Wales road legislation changes

[Om]

The following survey just popped up on Facebook from the North Wales Police and Crime Commissioner:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=315396643199551

https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/Roadlegislation?f...

The text is:

I am Arfon Jones, North Wales Police and Crime Commissioner and I invite you to have your say on the Welsh Governments proposals to:

• Change all 30mph areas to 20mph
• Areas with high emissions to be reduced to 50mph
• Decriminalise parking on footpaths - which would provide Local Authorities the power to take enforcement action against motorists parked on pavements.

The Welsh Government expects police forces to enforce these changes with no consideration of the impact on policing. This would place additional demand and cost on police forces which are already at capacity.

This survey will give you the opportunity to share your views on this proposal and whether or not you agree that the additional demand on the force is necessary.



Related I guess to the BBC article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-53416...

Whilst each item alone is difficult to argue against there are some other comments from Senedd members that suggest this is the thin end of the wedge, such as:

"While 20mph would primarily help urban areas, I am clear from communications on the matter with the first minister that progress in this area will take us closer to help tackling high risk speed limits in rural areas,"


I guess anyone is able to make their views known on the topic.

[MG CHRIS]

They can implement whatever they want in the bay but the vast majority of people ignore what comes out down there. Case in point the recent 5 mile rule guideline implemented on the first part of relaxing lockdown I don't know anyone that took that seriously. There also isn't enough resources to police the changes and many streets in wales you wouldn't be able to pass through if cars didn't park on pavements.

[Krikkit]

It wouldn't surprise me if they've got plans for making loads of roads 50mph under the guise of reducing pollution.

They did a test scheme near me and it resulted in terrible traffic, but presumably reduced pollution as this is the result.

[untakenname]

Who is gonna agree with taking resources away from current policing priorities in question 4 or pay more council tax in question 5?

[leef44]

Why don't they just say you are only allowed to use 1st gear in the whole of Wales and be done with it?

I'm sure that would please the authorities

[NGee]

"Areas with high emissions to be reduced to 50mph"

I assume that this only applies to petrol/diesel vehicles?
Electric vehicles will still be able to do the 60/70 speed limit as they are not contributing to high emissions?

[mr rusty]

This assumption that reducing speed, reduces pollution is a fallacy because no-one ever, ever brings time into the arguement. Yes, of course a car going at 50mph burns less fuel per minute than one going at 70 mph, but BUT - let's assume the journey is 7 miles long, so at 70 mph it takes 1/10th of an hour = 6 minutes. The same 7 mile journey at 50mph takes 8.4 minutes, so the vehicle is polluting in the 7 mile stretch for 2.4 minutes longer.

The question is, which is lower - the pollution rate @ 70mph for 6 minutes, or the pollution rate @ 50mph for 8.4 minutes. Now it's not so simple. If the reduction in pollution rate is only, say 10%, then MORE pollution is emitted over 7 miles @ 50mph than at 70mph

The fact is as we slow vehicles down, the journeys don't get shorter, so the time always gets longer. Think about this in the context of 30mph down to 20mph! and work out the vehicle density if the number, start time and distance of journeys remains constant - lower speed means increased vehicle density in a particular stretch of road and more local pollution!

Edited by mr rusty on Thursday 16th July 09:49

[MikeM6]

Are they seriously asking if resources should be diverted AWAY from tackling domestic and sexual abuse to fund policing of 20mph zones?

This has got to be a wind up, surely?

[NGee]

mr rusty said:

This assumption that reducing speed, reduces pollution is a fallacy because no-one ever, ever brings time into the arguement. Yes, of course a car going at 50mph burns less fuel per minute than one going at 70 mph, but BUT - let's assume the journey is 7 miles long, so at 70 mph it takes 1/10th of an hour = 6 minutes. The same 7 mile journey at 50mph takes 8.4 minutes, so the vehicle is polluting in the 7 mile stretch for 2.4 minutes longer.

The question is, which is lower - the pollution rate @ 70mph for 6 minutes, or the pollution rate @ 50mph for 8.4 minutes. Now it's not so simple. If the reduction in pollution rate is only, say 10%, then MORE pollution is emitted over 7 miles @ 50mph than at 70mph

The fact is as we slow vehicles down, the journeys don't get shorter, so the time always gets longer. Think about this in the context of 30mph down to 20mph! and work out the vehicle density if the number, start time and distance of journeys remains constant - lower speed means increased vehicle density in a particular stretch of road and more local pollution!

This is absolutely true. Also the assumption of reduced pollution only applies if you don't change gear. Pollution is produced by the RPM of the engine, not the speed of the car. So roughly, 30mph at 2000 rpm in 4th will produce exactly the same pollution as 20mph at 2000 rpm in 3rd, but obviously, as above, the 20 mph journey will take longer.

Politics and science have never been good bedmates !!

[timbo999]

mr rusty said:

This assumption that reducing speed, reduces pollution is a fallacy because no-one ever, ever brings time into the arguement. Yes, of course a car going at 50mph burns less fuel per minute than one going at 70 mph, but BUT - let's assume the journey is 7 miles long, so at 70 mph it takes 1/10th of an hour = 6 minutes. The same 7 mile journey at 50mph takes 8.4 minutes, so the vehicle is polluting in the 7 mile stretch for 2.4 minutes longer.

The question is, which is lower - the pollution rate @ 70mph for 6 minutes, or the pollution rate @ 50mph for 8.4 minutes. Now it's not so simple. If the reduction in pollution rate is only, say 10%, then MORE pollution is emitted over 7 miles @ 50mph than at 70mph

The fact is as we slow vehicles down, the journeys don't get shorter, so the time always gets longer. Think about this in the context of 30mph down to 20mph! and work out the vehicle density if the number, start time and distance of journeys remains constant - lower speed means increased vehicle density in a particular stretch of road and more local pollution!

Look at it in a different way. Say that @70mph a car burns 2 gallons of fuel/hour. In 6 minutes, or 1/10th of an hour it burns 0.2 gallons. At 50mph the car is more "economical" and only burns 1.5 gallons of fuel/hour - Yes, it's going slower so it burns less fuel/hour. Our 8.4 minutes is 0.14 hours, so at the slower speed our car burns 1.5 gall/hr x 0.14 hrs = 0.21 gallons - more fuel in more time, less fuel in less time. Now tell me I'm wrong!

Edited by mr rusty on Thursday 16th July 09:42

You're wrong. In your example, the 70 mph car is doing 35mpg (2 gallons to do 70 miles), but the 50 mph car is doing 33 mpg (1.5 gallons to do 50 miles).

[Plymo]

MikeM6 said:

Are they seriously asking if resources should be diverted AWAY from tackling domestic and sexual abuse to fund policing of 20mph zones?

This has got to be a wind up, surely?

Yes, basically! I think the point the PCC is making to the people who might think it's a "nice to have" thing, realise that the budget is not infinite and neither are police resources, so they should be careful what they wish for!

If a PCC is against it, it must really be a bad idea! They are normally all over this sort of stuff

[BertBert]

mr rusty said:

This assumption that reducing speed, reduces pollution is a fallacy because no-one ever, ever brings time into the arguement. Yes, of course a car going at 50mph burns less fuel per minute than one going at 70 mph, but BUT - let's assume the journey is 7 miles long, so at 70 mph it takes 1/10th of an hour = 6 minutes. The same 7 mile journey at 50mph takes 8.4 minutes, so the vehicle is polluting in the 7 mile stretch for 2.4 minutes longer.

The question is, which is lower - the pollution rate @ 70mph for 6 minutes, or the pollution rate @ 50mph for 8.4 minutes. Now it's not so simple. If the reduction in pollution rate is only, say 10%, then MORE pollution is emitted over 7 miles @ 50mph than at 70mph

The fact is as we slow vehicles down, the journeys don't get shorter, so the time always gets longer. Think about this in the context of 30mph down to 20mph! and work out the vehicle density if the number, start time and distance of journeys remains constant - lower speed means increased vehicle density in a particular stretch of road and more local pollution!

The trouble is that you have posed the problem and don't have the fundamental information to solve it. That is how vehicle emissions change with speed. Then somehow come to a conclusion. How does that work without the fundamental information?
Bert

[NGee]

timbo999 said:

You're wrong. In your example, the 70 mph car is doing 35mpg (2 gallons to do 70 miles), but the 50 mph car is doing 33 mpg (1.5 gallons to do 50 miles).

but the 50 mph car is doing 33 mpg (1.5 gallons to do 50 miles). and by your maths that's 2.1 gallons to do 70 miles.

I think you need to cheek you maths, especially as you've managed to proved the exact opposite of what you were trying to do!

[IJWS15]

mr rusty said:

This assumption that reducing speed, reduces pollution is a fallacy because no-one ever, ever brings time into the arguement. Yes, of course a car going at 50mph burns less fuel per minute than one going at 70 mph, but BUT - let's assume the journey is 7 miles long, so at 70 mph it takes 1/10th of an hour = 6 minutes. The same 7 mile journey at 50mph takes 8.4 minutes, so the vehicle is polluting in the 7 mile stretch for 2.4 minutes longer.

The question is, which is lower - the pollution rate @ 70mph for 6 minutes, or the pollution rate @ 50mph for 8.4 minutes. Now it's not so simple. If the reduction in pollution rate is only, say 10%, then MORE pollution is emitted over 7 miles @ 50mph than at 70mph

The fact is as we slow vehicles down, the journeys don't get shorter, so the time always gets longer. Think about this in the context of 30mph down to 20mph! and work out the vehicle density if the number, start time and distance of journeys remains constant - lower speed means increased vehicle density in a particular stretch of road and more local pollution!

Edited by mr rusty on Thursday 16th July 09:49

I presume you have little technical training.

Lower speed require less energy for the same journey, less energy used means less pollution.

[IJWS15]

MikeM6 said:

Are they seriously asking if resources should be diverted AWAY from tackling domestic and sexual abuse to fund policing of 20mph zones?

This has got to be a wind up, surely?

No - quite serious, this is a way of the P&CC making it clear to the other politicians, and the public, that he can't police their policies unless they give him more funding.

[archie456]

NGee said:

timbo999 said:

You're wrong. In your example, the 70 mph car is doing 35mpg (2 gallons to do 70 miles), but the 50 mph car is doing 33 mpg (1.5 gallons to do 50 miles).

but the 50 mph car is doing 33 mpg (1.5 gallons to do 50 miles). and by your maths that's 2.1 gallons to do 70 miles.

I think you need to cheek you maths, especially as you've managed to proved the exact opposite of what you were trying to do!

Ngee his maths is spot on, the issue is that the numbers given by Rusty make the car less economical at the lower speed

NGee said:

Also the assumption of reduced pollution only applies if you don't change gear. Pollution is produced by the RPM of the engine, not the speed of the car. So roughly, 30mph at 2000 rpm in 4th will produce exactly the same pollution as 20mph at 2000 rpm in 3rd, but obviously, as above, the 20 mph journey will take longer.

No, it will be dependent on the load on the engine at this rpm, and as the load increases via a higher gear either more boost/fuel will be needed to maintain the speed.

The inescapable fact is that reducing speed from 70 to 50 mph will reduce pollution.

[IJWS15]

NGee said:

"Areas with high emissions to be reduced to 50mph"

I assume that this only applies to petrol/diesel vehicles?
Electric vehicles will still be able to do the 60/70 speed limit as they are not contributing to high emissions?

They still contribute to emissions but somewhere else - e.g.Cardiff, Llanelly, Marchwell and Newport power stations all burn coal, there are several burning gas and some burning oil. A good fossil fuel power station may be approaching 60% thermal efficiency, much lower than an ICE.

When are the EV proponents going to realise that they don't reduce pollution, they just move it somewhere else.

[NGee]

archie456 said:

NGee said:

timbo999 said:

You're wrong. In your example, the 70 mph car is doing 35mpg (2 gallons to do 70 miles), but the 50 mph car is doing 33 mpg (1.5 gallons to do 50 miles).

but the 50 mph car is doing 33 mpg (1.5 gallons to do 50 miles). and by your maths that's 2.1 gallons to do 70 miles.

I think you need to cheek you maths, especially as you've managed to proved the exact opposite of what you were trying to do!

Ngee his maths is spot on, the issue is that the numbers given by Rusty make the car less economical at the lower speed

Yes, that's what I said - or least what I meant to say!
Maybe 'maths' was the wrong word.
His car does less mpg at 50mph than 70mph whereas it should do more mpg.

[PrinceRupert]

mr rusty said:

This assumption that reducing speed, reduces pollution is a fallacy because no-one ever, ever brings time into the arguement. Yes, of course a car going at 50mph burns less fuel per minute than one going at 70 mph, but BUT - let's assume the journey is 7 miles long, so at 70 mph it takes 1/10th of an hour = 6 minutes. The same 7 mile journey at 50mph takes 8.4 minutes, so the vehicle is polluting in the 7 mile stretch for 2.4 minutes longer.

The question is, which is lower - the pollution rate @ 70mph for 6 minutes, or the pollution rate @ 50mph for 8.4 minutes. Now it's not so simple. If the reduction in pollution rate is only, say 10%, then MORE pollution is emitted over 7 miles @ 50mph than at 70mph

The fact is as we slow vehicles down, the journeys don't get shorter, so the time always gets longer. Think about this in the context of 30mph down to 20mph! and work out the vehicle density if the number, start time and distance of journeys remains constant - lower speed means increased vehicle density in a particular stretch of road and more local pollution!

Yes they do?

Going ten miles at 50mph will burn less fuel than going ten miles at 70mph.

[NGee]

IJWS15 said:

NGee said:

"Areas with high emissions to be reduced to 50mph"

I assume that this only applies to petrol/diesel vehicles?
Electric vehicles will still be able to do the 60/70 speed limit as they are not contributing to high emissions?

They still contribute to emissions but somewhere else - e.g.Cardiff, Llanelly, Marchwell and Newport power stations all burn coal, there are several burning gas and some burning oil. A good fossil fuel power station may be approaching 60% thermal efficiency, much lower than an ICE.

When are the EV proponents going to realise that they don't reduce pollution, they just move it somewhere else.

Yes, I am well aware of this, it was a very tongue in cheek comment! Probably one for another thread but I do agree with you that 'electric cars have zero emissions' is complete bullst. And don't even get me started on 'self charging hybrids', so you put petrol in the car to convert it to electric to drive a 'zero emissions' motor!!
Someone needs to explain that perpetual motion hasn't been invented yet !