32 miles of 60mph M1

[anonymous-user]

Is this now the norm?

From approx. Sutton in Ashfield to north of Sheffield. 4 lanes, 3pm, clear as a bell, mostly dry, low traffic.

Uninterrupted 60mph controlled by HADECS all the way.

Frustrating, backward and needless.

[Yipper]

Yes, M1 is now sub-70 for about 20-40% of its entire length.

[DaveH23]

Travelling that same distance at 70 would of saved you around 5 minutes of time.

[/Mumsnet]

[mybrainhurts]

Your knitting is over there ----------------------->

[anonymous-user]

Is it always 60?

[2gins]

Is that not the section they wanted to make 60 because of the nitrogen oxides emissions limits?

[littlebasher]

Hadecs cameras are few and far between on that section of road - there's only 6 from Junction 28 to 32 going northbound

60mph is pointless, so i just drive to the conditions and slow for the cameras. It seems to be what most other drivers are doing in that section as well.

[CoolHands]

I like it when it occasionally drops down to 40 for one gantry and you nearly get rear-ended

[tankplanker]

littlebasher said:

Hadecs cameras are few and far between on that section of road - there's only 6 from Junction 28 to 32 going northbound

60mph is pointless, so i just drive to the conditions and slow for the cameras. It seems to be what most other drivers are doing in that section as well.

Its that sort of behavior that will result in the cameras being upgraded (at enormous expense) to average speed cameras as they are closely monitoring the emissions along the busier sections of the motorway. As the UK faces sizable fines for not meeting its pollution targets the Gov has targeted the motorist to bare the brunt of the reduction and this is all part of that plan. Safety, traffic management, income from speed camera fines, etc. are all secondary benefits.

[anonymous-user]

And those people slowing down and then speeding up around the cameras... How is that for pollution compared to a steady 70mph?

It's a steaming stream of pish.

[dcb]

DaveH23 said:

Travelling that same distance at 70 would of saved you around 5 minutes of time.

[/Mumsnet]

Doing it French style of 150 kmh (93mph) would save over 11 minutes.

Doing it German "fast enough really" style of 250 kmh (155 mph) would save over 20 minutes.

Other jurisdictions are available.

[KarlMac]

2gins said:

Is that not the section they wanted to make 60 because of the nitrogen oxides emissions limits?

Put simply, Yes. People that rejected the proposals are very annoyed.

I hope someone puts an FOI in on air quality now they've had their 60mph zone.

Fyi, they go off everyday at 6.

[Integroo]

DaveH23 said:

Travelling that same distance at 70 would of saved you around 5 minutes of time.

[/Mumsnet]

It would also have cost you more in fuel (apparently 60 v 70 would save you 1.52 a day - 360 quid a year, presuming you do the journey twice a work day minus weekends and five weeks for holidays - you would also save considerably more if you compare 60 to 80 or 60 to 90), and average speed cameras keep traffic moving better.

Still hate them though.

Edited by Integroo on Wednesday 6th September 14:04

[dcb]

Integroo said:

It would also have cost you more in fuel (apparently 60 v 70 would save you 1.52 a day - 360 quid a year,

£1.52 a day is a very debatable number - it depends on the car. Some
cars get good fuel economy, some don't.

The cost of the time saved can be considerable, too. Even at a very cheap £10 an hour,
15 minutes delay costs £2.50.

An hour's delay for someone on a not extravagant £20 an hour is easily computable, too.

[768]

DaveH23 said:

Travelling that same distance at 70 would of saved you around 5 minutes of time.

[/Mumsnet]

Multiply up by the number of people travelling these stretches, I wonder how long it is before a lifetime is lost.

[anonymous-user]

Its the bridge jumping suiciders I feel sorry for. Jumping onto a live carriageway, only to find the cars in lane 4 are travelling adequately slowly to brake and avoid you.

Damned inconsiderate.

[Integroo]

dcb said:

Integroo said:

It would also have cost you more in fuel (apparently 60 v 70 would save you 1.52 a day - 360 quid a year,

£1.52 a day is a very debatable number - it depends on the car. Some
cars get good fuel economy, some don't.

The cost of the time saved can be considerable, too. Even at a very cheap £10 an hour,
15 minutes delay costs £2.50.

An hour's delay for someone on a not extravagant £20 an hour is easily computable, too.

That was based on 40mpg. The price would presumably go up if your car was less efficient.

True, but I bet the majority of people with a Monday to Friday commute are salaried, and therefore fifteen minutes delay costs them nothing (monetarily at least).

[TooMany2cvs]

dcb said:

Doing it French style of 150 kmh (93mph) would save over 11 minutes.

Might as well do 90 here - it's as legal as 150kph is in France. Their limit's 130, or 110 if it's raining.

There's some Italian autostrada which has a 150 limit, but one of the requirements for the limit to be raised from the usual 130 is average speed cameras...

[G6]

I hate the M1, calling it a motorway is like calling the corner shop a supermarket

[dcb]

TooMany2cvs said:

Might as well do 90 here - it's as legal as 150kph is in France. Their limit's 130, or 110 if it's raining.

Enforcement levels are different. Brits are obsessed by speed limits
and have cameras all over the place. They will ticket for 81 mph in a 70 mph.
Speeding is seen as a source of revenue.

The French have a different attitude. They will ticket serious speeding sure, but cameras
are relatively rare and coppers won't bother to get their books out until 160 kph in a 130 kph limit.

In practice, progress is much more civilised under the French model. They concentrate
on what matters, like tailgating, and leave minor matters until they get excessive.

Most French traffic seems to amble along about 150 kmh. Sure that's technically
illegal, but they can't ticket most of the population.