Spanish speed limit down "to save fuel"

[DS3R]

Just as we're talking about upping the limit "to increase productivity" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8350157/Motorway-speed-limit-could-be-raised-to-80mph.html), the Spanish cut theirs to 110kph...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12663092

Will it work?

Is it a cynical ploy to reduce their deficit by increasing fines?

Will the eagle-eyed politicians now apparently determined to wean the UK off oil take heed???

Discuss.

[HellDiver]

Newsflash - the 70mph limit on UK motorways was introduced during the oil crisis in the 70s for exactly that reason, to save fuel.

[IROC-Z]

HellDiver said:

Newsflash - the 70mph limit on UK motorways was introduced during the oil crisis in the 70s for exactly that reason, to save fuel.

Not quite, it was introduced in the late 1960's to reduce the increasing number of serious accidents on newly built (and unrestricted) motorways.

However the speed limit in the UK was reduced to 50mph in 1973 in response to the oil crisis and in the USA it was reduced to 55mph.

[neil_bolton]

To be fair, if it were dropped here to 50mph, not many of us would actually notice asd the traffic is usually thereabouts at that speed, and the maintainance of such a lowering of the limit would be an administrative nightmare.

Therefore I'd say that the gevernment would never try to lower it for fear of uproar, but would suggest we do this in order to save fuel.

Only, many of us already are...

[nouze]

Fernando_Alonso said:

Former F1 champion Fernando Alonso raced into the debate last week, declaring that it was harder to stay awake at the new, reduced speed limit.

This guy knows what he's saying.

[Lucas Ayde]

DS3R said:

Just as we're talking about upping the limit "to increase productivity" (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8350157/Motorway-speed-limit-could-be-raised-to-80mph.html), the Spanish cut theirs to 110kph...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12663092

Will it work?

Is it a cynical ploy to reduce their deficit by increasing fines?

Will the eagle-eyed politicians now apparently determined to wean the UK off oil take heed???

Discuss.

Of course it's a ploy to raise more money through fines - how does lowering the speed limit save the country money? It's the motorists paying for the petrol out of their own disposable income, not the state.

Anyone who wants to save their own money is more than capable of deciding to drive slower for themselves. Even if there is some sort of measurable national-scale fuel economy saving through this harebrained scheme, all that's going to happen is that the state makes less through fuel taxes. Still, I'm sure it will give them a good excuse to increase the fuel duty even more.

[kambites]

Lucas Ayde said:

Of course it's a ploy to raise more money through fines - how does lowering the speed limit save the country money? It's the motorists paying for the petrol out of their own disposable income, not the state.

I think what they mean by "save money", is reduce the import/export deficit.

[CraigyMc]

IROC-Z said:

HellDiver said:

Newsflash - the 70mph limit on UK motorways was introduced during the oil crisis in the 70s for exactly that reason, to save fuel.

Not quite, it was introduced in the late 1960's to reduce the increasing number of serious accidents on newly built (and unrestricted) motorways.

However the speed limit in the UK was reduced to 50mph in 1973 in response to the oil crisis and in the USA it was reduced to 55mph.

The 70mph national speed limit was introduced in the uk as a temporary on December 22nd, 1965. Before that there was no limit.

It was enforced permanently (as opposed to the temporary measure) in 1967.

[r11co]

The easiest way to do that is to start making things instead of pretending that your service industry has great value when it fact it has been raping the value of your economy for years.

In this respect the UK and Spain are very similar.

[BlueMR2]

nouze said:

Fernando_Alonso said:

Former F1 champion Fernando Alonso raced into the debate last week, declaring that it was harder to stay awake at the new, reduced speed limit.

This guy knows what he's saying.

People don't pay much attention as it is, nevermind going even slower.

They are putting retarded street lights in to give the whole of Leeds uniformity and take out whatever character the old lights had. Whilst also adding street lights all over the place where they were never located before so that they can lower the limits greatly. Starting to take the piss with all the money they are wasting on stupid redesigns of the roads when they cant even fill in a few pot holes or resurface a road properly.

[V88Dicky]

Those thousands of jobs created in 'Green Industries' in Spain must be showing some fruit by now?
















Anyone?















Bueller?









ps. 50 MPH would mean driving around in 5th instead of 6th, saving precisely 3/16th of fkall fuel.

[dylan0451]

V88Dicky said:

ps. 50 MPH would mean driving around in 5th instead of 6th

eh? does your car have only 20hp or something?!

[BlueMR2]

dylan0451 said:

V88Dicky said:

ps. 50 MPH would mean driving around in 5th instead of 6th

eh? does your car have only 20hp or something?!

He probably doesn't want to labour his engine to bits.

[off_again]

Fuel saving or tax revenues aside, what I find interesting here is that there is no mention of safety. Its not "x hundred lives will be saved if we drive slower", but it seems to be an argument about how much fuel will be saved.

So the correlation between and speed and safety isnt made after all?

[redstu]

Im sure they will make plenty of cash from the tourists this year!

[deveng]

V88Dicky said:

50 MPH would mean driving around in 5th instead of 6th, saving precisely 3/16th of fkall fuel.

I tend to drive everywhere in 6th. Most 30 zones are fine in 6th (at 30mph before someone pipes up that im speeding), even the hilly ones around my parents.

And being tight, I frequently drive long motorway journeys at 50 instead of 70 and save huge amounts on fuel.


AND finally, aerodynamic drag doubles between 50 and 70, so there are big savings to be made.

[Lanby]

off_again said:

Fuel saving or tax revenues aside, what I find interesting here is that there is no mention of safety. Its not "x hundred lives will be saved if we drive slower", but it seems to be an argument about how much fuel will be saved.

So the correlation between and speed and safety isnt made after all?

The fashion at the moment is saving money as everybody is skint, give them time and it will revert to speed.

[kambites]

V88Dicky said:

ps. 50 MPH would mean driving around in 5th instead of 6th, saving precisely 3/16th of fkall fuel.

I've never driven a "normal" car that wont do 50 happily in top gear, and anyway most cars aren't at their most efficient in top gear. Mechanical drag becomes insignificant compared to aerodynamic drag at a surprisingly low speed.

[paulmoonraker]

I drive lots with my job, and have definitely noticed that people are driving slightly slower on the motorway... I think peoples cruising speed is down from 90ish to 80ish... For me that makes a material difference on my MPG...

[V88Dicky]

kambites said:

I've never driven a "normal" car that wont do 50 happily in top gear, and anyway most cars aren't at their most efficient in top gear. Mechanical drag becomes insignificant compared to aerodynamic drag at a surprisingly low speed.

Fair enough. But doing 50mph in 6th gear, in a MM6 gearboxed Monaro is labouring, even with 369lb/ft. 70mph in 6th is 1600rpm!