Sacre bleu!

[Vapin' Joe]

I can see no good reason why cars and motorcycles are not limited to a maximum speed of 90mph. The limit is 70 and the extra 20 in hand takes care of the need to accelerate out of trouble should you need to.

I've been over the ton many times on a bike, I did it because I could but I shouldn't have been able to.

 

[wiggydiggy]

In today's news, speeding drivers in France caught doing 31mph or more over the speed limit will now earn themselves an actual criminal conviction.

The conviction will be a 'delit' level job, roughly equivalent to a lower level indicatble offence in the UK, so a significant blot on knes copybook. Not something you'd want on your CV, particularly if youre in a profession that requires a CRB check (evidence of reckless behaviour,propensity to not follow safety rules, rtc)

I applaud the French on this, and fervently prey it comes here, but with an even lower threshold (say, 20% over whatever the prevailing limit was at the location), make the roads a safer place for us cyclists.

Thoughts?

I don't cycle or drive in france, bit of a none issue for me I'm afraid

Over here they should do away with speed awareness courses and make any driving offence, including parking, a minimum automatic 3 points.

 

[Alex321]

I can see no good reason why cars and motorcycles are not limited to a maximum speed of 90mph. The limit is 70 and the extra 20 in hand takes care of the need to accelerate out of trouble should you need to.

I've been over the ton many times on a bike, I did it because I could but I shouldn't have been able to.

I'm not sure that would make much difference to the multiple speeding offences though. I suspect more people are done for speeding in 30 to 50 limits than in 70 limits.

The law requiring all new cars sold from July2024 to have "smart" speed limiters fitted was intended to address this, but of course allowing it to be overridden and then stay overridden for the rest of the journey largely negates the benefit.

 

[Fastpedaller]

I can see no good reason why cars and motorcycles are not limited to a maximum speed of 90mph. The limit is 70 and the extra 20 in hand takes care of the need to accelerate out of trouble should you need to.

I've been over the ton many times on a bike, I did it because I could but I shouldn't have been able to.

I had a weird dream where I was pedalling along at 120MPH - which is far above the 70MPH I once did down The Snake Pass towards Glossop.

 

[Gwylan]

I would agree with it being a criminal conviction after a certain point

not sure about the fixed speed over - percentage, seems better

after all, 60 in a 30 is often worse than 100 in a 70

A kinetic energy limit would be better. That would certainly be better for cyclists and pedestrians, not to mention other drivers.
So the heavier and probably posher your car is the slower you are allowed to travel to meet the KE limit on that bit of road.
Hence little cars would be fuming behind bigger speed restricted battle cruisers. The reverse of the present situation
Could even imagine faster cyclists overtaking large vehicles. A cyclist is unlikely to be fast or heavy enough to reach the KE limit.
It would reduce damage in accidents and could reduce pollution.
Some motorist might find it a challenging situation.
Ah, the medication has kicked in, I'll leave now.

 

[Profpointy]

A kinetic energy limit would be better. That would certainly be better for cyclists and pedestrians, not to mention other drivers.
So the heavier and probably posher your car is the slower you are allowed to travel to meet the KE limit on that bit of road.
Hence little cars would be fuming behind bigger speed restricted battle cruisers. The reverse of the present situation
Could even imagine faster cyclists overtaking large vehicles. A cyclist is unlikely to be fast or heavy enough to reach the KE limit.
It would reduce damage in accidents and could reduce pollution.
Some motorist might find it a challenging situation.
Ah, the medication has kicked in, I'll leave now.

That isn't at all silly, even if it may (or may not) have been entirely serious. A big 4x4 might be nearly 3 tonnes whilst a light sports-car or 60s runabout might only be 800kg so should be allowed to go maybe 60% faster ! A 200kg motorcycle could go a lot faster again. Or more sensibly maybe allow the bike to do 90 but Chelsea tractor would top out at, say 30mph, which by coincidence is the same as for actual tractors isn't it

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

That isn't at all silly, even if it may (or may not) have been entirely serious. A big 4x4 might be nearly 3 tonnes whilst a light sports-car or 60s runabout might only be 800kg so should be allowed to go maybe 60% faster ! A 200kg motorcycle could go a lot faster again. Or more sensibly maybe allow the bike to do 90 but Chelsea tractor would top out at, say 30mph, which by coincidence is the same as for actual tractors isn't it

Stopping distances would make more sense
the tyres will make a lot of difference as well as the weight
and it is a complex mixture of factors - such as the more weight the more friction on the road
and the width of the tyres will be different

for example the 2CV I had (OK - it was my Mum's when I had just passed my test) had tyres not much wider then my current bike tyres!

 

[Drago]

A kinetic energy limit would be better. That would certainly be better for cyclists and pedestrians, not to mention other drivers.
So the heavier and probably posher your car is the slower you are allowed to travel to meet the KE limit on that bit of road.
Hence little cars would be fuming behind bigger speed restricted battle cruisers. The reverse of the present situation
Could even imagine faster cyclists overtaking large vehicles. A cyclist is unlikely to be fast or heavy enough to reach the KE limit.
It would reduce damage in accidents and could reduce pollution.
Some motorist might find it a challenging situation.
Ah, the medication has kicked in, I'll leave now.

You'd like The Drago Quotient. Do a search of the forum for a full explanation.

 

[Gwylan]

You'd like The Drago Quotient. Do a search of the forum for a full explanation.

I've also decided that amongst all the tomfoolery in modern cars there will be a KE restraint device.
That is that your vehicle cannot exceed the KE limit for the area you are driving in.
As my boat handling instructor always maintained "if you're going to hit something do it slowly"

 

[Profpointy]

Stopping distances would make more sense
the tyres will make a lot of difference as well as the weight
and it is a complex mixture of factors - such as the more weight the more friction on the road
and the width of the tyres will be different

for example the 2CV I had (OK - it was my Mum's when I had just passed my test) had tyres not much wider then my current bike tyres!

Stopping distance is a factor but even so, at a basic schoolboy level of physics (real friction is a bit more complex) the weight cancels out as F=uR (Where mu is the coefficient of friction, F is the braking force and and R is the normal reaction, ie weight)

F=ma (F is the deceleration) and R=mg so mass m cancels out. For the same rubber the mass of the vehicle makes no odds given adequate brakes. Granted there is likely a bit more to it for trucks and such. And reaction distance is obviously greater with speed, quite apart from air brake delay on trucks