[MaheshY1]

Originally Posted by Kosfactor

120 is perfectly fine even for an Alto, there are roads in TN, AP and even KA that you can do such speeds for hours together.

There's a HUGE safety risk here. 'Can do' and 'should do' are 2 vastly different things. I often check the top speeds of vehicles even though I'm not going to touch them. But it gives me an idea about the relaxed cruising speed.

E.g. My Navi (or Activa) comes with J = 100kmph speed rating tyre. My Navi can hit ~80kmph in full tuck while Activa can do 90 (because of the apron). But I typically cruise at 60-65. 70 if I'm in hurry.

Before trying my hand on track riding with my humble 150cc Gixxer, I upgraded from P tyres (150kmph) to H = 210kmph. Not because I had NOS or turbo. The softer compound will also help me improve my braking and improve confidence while cornering. Although, I know for a fact that the stock rubber can handle foot-peg-scraping cornering. The Gixxer can't even touch the P's speed limit. And the H tyres worked like magic. I had insanely shorter braking distances. So much shorter that I never even managed to trigger the ABS. I was going from 100-20kmph in 20m.

The key is to stay well within the engine, chassis, tyres and driver limits. Here are 3 reasons why:

1. Braking distances have an exponential relation with speed

if you can stop from 40-0 in 20m, then 80-0 is not going to be 40m. it'll be more like 60m or something.

2. Crash test-worthiness vs speed

We've seen cars failing 64kmph crash tests. That's strictly city speed. Damage is also exponentially related to speed. We can't even imagine how a car will perform at 100kmph crash if it got 1 or 2 stars in 64kmph test.

3. Reaction time is measured in seconds

If I'm driving at 40, I can manage with a 5m gap ahead of me. At 80kmph, I have to have at least 35-40m to account for significantly longer braking distances and the distance I'll cover between moving my foot from the A pedal to the B pedal. Those who rarely go on expressways tend to forget this and I have seen people driving with crazy small gaps on expressways in cars that shouldn't be doing those speeds.
I just give way to such drivers for obvious reasons.

My View
I don't see myself doing 120kmph regularly on the expressways, I'm comfortable with 100. At the same time, I don't want to hog the lane for those who want to and have the car to comfortably do 120. And I definitely don't want to stand in the way of those who shouldn't be doing 120.

If we have 3+3 highways, IMO, we can have 80 - 100 - 120 speed limits for the three lanes.

Besides, the expressways are the centre's property and the state's. The state only manages the traffic and enforces the rules.

[DusterBoy]

As per the Constitution, even Honorable Supreme Court does not have any authority to make such new laws under the disguise of "directives". If high court does it then it is not tenable. SC/ High Court may recommend to Central / State govt to amend/create a new laws through proper legislation pertaining to the subject matter of case in hand and may advise accordingly but even then such recommendations or advices are non binding to the concerned Govt.
Whenever I read such news where Supreme Court or High Court dictates something which appears altogether a new law rather than an interpretation of existing law, it hurts deeply. It creates doubt whether SC/High courts are encroaching into the privileges and special powers related to legislation of our lawmakers, MP and MLAs.

[Kosfactor]

Originally Posted by MaheshY1

There's a HUGE safety risk here. 'Can do' and 'should do' are 2 vastly different things. I often check the top speeds of vehicles even though I'm not going to touch them. But it gives me an idea about the relaxed cruising speed.

Originally Posted by Prowler

Living dangerously! Most budget cars are not designed for continuous travel beyond 100km. Engine performance, Suspension and brakes are designed to an optimum range for safety. You push them away from their safe zone, you risk your life and others.

Gentlemen, this 120 speed is not new. Even before the time of ABS and Airbags we have had vehicles doing such speeds. There has been no drastic deterioration in road conditions over the last few decades that would make 120 kmph unsafe on highways that are capable of such speeds, with BS6 we have ABS and Airbags too, so why hold back on speed?

Expressway or highways in general are not made for you to feel safe, they are made for rapid transit, economic progress among many other things.

To put things into perspective, one of the first speeding tickets were issued for traveling at 8mph , I am sure that sounds silly now.

Speed is progress.

[chinmaypillay]

If there is a ruling on the upper limit on the speed, they should also put a rule on the minimum speed required for the vehicles on the Highways. Just the other day, when traveling at highway speeds 80 - 100 kmph, a line of vehicles suddenly slammed breaks, including me. Guess the reason? An expert 800 driver was on the right side of the lane moving at around 30 to 40 kmph resulting in people panic breaking to avoid hitting him.

There should be laws which mandate slow speeds also in my opinion, why catch hold of only high speeds?

[theabstractmind]

Originally Posted by Kosfactor

Expressway or highways in general are not made for you to feel safe, they are made for rapid transit, economic progress among many other things.

Speed is progress.

I agree speed is progress. But saying expressway is made only for rapid transit would be overcooking.

Speed without safety is a hazard, it is common sense. As someone else put it, just because speed limit is 120 doesn't mean we take it as our right. You drive at 120 in a way without becoming a nuisance or hazard for others, that is progress. And as a country we are far away from this scenario as many of us treat a convenience as a Right or Previlige. And we lack respect for others. Just look at the number of cars trying to jump the queue at a toll, or indulging in rash or unsafe driving, you'll know what I mean.

And to those who blame a truck parked in the shoulder, or a slow moving vehicle, and so on, have you ever considered that possibly overtaking from the extreme left, or not planning for the overtake was itself a mistake? There are many factors when driving on the road, especially in India. The real expert driver is the one who accounts for those factors (including a slow moving vehicle, a truck without tail lamps, etc.) And minimizes risk for self and others.

Believe me, I like driving fast, but never to compete or bullying. I used to curse slower drivers the same. Still do, at times. But years have taught me that the only controllable is myself.

The real debate should be how to educate people to drive safe. Not how fast we should be allowed to drive. Especially in India. Our roads are not as wide as is some other countries. Our trucks are overloaded and not built for safety at a speed. And the annual income levels of the general public is still lower than a month's unemployment allowance in some countries before we argue that we should make better trucks; there's lot of economics which the white collared wage earner is ignorant of. So let's put our best foot forward in conducting ourselves responsibly and making our roads safer than worry about speeds.

To sign-off, statistically, the difference between a vehicle doing 100 kmph and 120 over a distance of 500 kilometres is about 50 minutes. You account for a speedbreaker, toll gate que, etc., the difference in time is even lesser. So unless you are driving an Ambulance under emergency, those thirty minutes give or take isn't worth at all.

Sharing a link as food for thought. India is just not ready to emulate the West for average road speeds.

https://prsindia.org/policy/monthly-policy-review

[fhdowntheline]

I would have loved it if the Court had put a conditionality to it: mandate all passenger cars to have minimum 6 airbags and ESP and then increase the speed limit to 120 kph. That would have really put everyone in a bit of a bind.

[jkrishnakj]

Maybe time for our courts to intervene in everything and start legislation too.

Was this even a priority for them to hear and pass a directive? The innumerable number of barricades we see on highways probably cause more nuisance and accidents than speed itself.

For all those who say that our country is not ‘ready’ for such speeds, I wonder if it’s a chicken/hen story.

Get them to get ready on the to, or keep educating and educating and continue to feel we aren’t yet ready for such things.

[anupamsinha]

So the logic is we have bad roads and thus we should not have 120 kmph speed. Rather than lowering the speed shouldn't they work on improving the infra so that we get to those speeds.

Going back few notches everytime we hit a bump is in a way guaranteeing that we don't improve. Fix the issues, learn, improve and repeat.

[whitewing]

The thread has veered off into a tangent of better roads, ABS etc. these ignore the rationale for the court's observations - the reasoning was most accidents (according to published data) is rash driving.

the present bench observed that though there was a better engine technology and improved road infrastructure, there was no improvement in compliance of the road safety rules by the motorists.
From the report released by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, the number of deaths taking place on roads would prove that more accidents were occurring due to speeding.
When speeding was a major cause for road accidents, it is not known as to how the improvement in road infrastructure and engine technology would reduce accidents. In fact, better engine technology would always be a reason for uncontrolled speed and thereby, cause more accidents.

So, the court effectively is asking the Govt to plan on having better motorists and then evaluate speed limits.