Cutting speed limits for cleaner air?
Discussion
Coolbanana said:
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.
The real answer is deal with the huge and some would say unsustainable rise in the Human population... 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.
While taking a moment to get to grips with what's being claimed, as it's false.
In essentially 'fabricating' mortality stats, those involved have failed to measure any pollution levels around the prematurely deceased individuals, either at or before their time of passing which is deemed premature solely because it didn't agree with finger-in-the-air guesswork as to when somebody who is already seriously ill is expected to die. Whenever that is, with a myriad of potential reasons, the blame is knee-jerked onto outdoor air, though when taking London into account it's cleaner than at any time in the past 400 years (Lomborg). It could be cleaner, so look at diesel buses as below.
Indoor air, and seriously ill people tend to be indoors, is up to 100x (average 10x) more polluted than outdoor urban air.
At least as much NOx is emitted by trees, lawns and shrubs as by transport and industry combined (see research paper cited yesterday) yet transport is being blamed for all of it.
If there was any serious intent to reduce exposure to airborne pollutants then as already indicated our wise politicians would be looking first at indoor air, then banning diesel buses and making access for clean petrol-engined cars easier. Smart cities like Oxford banned cars from the city centre then headed straight to the top of the polluted air league tables, smart politicians have that kind of effect. Definitely grown-up in terms of age, probably not more selfish than average. arguably not stupid, just culpably uninformed.
In essentially 'fabricating' mortality stats, those involved have failed to measure any pollution levels around the prematurely deceased individuals, either at or before their time of passing which is deemed premature solely because it didn't agree with finger-in-the-air guesswork as to when somebody who is already seriously ill is expected to die. Whenever that is, with a myriad of potential reasons, the blame is knee-jerked onto outdoor air, though when taking London into account it's cleaner than at any time in the past 400 years (Lomborg). It could be cleaner, so look at diesel buses as below.
Indoor air, and seriously ill people tend to be indoors, is up to 100x (average 10x) more polluted than outdoor urban air.
At least as much NOx is emitted by trees, lawns and shrubs as by transport and industry combined (see research paper cited yesterday) yet transport is being blamed for all of it.
If there was any serious intent to reduce exposure to airborne pollutants then as already indicated our wise politicians would be looking first at indoor air, then banning diesel buses and making access for clean petrol-engined cars easier. Smart cities like Oxford banned cars from the city centre then headed straight to the top of the polluted air league tables, smart politicians have that kind of effect. Definitely grown-up in terms of age, probably not more selfish than average. arguably not stupid, just culpably uninformed.
A 'simple' solution appealing to simple minds. Not surprising the sort of support it attracts.
Coolbanana said:
As usual, it is all about the selfish. Me me me, what about me you cry, like little ignorant babies
If you're really that bothered about your impact on the environment then euthanise yourself. Anything else is selfish. Drag Jonathon Porritt and family along with you while you're at it so he can demonstrate his ideas and lead by example. Then threre's the question of what our gifted politicians will do when, in the pursuit of avoiding EU fines for exceeding arbitrary air composition levels, they remove most of the transport-related NOx. That would mean that around 75% of current levels remain, given that about half is emitted by green lifeforms and more besides from industry rather than vehicles, as well as domestic and industrial boilers.
To achieve further cuts on rural motorways for example they would have to chop down any forests nearby, concrete over any greenery within a wide radius and then accomplish the easy task of stopping the wind from blowing air across from other areas under the guardianship of less enlightened people. Given the levels of genius at work heaven only knows what they would try next.
To achieve further cuts on rural motorways for example they would have to chop down any forests nearby, concrete over any greenery within a wide radius and then accomplish the easy task of stopping the wind from blowing air across from other areas under the guardianship of less enlightened people. Given the levels of genius at work heaven only knows what they would try next.
TheDrBrian said:
Annnnd thats b
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.
You've focussed in on one factor to model a complex system.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.
In reality, it's a lot more complex than that. Yes drag goes up with speed, but it's
only one factor in many. As many other posters have claimed, what speed the gearbox
is in for a start, what revs the engine is doing for a second etc.
How do you explain to me getting about 30 mpg cruising at English motorway speeds
of 80 mph max and about 65 mph average, but getting about 28 mpg cruising at German
motorway speeds of 120 mph max and about 95 mph average ?
A couple of mpg loss, compared to a substantial reduction in time taken to travel
anywhere seems like a good bargain to me.
Back on topic, modern cars are cleaner than they have ever been. Air quality
is better than it has been for centuries. That London hasn't been "The Smoke"
since the clean air acts of the 1950s.
Changing speed limits to improve the air quality is just yet another stick to beat up the
already beaten up motorist, in my view.
turbobloke said:
While taking a moment to get to grips with what's being claimed, as it's false.
In essentially 'fabricating' mortality stats, those involved have failed to measure any pollution levels around the prematurely deceased individuals, either at or before their time of passing which is deemed premature solely because it didn't agree with finger-in-the-air guesswork as to when somebody who is already seriously ill is expected to die. Whenever that is, with a myriad of potential reasons, the blame is knee-jerked onto outdoor air, though when taking London into account it's cleaner than at any time in the past 400 years (Lomborg). It could be cleaner, so look at diesel buses as below.
Indoor air, and seriously ill people tend to be indoors, is up to 100x (average 10x) more polluted than outdoor urban air.
At least as much NOx is emitted by trees, lawns and shrubs as by transport and industry combined (see research paper cited yesterday) yet transport is being blamed for all of it.
If there was any serious intent to reduce exposure to airborne pollutants then as already indicated our wise politicians would be looking first at indoor air, then banning diesel buses and making access for clean petrol-engined cars easier. Smart cities like Oxford banned cars from the city centre then headed straight to the top of the polluted air league tables, smart politicians have that kind of effect. Definitely grown-up in terms of age, probably not more selfish than average. arguably not stupid, just culpably uninformed.
I really don’t understand why you included the bit in bold, as it devalues the whole of the rest of your perfectly sensible position in my view.In essentially 'fabricating' mortality stats, those involved have failed to measure any pollution levels around the prematurely deceased individuals, either at or before their time of passing which is deemed premature solely because it didn't agree with finger-in-the-air guesswork as to when somebody who is already seriously ill is expected to die. Whenever that is, with a myriad of potential reasons, the blame is knee-jerked onto outdoor air, though when taking London into account it's cleaner than at any time in the past 400 years (Lomborg). It could be cleaner, so look at diesel buses as below.
Indoor air, and seriously ill people tend to be indoors, is up to 100x (average 10x) more polluted than outdoor urban air.
At least as much NOx is emitted by trees, lawns and shrubs as by transport and industry combined (see research paper cited yesterday) yet transport is being blamed for all of it.
If there was any serious intent to reduce exposure to airborne pollutants then as already indicated our wise politicians would be looking first at indoor air, then banning diesel buses and making access for clean petrol-engined cars easier. Smart cities like Oxford banned cars from the city centre then headed straight to the top of the polluted air league tables, smart politicians have that kind of effect. Definitely grown-up in terms of age, probably not more selfish than average. arguably not stupid, just culpably uninformed.
It may well be that greenery emits as much NOx as transport and industry, but...
1. We can’t pass legislation to tell a tree to cut its emissions.
2. Without greenery pumping out the oxygen we all need to survive, we all die, so we can’t get rid of the greenery.
3. If we want to cut NOx emissions, then the only place we can cut them is in industry & transportation.
dcb said:
TheDrBrian said:
Annnnd thats bks. 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.
You've focussed in on one factor to model a complex system.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.
In reality, it's a lot more complex than that. Yes drag goes up with speed, but it's
only one factor in many. As many other posters have claimed, what speed the gearbox
is in for a start, what revs the engine is doing for a second etc.
How do you explain to me getting about 30 mpg cruising at English motorway speeds
of 80 mph max and about 65 mph average, but getting about 28 mpg cruising at German
motorway speeds of 120 mph max and about 95 mph average ?
A couple of mpg loss, compared to a substantial reduction in time taken to travel
anywhere seems like a good bargain to me.
Back on topic, modern cars are cleaner than they have ever been. Air quality
is better than it has been for centuries. That London hasn't been "The Smoke"
since the clean air acts of the 1950s.
Changing speed limits to improve the air quality is just yet another stick to beat up the
already beaten up motorist, in my view.
Given the average motorway journey in the UK is approx 11 miles, the difference between 50mph and 70mph is 3m 46s.
And of course this doesn't account for the fact that you're significantly less likely to be able to average 70mph than 50 because of congestion.
dcb said:
How do you explain to me getting about 30 mpg cruising at English motorway speeds
of 80 mph max and about 65 mph average, but getting about 28 mpg cruising at German
motorway speeds of 120 mph max and about 95 mph average ?
Tail winds, terrain, road conditions, air conditioning usage, vehicle load, vehicle maintenance, tyre pressure...of 80 mph max and about 65 mph average, but getting about 28 mpg cruising at German
motorway speeds of 120 mph max and about 95 mph average ?
Kermit power said:
I really don’t understand why you included the bit in bold, as it devalues the whole of the rest of your perfectly sensible position in my view.
It may well be that greenery emits as much NOx as transport and industry, but...
1. We can’t pass legislation to tell a tree to cut its emissions.
2. Without greenery pumping out the oxygen we all need to survive, we all die, so we can’t get rid of the greenery.
3. If we want to cut NOx emissions, then the only place we can cut them is in industry & transportation.
i thought it was a good point to highlight the utter virtue signalling stupidity on display in regard to this proposition, imo of course.It may well be that greenery emits as much NOx as transport and industry, but...
1. We can’t pass legislation to tell a tree to cut its emissions.
2. Without greenery pumping out the oxygen we all need to survive, we all die, so we can’t get rid of the greenery.
3. If we want to cut NOx emissions, then the only place we can cut them is in industry & transportation.
In 2015 road transport accounted for 34% of our manmade NO2 emissions.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccoun...
I cannot find the latest data but in 2000 43% of the road transport NO2 came from buses, coaches and lorries.
Imposing speed limits on something that at most contributes 20% of our manmade No2 is going to solve everything?
How about a diesel scrapage scheme for the most polluting cars?
Further low emission zones, as in London
Schemes to improve traffic flow.
We wont get any of that just more lower speed limits and average speed cameras to make motoring as miserable as possible.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccoun...
I cannot find the latest data but in 2000 43% of the road transport NO2 came from buses, coaches and lorries.
Imposing speed limits on something that at most contributes 20% of our manmade No2 is going to solve everything?
How about a diesel scrapage scheme for the most polluting cars?
Further low emission zones, as in London
Schemes to improve traffic flow.
We wont get any of that just more lower speed limits and average speed cameras to make motoring as miserable as possible.
powerstroke said:
The real answer is deal with the huge and some would say unsustainable rise in the Human population...
Given that over the last 30 odd years the UK has hugely increased it's population without any meaningful increase in the provision of roads which, for much of the time, and by all parties, was seen variously as a cash cow or poisoned, anti-environmental poison chalice, that's not something we can retrospectively change. Moving forward, we need more and better roads.The economy can only generate profits and taxes, and increase the oft mentioned, but little understood 'productivity' if people, goods and services are not stuck in traffic. Since outside of the world of the London-centric simpleton, we all realise and acknowledge the vital importance of roads herein, something has to be done.
The numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_motorwa...
bloomen said:
a 20 mph drop in speed presumably results in 1000 rpm less ish. That's 1000 less explosions per minute which I would assume results in less filth being spewed out the back.
Sadly it'll vary from car to car depending on gearing. If they need to downshift, it might well rise.Digga said:
powerstroke said:
The real answer is deal with the huge and some would say unsustainable rise in the Human population...
Given that over the last 30 odd years the UK has hugely increased it's population without any meaningful increase in the provision of roads which, for much of the time, and by all parties, was seen variously as a cash cow or poisoned, anti-environmental poison chalice, that's not something we can retrospectively change. Moving forward, we need more and better roads.The economy can only generate profits and taxes, and increase the oft mentioned, but little understood 'productivity' if people, goods and services are not stuck in traffic. Since outside of the world of the London-centric simpleton, we all realise and acknowledge the vital importance of roads herein, something has to be done.
The numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_motorwa...
TheDrBrian said:
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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff