Carryfast:
The right type of capitalism blaming weak unions for allowing the wrong type of capitalism.
From speed limiters to capitalism. Thatās a stretch even for you. How did that happen 
Terry T:
cav551:
What potential speed do we reckon vehicles would reach if this went ahead with speed limiters also abolished, 85mph plus?My old manās Volvo FL6 would hit 80mph no problem. Not sure on the power output but it couldnāt be much more than 200bhp. The F16s of the time with 400 plus would sail past like you were going backwards.
Contrast that with todays V8s and FH4s knocking out 500/600/700 plus. My guess is itād be closer to 100mph.
Itās never going to happen. Never ever. And nor should it.
wouldnāt the top speed also depend on the gearing, modern trucks are geared for for the present limits.
Dipper_Dave:
After my drunken reply last night im craving a sausage or two.
Reckon a trip to the co-op is needed and a peak in the āweve knocked a quid off coz the stuffs about to go offā section is needed.Ill get the wife to drive but not at 70mph.
Anyone fancy sharing a sausage.
How does your wife feel about you offer to share your sausage?
However if you are both up for it, there are certain laybyās where like minded people go to share their sausages, 
, Eh! so Iāve heard. 
I wonder if they all take a bbq with them? 
Franglais:
āThe speed limit isnāt a target.ā True, but youve been around long enough to know that isnt the thinking for many drivers out there. And some regard it as a minimum with a 10% āget away with itā allowance on top.
+1
Weāve had people on this very forum asking for legal advice after being caught speeding because āthey were within the 10% extra marginā and were actually outraged ande felt they had unfairly penalised!
With that mentality, what hope have you got?
Must have his dates wrong heās either way early or way late for April fools
muckles:
I wonder if they all take a bbq with them?
No bbq but quite a few ā ā ā āsā¦ 
Dipper_Dave:
muckles:
I wonder if they all take a bbq with them?No bbq but quite a few ā ā ā āsā¦
I`ve got a medium sized bbq, takes a dozen bangers. How many sausages for one of them ā ā ā , then?
2 posts from the OP since joining, covering 5 pages says it all really 
The petition is totally wrong anyway. It asks for the Tachograph speed limit to be raised. Any fool knows the Tachograph is a tool for recording and is capable of recording 70mph. And he only has 5 supports for it any way.
Nobby_Clarke:
Iād prefer to see a petition that gives cars on dual carriageways and motorways a minimum speed of 60. Why some of them sit in lane 1 doing low 50ās is beyond meā¦
Because they are perfectly within their rights to do so ā¦ and if another driver cannot safely get around then then maybe they are the ones who should be taking a closer look at their own driving skills
raymundo:
Nobby_Clarke:
Iād prefer to see a petition that gives cars on dual carriageways and motorways a minimum speed of 60. Why some of them sit in lane 1 doing low 50ās is beyond meā¦Because they are perfectly within their rights to do so ā¦ and if another driver cannot safely get around then then maybe they are the ones who should be taking a closer look at their own driving skills
I think the point is more to do with the fact that the second you get alongside these cars/vans, they accelerate and leave you looking like a right pillockā¦ 
Evil8Beezle:
raymundo:
Nobby_Clarke:
Iād prefer to see a petition that gives cars on dual carriageways and motorways a minimum speed of 60. Why some of them sit in lane 1 doing low 50ās is beyond meā¦Because they are perfectly within their rights to do so ā¦ and if another driver cannot safely get around then then maybe they are the ones who should be taking a closer look at their own driving skills
I think the point is more to do with the fact that the second you get alongside these cars/vans, they accelerate and leave you looking like a right pillockā¦
Maybe if he had said that it would have been clearer to what he was referring to, but he never so maybe not 
Evil8Beezle:
raymundo:
Nobby_Clarke:
Iād prefer to see a petition that gives cars on dual carriageways and motorways a minimum speed of 60. Why some of them sit in lane 1 doing low 50ās is beyond meā¦Because they are perfectly within their rights to do so ā¦ and if another driver cannot safely get around then then maybe they are the ones who should be taking a closer look at their own driving skills
I think the point is more to do with the fact that the second you get alongside these cars/vans, they accelerate and leave you looking like a right pillockā¦
But if they accelerate from 50 to 60 now, they`ll merely accelerate to 75 then. Those idiots will still be idiots no matter what the speed limit for trucks is.
I agree Franglais, if anything the problem would be worse the closer we get to normal cruising speeds of carsā¦
So put that down as another reason why the limits shouldnāt be changed for LGVās!
Franglais:
Carryfast:
The speed limit isnāt a target.If the traffic is that bad then 90 kmh is as bad as 60 mph.While in general if itās safe enough to do 90 kmh then itās also safe enough to do 60 mph.
In this case the idea of ridiculously low truck motorway speed limits is a historic Euro thing as opposed to the English speaking world in general.Not just the US and including here up to the point when limiters were introduced bearing in mind the UK truck motorway truck limit is still actually 60 mph.āThe speed limit isnāt a target.ā True, but you
ve been around long enough to know that isnt the thinking for many drivers out there. And some regard it as a minimum with a 10% āget away with itā allowance on top.
The change in the rules from 3 points to indefinite loss of LGV for exceeding the truck motorway limit would probably change that type of thinking with the removal of limiters.While the 10% rule is an actual,reasonable,enforcement guideline but obviously not set in stone. 
The-Snowman:
Franglais:
āThe speed limit isnāt a target.ā True, but youve been around long enough to know that isnt the thinking for many drivers out there. And some regard it as a minimum with a 10% āget away with itā allowance on top.+1
Weāve had people on this very forum asking for legal advice after being caught speeding because āthey were within the 10% extra marginā and were actually outraged ande felt they had unfairly penalised!
With that mentality, what hope have you got?
As I said I donāt see any problem with a temporary over speed to around 65 mph to reduce overtaking times.So 65 mph lane 2 no problem.Over 60 mph lane 1 or over 65 mph lane 2 means summary indefinite loss of LGV entitlement. Sorted.
Not enough motorway patrols about as it is so who is going to enforce this idea of yours ? dash cam heroes maybe or just keep the limiter and let it do itās job.
Carryfast:
Franglais:
Carryfast:
The speed limit isnāt a target.If the traffic is that bad then 90 kmh is as bad as 60 mph.While in general if itās safe enough to do 90 kmh then itās also safe enough to do 60 mph.
In this case the idea of ridiculously low truck motorway speed limits is a historic Euro thing as opposed to the English speaking world in general.Not just the US and including here up to the point when limiters were introduced bearing in mind the UK truck motorway truck limit is still actually 60 mph.āThe speed limit isnāt a target.ā True, but you
ve been around long enough to know that isnt the thinking for many drivers out there. And some regard it as a minimum with a 10% āget away with itā allowance on top.The change in the rules from 3 points to indefinite loss of LGV for exceeding the truck motorway limit would probably change that type of thinking with the removal of limiters.While the 10% rule is an actual,reasonable,enforcement guideline but obviously not set in stone.
Even the death penalty doesnt prevent murder. Youre fighting human nature here: speeders, and other law breakers simply āknowā they ain`t gonna get caught.
Carryfast:
The-Snowman:
Franglais:
āThe speed limit isnāt a target.ā True, but youve been around long enough to know that isnt the thinking for many drivers out there. And some regard it as a minimum with a 10% āget away with itā allowance on top.+1
Weāve had people on this very forum asking for legal advice after being caught speeding because āthey were within the 10% extra marginā and were actually outraged and felt they had unfairly penalised!
With that mentality, what hope have you got?As I said I donāt see any problem with a temporary over speed to around 65 mph to reduce overtaking times.So 65 mph lane 2 no problem.Over 60 mph lane 1 or over 65 mph lane 2 means summary indefinite loss of LGV entitlement.
You dont see any problem? Apart from the fact the ātemporaryā part will get ignored by those muppets behind the wheel who want to drive flat to the floor whenever possible.
I see op has had 2 more signatures since he started this thread with his stupid idea.
Come on, own up, who was it??