The UK’s motorway speed limit was set in a very different motoring world. The 70mph limit began as a trial in 1965 and became permanent in 1967. Since then, vehicle safety, tyre technology, braking performance, stability control, crash structures, road design, incident response and ADAS driver-assistance systems have all moved on dramatically but the headline limit has not.
At the same time, public behaviour has drifted away from the statute book. The most recent compliance data shows a substantial minority (often a large one, depending on road type and conditions) exceeds the posted limit. This is a clear signal that the “normal” cruising speed many drivers regard as reasonable on a modern motorway is often higher than the law allows. As the recent Bodyshop Magazine article highlights, there’s also a persistent tail of extreme offenders, with millions of recorded speeding incidents in a year and regular detections at very high speeds. One should also bear in mind that these are caught speeders; it is assumed that significantly more speed undetected.
If the law is routinely ignored, we get the worst of both worlds: uneven compliance, selective enforcement, and a gap between what drivers do and what the system is designed to manage.
Why higher motorway limits could improve flow and productivity
It’s true that “higher limits” don’t magically dissolve congestion, however that’s not the whole story. Motorways spend plenty of time in free-flow conditions (overnight, off-peak, between metro areas), where the posted limit is a binding constraint for many drivers and where a modest uplift would produce real time savings.
Here’s a concrete way to think about it:
- Great Britain’s motorways carried about 70.2 billion vehicle miles in 2024.
- Increasing a cruising speed from 70mph to say 80mph saves about 6.4 seconds per mile (because you’re covering each mile faster).
- If only 10% of motorway miles were realistically “upgradable” in practice (i.e., genuinely free-flowing, suitable geometry, decent weather, not through complex junction sections), that still equates to about 12.5 million hours saved per year across the network (order of magnitude).
- At 25%, you’re in the region of ~31 million hours saved.
That time doesn’t all convert into “more work,” of course; some becomes leisure, some reduces stress, some increases trip-taking, but it does represent real economic capacity reclaimed from sitting in a seat. When you add up millions of journeys, small per-mile savings become national-scale.
A key point: raising limits would need to be selective, not blanket. Many motorway corridors already use variable speed limits because smoothing traffic improves throughput when volumes are high. National Highways explicitly uses variable limits to manage congestion and improve flow. The pro-speed-limit case is strongest where traffic is naturally stable, not where it’s already on the edge of breakdown.
What about roads like Germany’s unrestricted Autobahns?
Germany is often invoked as proof that higher speeds can coexist with safety and there’s a case there. The Autobahn network is engineered for high-speed travel and drivers expect (and generally practice) disciplined lane behaviour.
The more persuasive UK argument isn’t “remove limits entirely.” It’s: raise the limit modestly on the safest roads we have, ie motorways, while using smarter controls (variable limits, average-speed enforcement where needed) to keep speed variance and risk in check.
And note this: the DfT’s own casualty reporting repeatedly shows motorways have very low casualty involvement relative to the traffic they carry; they’re the controlled environment of the road network. If we are going to allow higher speeds anywhere, motorways are the rational candidate.
The uncomfortable truth: speed policy is also a driver-training problem
Even if you accept the case for an 80mph motorway limit (or a targeted uplift on selected stretches), the UK has a glaring mismatch between the freedom we give drivers and the training we require.
1) A test at 17, then decades of driving with no revalidation
In the UK you typically pass once, typically at 17 years old, and unless you’re disqualified or need a new category, there is no routine retesting for ordinary car drivers.
2) Motorway driving still isn’t a core part of the practical test
Learners can take motorway lessons (since 2018) but only with an approved instructor in a dual-controlled car but motorway driving itself isn’t a required part of the practical driving test.
So we have a system where a driver may be legal to use the motorway network for life having never had structured motorway training.
3) One licence lets you drive almost anything
Most people pass their test in a small, forgiving, low-powered hatchback. Yet once licensed, a driver can legally jump into a hypercar with significantly higher power, performance & speeds without any additional training requirement specific to power, weight, braking characteristics, or stability limits whatsoever. Imagine being trained in a Micra and jumping straight into a Lamborghini!
That isn’t a “speed limit” argument; it’s a capability gap argument. If we’re serious about higher motorway limits, we should be equally serious about raising baseline competence.
A graded licence: the “pilot model” for cars
Aviation works because it’s tiered: you don’t go from “first flight” to flying a jumbo jet solo on a single general test. Road transport could adopt a lighter version of that logic:
What a graded system could look like
- Base licence (standard cars): what we have now, but with mandatory motorway competency and hazard management at speed.
- Advanced motorway endorsement: required to drive above a set speed limit threshold (e.g., any road signed at 80mph), earned via a focused training module + assessment (lane discipline, merging at speed, reading traffic waves, safe following distances, emergency handling).
- High-performance endorsement (“supercar test”): required for vehicles above a power-to-weight threshold (or certain performance metrics). Focus: traction limits, braking distances at speed, stability systems, wet handling, and “closing speed” risk management.
- Periodic light-touch revalidation: perhaps not a full retest, but an online hazard refresh + eyesight / medical declarations and (optionally) insurer-backed incentives for in-person advanced modules.
This is not about making driving elitist. It’s about aligning privilege with demonstrated competence, especially when we’re considering letting the network run faster.Would this improve safety?
Evidence reviews and road safety groups consistently find that structured, staged restrictions/training for new drivers (graduated driver licensing approaches) can reduce collisions and injury outcomes for novice drivers, often quoted in the 20–40% range in international implementations. While those schemes often focus on young drivers, the underlying principle (risk rises where experience is thin) supports the broader idea of staged permissions.
Raising motorway speed limits is not about encouraging recklessness — it’s about aligning the law with reality. Modern cars, modern roads and modern traffic management can safely support higher speeds in the right places. But that freedom must be earned. A tiered licensing system, where higher speeds and higher-performance vehicles require higher levels of training, would finally match responsibility with capability. Faster roads and better drivers are not opposing goals. Done properly, they are the same policy.