Another 'fine' mess

[80Bob]

Just picked this up from the grauniad; an attempt to slow us down on the grounds of the environment. Obviously losing the speed kills argument but replace it with fines for speeding on environmental grounds.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,1

[dilbert]

Well, obviously if everyone drove to the speed limit, the world would be a better place.

It would solve the drugs problem, the upcoming flu pandemic, economic and environmental difficulties, not to mention that it would eradicate poverty. Then of course there's the homelessness problem and, by god, would it make a difference to terrorism!

I don't know who voted for this, but it wasn't me.

[Richard C]

Interesting

1 Elliott Morley was one of the incompetent junior ministers i/c at DEFRA who managed to turn the 2001 Foot and Mouth epidemic into a monumental financial and environmental disaster

2 "Engine efficiency falls quickly beyond 70 mph" Absolute rubbish. On some cars ENGINE Efficiency actually improves beyond 70 mph

[streaky]

The Grauniad said:

Stricter enforcement of the 70 mph limit, the document says, would save 890,000 tons of carbon a year - more than the biofuels obligation and many other listed measures put together.

Using the C02 calculator at www.climatecare.org/ suggests that a petrol-engined vehicle travelling 24,000 miles per annum at 22mpg has a CO2 "offset" total of some 11.44 tonnes ... this is regardless of speed, but the total would be only marginally affected by any increased consumption over 70mph (assuming the government's statement is correct - unlike practically every other claim they make!).

Instead of slowing down, just plant 20 trees per annum (adjusted for mileage and consumption) to offset all your vehicle use. Plant one per annum to offset your exceeding the speed limit on motorways. Hey, it's cheaper than a fine!

The Grauniad said:

The document concludes: "Even if we implement all the front runner and emerging policy options, we may only just fill the carbon gap." Other measures will be needed, it adds. Controversially, it proposes that carbon allowances and credits from emission trading schemes could count towards the 2010 target, though it concedes this "may raise presentational issues".

Hmm! "Presentational issues" eh? Another fine phrase for a pack of lies. "Presentational issues" lay at the heart of the justification for the invasion of Iraq, and the aftermath of the Stockwell shooting, and the demand for 90 day detention without trial.

Streaky

[autismuk]

I might be being thick here, but doesn't it depend on the Vehicle in question ?

[victormeldrew]

autismuk said:

I might be being thick here, but doesn't it depend on the Vehicle in question ?

Ah,good point. So if I can drive my 5 litre TVR at 70, that means I could (were it capable) drive the wifes A2 diesel at several hundred miles per hour? Or am I missing something too?

[smeggy]

some noob said:

Engine efficiency falls quickly beyond 70 mph.

Engine efficiency has nothing to do with speed. However, there are mileage trade-offs with engine power, gearing, rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag.

Internal combustion engines have the greatest power efficiency when approaching full torque (non-forced induction) at roughly 3000rpm.
Applying this to my own car, at 3000rpm in 5th my GTO be doing 93mph. The turbo pressure dial is barely registering at this speed (at 2/5 of non-boost pressure). Therefore I would have greater engine efficiency if I had another gear and went even faster! Also, it’s quite low slung and shaped like a knife, so drag isn’t much of a problem.
Net energy lost due to rolling resistance does not change with speed for almost all vehicles.

Why don’t the go all the way and tell us all to ‘burn and coast’
(I don’t mean C.O.A.S.T. )

Then there’s the more fundamental fact that ‘time is money’!

[S Works]

Is it April the 1st already or is this just another stroke of genius from one of the Government's chief strokers... step forward Elliot Moronly, whose previous record of "great ideas" and action speaks volumes.

See past Private Eye's or have a google to see what other great stuff Mr M and his good mates from DEFRA (the Deparment for the Elimination of Farming & Rural Affairs) have been upto previously - the Foot & Mouth fiasco for instance...

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/new

[Cooperman]

In specific situations and vehicles you may or may not have greater engine efficiency at higher or lower speeds. However, what must be remembered is that aerodynamic drag increases as the square of the airspeed. Thus to double the speed of the vehicle requires 4 times the power. It's not quite as linear as that, as other aerodynamic effects come into play and that equation assumes a stable airflow, with no breaking away at higher speeds. There are some other peripheral effects as well, but it's a good guide.
I think what's being alluded to here is the fact that if at, say, 60 mph in 4th gear you are above your optimum engine efficiency, then a change to 5th and even an increase to 70 mph will reduce consumption. To stay in 4th at 70 will, almost inevitably, cause an increase in consumption.
To illustrate the drag equation and to take a simple example, an early 850 Mini had about 34 bhp and topped out at 70 mph. To persuade a mini to double that speed to 140 mph would require 4 times the power, i.e. 136 bhp. That is, I know, an over-simplification as there are so many other effects such as gearing, but it does illustrate the point. At 70 such a Mini would give 40 mpg. One might suspect that with 136 bhp and 140 mph you would be lucky to get 15 mpg. I use this to illustrate the point as the Mini must be the most non-aerodynamic car ever (well, almost).

[Parrot of doom]

So will they fine everybody for getting caught in congestion? I'm certain that sitting in the car doing 2mph for an hour a day is more damaging tbh.

[catso]

Maybe it's to compensate for the massive increase in pollution due to traffic 'calming'

[trax]

Richard C said:

Interesting 2 "Engine efficiency falls quickly beyond 70 mph" Absolute rubbish. On some cars ENGINE Efficiency actually improves beyond 70 mph

I agree, it is very interesting, how everything, i.e. emmisions, accidents, deaths, price of bread... etc, all start to happen at our speed limits, especially as these limits were plucked out of the air several decades ago, they must have been great guesses.

Or is it the fact that they can raise money by tageting people above these limits?

[smeggy]

Cooperman said:

To illustrate the drag equation and to take a simple example, an early 850 Mini had about 34 bhp and topped out at 70 mph. To persuade a mini to double that speed to 140 mph would require 4 times the power, i.e. 136 bhp. That is, I know, an over-simplification as there are so many other effects such as gearing, but it does illustrate the point. At 70 such a Mini would give 40 mpg. One might suspect that with 136 bhp and 140 mph you would be lucky to get 15 mpg. I use this to illustrate the point as the Mini must be the most non-aerodynamic car ever (well, almost).

I think you are right with respect to cars with small engines; they will be more efficient at lower speeds. However, cars with large engines will be more efficient while delivering much more power (internal friction losses within the engine will be comparatively significant). 34bhp would be an inefficient power output for a large engine, I estimate the peak efficiency of some larger engines to be around 100bhp (N/A. 50% of revs, approaching max torque). This would result with decent speeds from an aerodynamically efficient car – oddly enough are usually the ones with the larger engines

Cooperman said:

In specific situations and vehicles you may or may not have greater engine efficiency at higher or lower speeds.

[Flat in Fifth]

Not to mention the

grauniad said:

big questions about whether speed enforcement for environmental rather than road safety reasons should be an offence for which motorists get points on their licence.

So the Govt gives itself a spurious target which it fails to meet. Way to get themselves out of a hole involves hammering motorists using entirely fallacious logic.

Seems to be a thread here.......

[cptsideways]

Am I correct then in assuming if you run a bio-ethanol or veggie powered car you can drive as fast as you like

[Twincam16]

Just looks like another excuse for open-wallet mining of hapless motorists.

Every car is different in terms of engine efficiency. That's why the EU stopped measuring mpg figures at 56 mph - it's not necessarily the most efficient speed.

As for turbocharged engines - doesn't their efficiency actually improve with speed? Not that the government would bother finding out. Not even one of my famous Google 'investigations' would turn out such inaccurate tripe.

As usual the government are demonstrating full well that they patently know nothing about cars, and yet the general population swallow it because 'the government said it and they have statistics so they must be right'