court date, having been caught speeding on a road with a recently reduced limit, which was deserted at the time and has no pavements (and therefore no pedestrians).  I was 2 mph over the limit for fines/etc directly from the police, so now lots of the polices time, my time, and the courts time is going to be wasted dragging me through the system and possibly resulting in an employment affecting ban, when a fine and a stern telling off would have been more appropriate – but the police don't have that option.  I like to think most of them are capable of telling a habitual speeder or boy racer from a driver who simply made a mistake.

Drop this limitation so that the police can deal with more speeding offenses themselves, up to the point where it's considered dangerous driving.  Allow motorists to -choose- to go to court only if they disagree with the polices decision.

Additionally, the punishment needs to be lighter – it's insane to be giving points out to people who were only doing 34 in a 30 zone suitable for 40.  Just fine them, motorists are starting to feel like most of the enforcement is actually just a power game, keeping people in line – nothing to do with safety at all.

Additionally:

Stop putting speed cameras in hidden places, particularly at the bottom of hills

Start putting cameras where speed is -actually dangerous-, for example near schools

More 20mph limits for estate roads and actually built up areas, less 30 zones in areas with no housing.

Increase the motorway limit to 80.

When a limit changes – MAKE SURE IT IS SIGNPOSTED.  The road I had trouble with had been a 40 zone for 12 years of my life in this town, it was changed by just digging them up.  The police and council refused to even help me find out when the change happened.

More emphasis on policing dangerous driving, the biggest danger I see on the roads is people pulling into gaps that aren't there, and tailgating – nothing is ever done about it, in fact the police seem to do it themselves.  As well as being dangerous, it also puts the driver of the car in front under pressure.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, if a motorist is caught speeding, the police automatically have to refer certain speeds over the limit to the courts.  I myself am waiting for a court date, having been caught speeding on a road with a recently reduced limit, which was deserted at the time and has no pavements (and therefore no pedestrians).  I was 2 mph over the limit for fines/etc directly from the police, so now lots of the polices time, my time, and the courts time is going to be wasted dragging me through the system and possibly resulting in an employment affecting ban, when a fine and a stern telling off would have been more appropriate – but the police don't have that option.  I like to think most of them are capable of telling a habitual speeder or boy racer from a driver who simply made a mistake.

Drop this limitation so that the police can deal with more speeding offenses themselves, up to the point where it's considered dangerous driving.  Allow motorists to -choose- to go to court only if they disagree with the polices decision.

Additionally, the punishment needs to be lighter – it's insane to be giving points out to people who were only doing 34 in a 30 zone suitable for 40.  Just fine them, motorists are starting to feel like most of the enforcement is actually just a power game, keeping people in line – nothing to do with safety at all.

Additionally:

Stop putting speed cameras in hidden places, particularly at the bottom of hills

Start putting cameras where speed is -actually dangerous-, for example near schools

More 20mph limits for estate roads and actually built up areas, less 30 zones in areas with no housing.

Increase the motorway limit to 80.

When a limit changes – MAKE SURE IT IS SIGNPOSTED.  The road I had trouble with had been a 40 zone for 12 years of my life in this town, it was changed by just digging them up.  The police and council refused to even help me find out when the change happened.

More emphasis on policing dangerous driving, the biggest danger I see on the roads is people pulling into gaps that aren't there, and tailgating – nothing is ever done about it, in fact the police seem to do it themselves.  As well as being dangerous, it also puts the driver of the car in front under pressure.

Speed cameras and mobile speed units

Scrap mobile safety camera partnership speed units. The mobile units are being used for income generation rather than prevent accidents. When ACPO policy is read it becomes quite clear the units are not operating as intended. Tragically many people loose their lives through speeding vehicles and reducing these events should be a priority. It can easily be identified where black spots are through statistical information. However, how many times are the mobile units deployed to these locations or targeted towards areas where ‘boy racers’ gather? The resources could be more usefully deployed to reduce accidents, and the information gained from these cameras should only be used for speed detection not a wider intrusive purpose.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap mobile safety camera partnership speed units. The mobile units are being used for income generation rather than prevent accidents. When ACPO policy is read it becomes quite clear the units are not operating as intended. Tragically many people loose their lives through speeding vehicles and reducing these events should be a priority. It can easily be identified where black spots are through statistical information. However, how many times are the mobile units deployed to these locations or targeted towards areas where ‘boy racers’ gather? The resources could be more usefully deployed to reduce accidents, and the information gained from these cameras should only be used for speed detection not a wider intrusive purpose.

Overhaul Speeding Fines

Instead of wasting court time with all the prosecutions through speed cameras why not simply give people the option of:

1. First offence: Go on a course

2. Within certain limits have options such as :

A. £50 – 3pts

B. £100 – no points

C. if you have end up with more than 5 Bs then you automatically get 6 pts

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Instead of wasting court time with all the prosecutions through speed cameras why not simply give people the option of:

1. First offence: Go on a course

2. Within certain limits have options such as :

A. £50 – 3pts

B. £100 – no points

C. if you have end up with more than 5 Bs then you automatically get 6 pts

 

 

Abolish bans for speeding offences caught on cameras

Tricky one, this. Some people definitely deserve to have their license taken away from them, but this is usally due to dangerous driving, rather than the act of exceeding the speed limit.

Why is this idea important?

Tricky one, this. Some people definitely deserve to have their license taken away from them, but this is usally due to dangerous driving, rather than the act of exceeding the speed limit.

Removal of Speed cameras and ANPR devices

speed cameras have never been and never will be used for road safety, they are used as revenue generating devices. ANPR also erodes civil liberties since cars are tarcked, this is suppossed to help with the percieved terrorist threat, and how real is that? Something just cooked up by the state so we can be watched…

 

Why is this idea important?

speed cameras have never been and never will be used for road safety, they are used as revenue generating devices. ANPR also erodes civil liberties since cars are tarcked, this is suppossed to help with the percieved terrorist threat, and how real is that? Something just cooked up by the state so we can be watched…

 

Speed cameras to trigger red traffic lights

Speed cameras should be linked to traffic lights further down the road.  These lights would normally be permanently set to green.  Anyone speeding would be stopped by red lights.  Anyone jumping the red lights would be guilty of dangerous driving. 

Why is this idea important?

Speed cameras should be linked to traffic lights further down the road.  These lights would normally be permanently set to green.  Anyone speeding would be stopped by red lights.  Anyone jumping the red lights would be guilty of dangerous driving. 

Fairer Speeding Penalties and better road signs

 

Speeding is wrong, but so is taking a persons license of them for being caught going 4 miles over the speed limit 4 times in 3 years. 

People that drive 20 or 30 thousand miles a year, often in areas they are unfamiliar with, can be caught of guard by so many circumstances.  Often cameras are placed where there is inadequate signage to remind them of the speed limit.  Also in one area a road may have a 50-mile an hour limit in others a similar road may have a 30 mph limit.  There needs to be more consistency.  Drivers also benefit from signs that show your speed – this is a great idea to help drivers.   Would also be happy for the speed limit to be dropped to 20mph – in fact where this is done it often extremely well signed.

Why is this idea important?

 

Speeding is wrong, but so is taking a persons license of them for being caught going 4 miles over the speed limit 4 times in 3 years. 

People that drive 20 or 30 thousand miles a year, often in areas they are unfamiliar with, can be caught of guard by so many circumstances.  Often cameras are placed where there is inadequate signage to remind them of the speed limit.  Also in one area a road may have a 50-mile an hour limit in others a similar road may have a 30 mph limit.  There needs to be more consistency.  Drivers also benefit from signs that show your speed – this is a great idea to help drivers.   Would also be happy for the speed limit to be dropped to 20mph – in fact where this is done it often extremely well signed.

Speed Limits.

We need a complete overhaul of Speed Limits, taking into account advances in Road Design, Improved Vehicle Design, better tyres etc..

Limits around Schools, Hospitals, Residential areas need to be lower than 30mph and rigourously enforced, while limits on the open road need to be higher and more flexible to allow for conditions, time of day, common sense (dare I say it??) etc..

Speed Limits must NEVER AGAIN be used as a fund raising tool….. They are a Road Safety issue, and Thats All the are!!!!!!

Why is this idea important?

We need a complete overhaul of Speed Limits, taking into account advances in Road Design, Improved Vehicle Design, better tyres etc..

Limits around Schools, Hospitals, Residential areas need to be lower than 30mph and rigourously enforced, while limits on the open road need to be higher and more flexible to allow for conditions, time of day, common sense (dare I say it??) etc..

Speed Limits must NEVER AGAIN be used as a fund raising tool….. They are a Road Safety issue, and Thats All the are!!!!!!

speeding

my idea is one speed on all main trunk roads at the moment its 30 then 40 then 50 why not just have one speed yes have twenty in built up areas but on open roads one limit 

Why is this idea important?

my idea is one speed on all main trunk roads at the moment its 30 then 40 then 50 why not just have one speed yes have twenty in built up areas but on open roads one limit 

Eradicate speed cameras – introduce speed governors

Introduce intelligent speed governors that can sense the maximum speed limit in an area.

Introduce it on all new cars over a period of time, and require retrofitting on all old cars at the end of that time.

This gets rid of the need to police for speeding, and the speed cameras can go.

Why is this idea important?

Introduce intelligent speed governors that can sense the maximum speed limit in an area.

Introduce it on all new cars over a period of time, and require retrofitting on all old cars at the end of that time.

This gets rid of the need to police for speeding, and the speed cameras can go.

Remove Speed Humps and Cushions. They are outdated and detrimental to People and Vehicles

Remove speed humps and cushions and replace with speed indicating signs,  twenty mile zones and non vertical displacement traffic calming. This will save money from reduced installation and vehicles repairs. Make councils install schemes on need and not just to access funding and to keep council road engineers etc. in employment.. Give the people who use and live around the schemes the final say. Democracy & freedom to choose.

Why is this idea important?

Remove speed humps and cushions and replace with speed indicating signs,  twenty mile zones and non vertical displacement traffic calming. This will save money from reduced installation and vehicles repairs. Make councils install schemes on need and not just to access funding and to keep council road engineers etc. in employment.. Give the people who use and live around the schemes the final say. Democracy & freedom to choose.

Speed camera placement

The current law on speed camera placement states that a speed camera can only be placed at a point where the 85th percentile speed is above the prosecution threshold. Given that it has long been established that the 85th percentile speed is the speed at which the safest drivers drive, the current law means that speed cameras can only be placed in areas where the safest drivers believe that the speed limit has been set too low. Conversely, speed cameras cannot be placed in areas where the speed limit is just right or too low and it would therefore be dangerous to exceed the speed limit. I propose that the law should be changed so that speed cameras can only be placed at points where the 85th percentile stick to the speed limit.

Why is this idea important?

The current law on speed camera placement states that a speed camera can only be placed at a point where the 85th percentile speed is above the prosecution threshold. Given that it has long been established that the 85th percentile speed is the speed at which the safest drivers drive, the current law means that speed cameras can only be placed in areas where the safest drivers believe that the speed limit has been set too low. Conversely, speed cameras cannot be placed in areas where the speed limit is just right or too low and it would therefore be dangerous to exceed the speed limit. I propose that the law should be changed so that speed cameras can only be placed at points where the 85th percentile stick to the speed limit.