Cutting speed limits for cleaner air?
Discussion
Well, reducing the limit reduces emissions as fuel efficiency rises... But capacity rises also and as thats taken up surely the extra vehicles will collectively produce more....
(I keep being told by planner types if they build more roads then those roads are then filled...(which ironically is actually the point...))
Suspect its really about capacity improvements ro hide the lack of infrastructure investment - M4 past port talbot has no room for fancy fandango managed / smart mway.
(I keep being told by planner types if they build more roads then those roads are then filled...(which ironically is actually the point...))
Suspect its really about capacity improvements ro hide the lack of infrastructure investment - M4 past port talbot has no room for fancy fandango managed / smart mway.
fatboy b said:
dcb said:
davepoth said:
Driving at 50 rather than 70 uses 25% less fuel,
Nonsense. At very least it depends on the car. Different cars have different efficienciesat different speeds.
Saving 50p or a pound on fuel is a small saving, compared to the cost of the time saved.
An hour shorter car journey could easily save anywhere from £20 to £100 or more,
depending on the driver and the number of passengers.
ks. Aero drag goes up with the square of speed so a slight increase in speed will add a lot of extra drag. 80/50 = 1.6 square that to give a 2.56 times increase in drag.
turbobloke said:
Anyone who has fallen for the 40,000 deaths due to pollution should not only remember the 10x worse pollution indoors which is never taken into account, but also take a slow and careful read of the following clinical 
demolition of the fallacy involved.
http://wmbriggs.com/post/13029/
THe statistic is just a computer generated model arrived at in the same way as the number of deaths from smoking get produced. demolition of the fallacy involved.http://wmbriggs.com/post/13029/
mike9009 said:
I presume the same will apply to all 20 mph, 30mph and 40mph zones and the speed limit will be increased to 50mph to cut emissions/ pollution in particularly densely populated areas. Makes more sense...... 
Or how about removing speed humps, traffic narrowing to reduce exhaust pollution in areas where pollution might directly affect the local population??
Mike
If this had anything to do with emissions then they should be looking at the unnecessary pollution caused by "traffic calming" measures. The most obvious example of which is traffic lights on urban dual carriageways sequenced to catch drivers at every set of lights.Or how about removing speed humps, traffic narrowing to reduce exhaust pollution in areas where pollution might directly affect the local population??
Mike
rustyuk said:
My car does gets significantly better mpg when travelling at 50 rather than 70.
And Mine does significantly worse.I have a year old Peugeot estate 1.6 diesel blue Hdi. I can't use the most efficient, 6th gear below 60mph, so I will be cruising along in 5th doing more revs, polluting more.
The other thing I find amusing is that the M4 near Port Talbot often has a pea soup like fug over it from the steel works, even more so when there's low cloud.
eccles said:
The other thing I find amusing is that the M4 near Port Talbot often has a pea soup like fug over it from the steel works, even more so when there's low cloud.
Off shore it aint so bad but on shore, well, smells a lot.The Welsh Assembly is worrying when you listen to the AMs go on about things. However seems that a group called ClientEarth took the Welsh Assembly to court and won.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43147297
Seems there are more authorities that will have to comply.
eccles said:
And Mine does significantly worse.
I have a year old Peugeot estate 1.6 diesel blue Hdi. I can't use the most efficient, 6th gear below 60mph, so I will be cruising along in 5th doing more revs, polluting more.
.
No it doesn't! Revs are not a real indicator of fuel economy. Never has been.I have a year old Peugeot estate 1.6 diesel blue Hdi. I can't use the most efficient, 6th gear below 60mph, so I will be cruising along in 5th doing more revs, polluting more.
.
50mph is significantly less drag, less friction.
Interestingly our newish Festa 1.0 ecothingamabob computer says it is better at 40-50 in 5th and lumps around feeling like it is about to stall than in 4th where it feels happier. However better returns at 50.
The higher return on the 1.6 Festa oil burner we had was better at 60 than 70 or 50. Computer reckoned 64-66 mpg
The saab is better at 60, auto box as well and the TVR, forget about that. Think I can coax 20 on a quiet day.
The higher return on the 1.6 Festa oil burner we had was better at 60 than 70 or 50. Computer reckoned 64-66 mpg
The saab is better at 60, auto box as well and the TVR, forget about that. Think I can coax 20 on a quiet day.
grumbledoak said:
This is just yet another anti- private car measure.
Cars are way cleaner than buses or lorries or huge ships and ports. But pollution isn't the priority, it is just the excuse. For private motoring it is going to be death by a thousand excuses.
Are you sure about that?Cars are way cleaner than buses or lorries or huge ships and ports. But pollution isn't the priority, it is just the excuse. For private motoring it is going to be death by a thousand excuses.
Of course any individual car is going to be more efficient than any individual bus, truck or ship, but what matters in this debate is how efficient that other form of transportation is compared to enough cars to carry the same amount of passengers/cargo.
For the record, I don't want to see stupid slow speed limits either, but there's no point making the argument with possibly for facts.
The cost to the economy of lost time whilst people are sat in cars is potentially more compelling, but if the link previously posted to suggest slower speed allows for greater traffic density and thus more cars moving through the same spot, then actually why wouldn't you support it? The M4 through South Wales hardly constitutes a fun hooning road at any speed, does it?
As usual, it is all about the selfish. Me me me, what about me you cry, like little ignorant babies
As a Society we do need to deal with an ever-increasing number of vehicles on the road but we also need to deal with air and noise pollution that fossil-fuelled vehicles produce.
To those who cite buses, HGV's, ships etc - grow up, get an education and stop being blatantly stupid! Those will be dealt with when technology permits at a cost that can be economically viable; they are not being forgotten, indeed, only a small amount of research will educate you on the subject.
As for cars, the tech at an economically viable cost for both use and infrastructure is already here and being introduced at a pace that will allow it to become the norm. Good. Over time, petrol and diesel will be phased out as we can all see. EV and Hybrids have arrived and are set to replace the rest. They will set the new benchmark and perhaps other fuel-types equally clean but more cost-effective and efficient may arise in the Future. But petrol and diesel only powered cars need to go as soon as possible.
In the meantime, other measures such as the one proposed concerning cutting speed limits will surface so as to help speed up the end result: less air and noise pollution. The effectiveness of such remains to be seen but anything that helps during the transition from fossil-fuel only to EV and Hybrid is welcome.
I like cars too, I love the sound of a powerful V8 petrol Mustang, the immense 12 cylinder growl of an Aston Martin. But I also totally agree that it is unsustainable to continue with seeing our residential neighbourhoods, workplaces and cities increasingly suffer the dirty, smelly, noise-infested plague that is petrol and diesel exhaust emissions.
It is a tiny price to pay for the minority that is us car enthusiasts to lose our cherished engines in favour of more socially acceptable solutions.
Of course, the selfish and those who struggle to adapt to change will always scream and cry and have to be forcibly dragged into the future. Happily, they will be.
As a Society we do need to deal with an ever-increasing number of vehicles on the road but we also need to deal with air and noise pollution that fossil-fuelled vehicles produce.
To those who cite buses, HGV's, ships etc - grow up, get an education and stop being blatantly stupid! Those will be dealt with when technology permits at a cost that can be economically viable; they are not being forgotten, indeed, only a small amount of research will educate you on the subject.
As for cars, the tech at an economically viable cost for both use and infrastructure is already here and being introduced at a pace that will allow it to become the norm. Good. Over time, petrol and diesel will be phased out as we can all see. EV and Hybrids have arrived and are set to replace the rest. They will set the new benchmark and perhaps other fuel-types equally clean but more cost-effective and efficient may arise in the Future. But petrol and diesel only powered cars need to go as soon as possible.
In the meantime, other measures such as the one proposed concerning cutting speed limits will surface so as to help speed up the end result: less air and noise pollution. The effectiveness of such remains to be seen but anything that helps during the transition from fossil-fuel only to EV and Hybrid is welcome.
I like cars too, I love the sound of a powerful V8 petrol Mustang, the immense 12 cylinder growl of an Aston Martin. But I also totally agree that it is unsustainable to continue with seeing our residential neighbourhoods, workplaces and cities increasingly suffer the dirty, smelly, noise-infested plague that is petrol and diesel exhaust emissions.
It is a tiny price to pay for the minority that is us car enthusiasts to lose our cherished engines in favour of more socially acceptable solutions.
Of course, the selfish and those who struggle to adapt to change will always scream and cry and have to be forcibly dragged into the future. Happily, they will be.
Coolbanana said:
As usual, it is all about the selfish. Me me me, what about me you cry, like little ignorant babies
Not at all. It's about the nonsense being spouted to justify measures being proposed to avoid EU fines for exceeding arbitrary limits, air composition not vehicle speed.If politicians were serious enough as to justify the kind of remark you made above then they would be tackling the ten times worse levels of indoor pollution that are actually relevant to mortality stats more than any fiction conjured up using the epidemiological fallacy.
It looks suspiciously like you don't understand the reality behind the hype, who was it who needs to get an education / grow up / stop being stupid? Duh. Strike another notch up for irony.
Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 25th April 08:13
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff