60 mph motorways
Discussion
vonhosen said:
Motorways are about functional A to B, not about the journey.
If I want to enjoy myself I'll come off the motorway & take the back roads.
If I want to merely get to the end quicker I'll take the motorway.
As I said, policy is dictated by more than simply fast. They've had limits imposed on them for most of their life.
Well you are consistent in not responding to the points or questions I have raised. All rather frustrating but never mind If I want to enjoy myself I'll come off the motorway & take the back roads.
If I want to merely get to the end quicker I'll take the motorway.
As I said, policy is dictated by more than simply fast. They've had limits imposed on them for most of their life.
bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
Motorways are about functional A to B, not about the journey.
If I want to enjoy myself I'll come off the motorway & take the back roads.
If I want to merely get to the end quicker I'll take the motorway.
As I said, policy is dictated by more than simply fast. They've had limits imposed on them for most of their life.
Well you are consistent in not responding to the points or questions I have raised. All rather frustrating but never mind If I want to enjoy myself I'll come off the motorway & take the back roads.
If I want to merely get to the end quicker I'll take the motorway.
As I said, policy is dictated by more than simply fast. They've had limits imposed on them for most of their life.
I think you've taken a narrow view, whilst I've taken a wider view.
You accuse me of not being an enthusiast, I say
My life revolves around driving (work & play).
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 24th July 14:31
What do you feel I have not addressed/answered?
Your first asked about am I happy to do 60 at night?
I said I'd rather there was no speed limit for me to adhere to at any time, but that I recognise it isn't just about what I personally want.
You talked about motorways supposed to provide fast reliable transport.
I said that the government has to satisfy other considerations in relation to their existence as opposed to solely fast.
Other than that you were short on questions/points to address.
Your first asked about am I happy to do 60 at night?
I said I'd rather there was no speed limit for me to adhere to at any time, but that I recognise it isn't just about what I personally want.
You talked about motorways supposed to provide fast reliable transport.
I said that the government has to satisfy other considerations in relation to their existence as opposed to solely fast.
Other than that you were short on questions/points to address.
oyster said:
I’m yet to be convinced that I can travel any quicker from A to B on a 70mph limit motorway than I can on a 60mph limited one, other than during very quiet times. And plainly, by their very emptiness, we don’t use motorways much at quiet times.
Other than a shallow, short-lived and ultimately futile feeling of progress getting to 70/80 on a busy motorway, it almost always ends up taking the same journey time.
I’ve sat in Lane 1/2 at 58/60 sometimes and watched how I get overtaken by a particularly memorable vehicle doing 70/80 in lane 4, only to then see it again 15 miles later as lane 3/4 snarls up.
Likewise when I’ve been that lane 4 driver passing a slowcoach in lane 1 and then seeing the fecker re-pass me sometime later when we get all nose to tail in lane 4.
I know which one gets me to my destination feeling less stressed.
Why don't you change lanes then? If you know the pinch points it's easy enough to plan ahead and save some time.Other than a shallow, short-lived and ultimately futile feeling of progress getting to 70/80 on a busy motorway, it almost always ends up taking the same journey time.
I’ve sat in Lane 1/2 at 58/60 sometimes and watched how I get overtaken by a particularly memorable vehicle doing 70/80 in lane 4, only to then see it again 15 miles later as lane 3/4 snarls up.
Likewise when I’ve been that lane 4 driver passing a slowcoach in lane 1 and then seeing the fecker re-pass me sometime later when we get all nose to tail in lane 4.
I know which one gets me to my destination feeling less stressed.
NMNeil said:
Not only 60 mph speed limits, but some will have 40mph limits.
https://www.carwow.co.uk/news/5467/60mph-motorway-...
It says temporary, but that's like saying a new tax is temporary
So if the new limit for cars is 60mph will the limit for HGV's also be reduced by a similar proportion? I'd have thought they must also contribute significantly to air pollution so, if improving air quality is indeed the objective, I'm not sure I'd see the logic in allowing HGV's to carry on as normal whilst slowing cars down...https://www.carwow.co.uk/news/5467/60mph-motorway-...
It says temporary, but that's like saying a new tax is temporary
J__Wood said:
So...... if it is purely to reduce local air pollution shouldn't pure electric vehicles still be allowed to drive at 70? We already have different speed limits for different classes of vehicles.
What a great way for a Government to lever us into electric cars, if it is genuinely about pollution.
EVs are not immune to the effects of air resistance. They use far more energy at higher speeds in the same way that ICE cars do. As long as we still use carbon-based fuels for electricity generation, more speed = disproportionately more pollution. Just somewhere else. What a drag…What a great way for a Government to lever us into electric cars, if it is genuinely about pollution.
60mph on a motorway for air quality improvement sounds more logical than the Welsh equivalent.
Try commuting down the M4 in Newport. 50mph average speed limit for air quality purposes.
The irony being on a Friday evening you’re lucky if you get into 4th gear before you enter the Brynglas Tunnels. This stretch used to have fixed speed cameras and was given a 50mph fixed speed limit in a variable speed zone but when everyone knows where the cameras are no one sticks to it.
Ironically there’s another 50mph average speed stretch by Port Talbot on the M4 for air quality reasons as you drive past a steelworks which billows out fumes into the air. Pretty sure air quality suffers entirely due to the steelworks but being a mass employer and contributor for the region they probably dare not punish them for it.
Try commuting down the M4 in Newport. 50mph average speed limit for air quality purposes.
The irony being on a Friday evening you’re lucky if you get into 4th gear before you enter the Brynglas Tunnels. This stretch used to have fixed speed cameras and was given a 50mph fixed speed limit in a variable speed zone but when everyone knows where the cameras are no one sticks to it.
Ironically there’s another 50mph average speed stretch by Port Talbot on the M4 for air quality reasons as you drive past a steelworks which billows out fumes into the air. Pretty sure air quality suffers entirely due to the steelworks but being a mass employer and contributor for the region they probably dare not punish them for it.
LunarOne said:
EVs are not immune to the effects of air resistance. They use far more energy at higher speeds in the same way that ICE cars do. As long as we still use carbon-based fuels for electricity generation, more speed = disproportionately more pollution. Just somewhere else. What a drag…
Except these 60/50/40 motorway limits are focussed on reducing local pollution, so how is your comment relevant? 
David-p5d5m said:
Well, I guess the question is, what would be your quick solution for reducing local air pollution instead?
Do you have a better idea?
There is no quick solution, it's taken us over 100 years to get where we are today and that damage cannot be corrected overnight.Do you have a better idea?
Long term solutions, without going electric.
Make it a serious criminal offense to tamper with or remove any emissions control equipment. By serious I mean upon conviction crush the car. Prosecute companies who sell items or services to bypass emissions controls, such as remapping, cat delete etc.
Reduce the number of cars on the roads by setting a cap on how many cars can be registered for the road. As of 2019 there were 33 million, which is too many for a small island.
Copy Japan who only allow you to buy a car if you have a parking space within 2Km of where you live, and they check.
Improve public transport, and at the same time start gradually removing public parking spaces from inside city limits
Start there and wait for the screams
The M4 at Port Talbot is basically an overpass. It is raised to just above roof level of houses below. Some houses were pulled down to enable pillars to be put in as supports. From the day it opned it had a 50 limit to reduce noise as the houses were so close. It had two fixed cameras but was changed to average speed. The purpose of building it was to carry traffic off the old A road through the town. One silly design feature is the slip roads onto this section. These allow traffic to enter up the slope onto short meging distances. Why? To make it easier for locals to jump on and off. At evening commute time you would be stationary due to camera induced braking and the extra local fed in traffic. Just waht a motorway is designed for! Not. When a proposal to limit the slip roads onto it to emergency vehicles only the local fuss was immense and they were kept open to all.
Lately the 50 limit was extended further West to Llandarcy ( about 2-3 miles over the Briton Ferry bridges) to reduce air pollution.
Basically traffic can enter the area at normal motorway speed but then hits a 50 chokepoint of denser traffic. Denser traffic = greater potential for pollution even at lower average speed? Will the reduced speed effect be nullified by denser traffic?
My evening commute home from Cardiff often took about 30 minutes longer than the morning journey mainly due to Port Talbot.
Similarly the A465 Heads of Valleys road is nearing completion after several years and multi millions cost but will have a reduced speed due to air pollution. Why build an expensive road capable of safely carrying traffic at speed as part of the design only to limit speed? The road mainly bypasses towns or is rural. Mind boggling.
Lately the 50 limit was extended further West to Llandarcy ( about 2-3 miles over the Briton Ferry bridges) to reduce air pollution.
Basically traffic can enter the area at normal motorway speed but then hits a 50 chokepoint of denser traffic. Denser traffic = greater potential for pollution even at lower average speed? Will the reduced speed effect be nullified by denser traffic?
My evening commute home from Cardiff often took about 30 minutes longer than the morning journey mainly due to Port Talbot.
Similarly the A465 Heads of Valleys road is nearing completion after several years and multi millions cost but will have a reduced speed due to air pollution. Why build an expensive road capable of safely carrying traffic at speed as part of the design only to limit speed? The road mainly bypasses towns or is rural. Mind boggling.
So a question I’d like to ask. If a lower speed limit is introduced for pollution reason (eg 50mph) but you sped past at 93 you could be persecuted for dangerous driving due to the posted speed limit. However the lower limit is for pollution not safety so would you be able to argue this as a defence in court. Ie I was doing 93 in - road that would normally be a 70 and only isn’t because pollution and not safety?
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
So a question I’d like to ask. If a lower speed limit is introduced for pollution reason (eg 50mph) but you sped past at 93 you could be persecuted for dangerous driving due to the posted speed limit. However the lower limit is for pollution not safety so would you be able to argue this as a defence in court. Ie I was doing 93 in - road that would normally be a 70 and only isn’t because pollution and not safety?
In England & Wales you don't get convicted for dangerous driving based on the margin by which you exceed the limit on it's own (ie At a given number in a given limit). If it's because of speed it's due to the speed relative to the prevailing circumstances.bigothunter said:
vonhosen said:
oyster said:
I’m yet to be convinced that I can travel any quicker from A to B on a 70mph limit motorway than I can on a 60mph limited one, other than during very quiet times. And plainly, by their very emptiness, we don’t use motorways much at quiet times.
Other than a shallow, short-lived and ultimately futile feeling of progress getting to 70/80 on a busy motorway, it almost always ends up taking the same journey time.
I’ve sat in Lane 1/2 at 58/60 sometimes and watched how I get overtaken by a particularly memorable vehicle doing 70/80 in lane 4, only to then see it again 15 miles later as lane 3/4 snarls up.
Likewise when I’ve been that lane 4 driver passing a slowcoach in lane 1 and then seeing the fecker re-pass me sometime later when we get all nose to tail in lane 4.
I know which one gets me to my destination feeling less stressed.
And that's the truth.Other than a shallow, short-lived and ultimately futile feeling of progress getting to 70/80 on a busy motorway, it almost always ends up taking the same journey time.
I’ve sat in Lane 1/2 at 58/60 sometimes and watched how I get overtaken by a particularly memorable vehicle doing 70/80 in lane 4, only to then see it again 15 miles later as lane 3/4 snarls up.
Likewise when I’ve been that lane 4 driver passing a slowcoach in lane 1 and then seeing the fecker re-pass me sometime later when we get all nose to tail in lane 4.
I know which one gets me to my destination feeling less stressed.
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
So a question I’d like to ask. If a lower speed limit is introduced for pollution reason (eg 50mph) but you sped past at 93 you could be persecuted for dangerous driving due to the posted speed limit. However the lower limit is for pollution not safety so would you be able to argue this as a defence in court. Ie I was doing 93 in - road that would normally be a 70 and only isn’t because pollution and not safety?
Yes you could easily be prosecuted for dangerous driving.. Other traffic obeying the limit would not expect traffic from behind to be closing at nearly double the speed limit, so may pull out in front of the speeding vehicle without realising the danger. Even without scaling the speed proportionally, it's the equivalent of traffic closing on 70mph traffic at 113mph, or proportionally 130mph in a 70mph zone. UK drivers do not expect such closing speeds, while German drivers experience it routinely and should know not to pull out without checking carefully.Not always though...
LunarOne said:
J__Wood said:
So...... if it is purely to reduce local air pollution shouldn't pure electric vehicles still be allowed to drive at 70? We already have different speed limits for different classes of vehicles.
What a great way for a Government to lever us into electric cars, if it is genuinely about pollution.
EVs are not immune to the effects of air resistance. They use far more energy at higher speeds in the same way that ICE cars do. As long as we still use carbon-based fuels for electricity generation, more speed = disproportionately more pollution. Just somewhere else. What a drag…What a great way for a Government to lever us into electric cars, if it is genuinely about pollution.
Nickbrapp said:
The m32 section that’s 40 is barely even a motorway though, it’s about a mile of 2 lane section over a bridge and it’s always so congested you’ll lucky to be able to do 40 along it, it’s also got a bus lane on it with average speed cameras
But the bonus with this is you get to see the fine sight of the beauty of Bristol as you enter... or not 😀Pothole said:
It's been in on the M6 for months - 60 between junctions 6&7 - but, as it's on a section with no cameras (yet) it's pretty much universally ignored. (by all them others, officer).
And then the NSL boards come up just before J8, just in time for everyone to accelerate and get caught by the speed camera just before the M5 feed-in which is inevitably set to 50 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff