+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 77
General Chat Thread, Gov proposes 60mph motorway speed limit in General; Originally Posted by localzuk Or, you know, they're doing it for the reason they say - to reduce pollution. Reducing ...
  1. #31


    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    6,573
    Thank Post
    228
    Thanked 851 Times in 730 Posts
    Rep Power
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post

    Or, you know, they're doing it for the reason they say - to reduce pollution. Reducing speed by 10km/h would reduce emissions by up to 12-18% according to an EU study a while back (if people follow the speed limit!).

    So, it could be well worth it to the communities near the stretch of road.



    How would this cause any issue? None of you can go above 60, so it won't be *causing* congestion.
    for a lot of that stretch there is naff all for mile around bar wind turbines and meadowhall

    Quote Originally Posted by MatthewL View Post
    Joys I look forward to it, I stopped using the M62 and between J32-35 started going that way because it was quicker due to the managed motorway bits. Rest of it I use when going down south, maybe time to start using the A1.
    i find now its done the m62 is much better between 29 and 33 at busy times though why its 60 then 50 then 40 from 29 to 30 at 8pm i have no idea

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    409
    Thank Post
    72
    Thanked 75 Times in 58 Posts
    Rep Power
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    One of the stated aims is to reduce pollution. Any car travelling on a road will be subject to the physics of drag, which increases with square of the speed (irrespective of any other factor), which means that a car travelling at 120km/h will experience 45% more drag. In modern cars that seems to translate to around 20% more fuel.

    (Also in any accident, the kinetic energy varies as the square of the speed so with that little ~20km/h you carry 45% more energy into any accident).
    ...hey, let's take this further, to an extreme even?

    Make all vehicles travel at 4mph - that'll sort out the emissions and crash energies straight away. Oh, and we can reduce unemployment to zero by giving jobs to all those red flag carriers

    If only,

    mb

  3. #33

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,608
    Thank Post
    514
    Thanked 2,441 Times in 1,889 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by Martin View Post
    ...hey, let's take this further, to an extreme even?

    Make all vehicles travel at 4mph - that'll sort out the emissions and crash energies straight away. Oh, and we can reduce unemployment to zero by giving jobs to all those red flag carriers

    If only,

    mb
    May I direct you to - Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?

    The government's suggestion is entirely sensible and in line with current research. Whereas your suggestion is just absurd.

  4. #34
    d0pefish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    329
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 109 Times in 35 Posts
    Rep Power
    65
    Just as an update, the local (Derbyshire) radio said today the aims were to cut pollution AND ease congestion. So it will only be a matter of time until "to reduce traffic incidents" is tagged on too. I don't really mind if it's any of the above, but if you're going to announce "we're doing it to cut pollution" then tag others on, it smacks of "ah, pollution excuse isn't going down well, say congestion too.....and if that doesn't work tell them it'll cut down the number of paedophiles on the road....something will win them round"

    Also as someone else pointed out, for the most part of the proposed stretch, there aren't houses in the vicinity. I live closer to the M1 at J25 than most houses are at J28. So again, fair enough using the cut pollution cause, but that cleaner air is going to be mixing with far more polluted air before ever getting close to anyone!

  5. #35
    CAM
    CAM is online now

    CAM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Burgh Heath, Surrey
    Posts
    4,070
    Thank Post
    811
    Thanked 352 Times in 276 Posts
    Blog Entries
    60
    Rep Power
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    You cannot use people who break laws as a reason to change the laws! Otherwise, what's the point of a law? Just because people drive badly, and use the lanes incorrectly doesn't mean the law should be changed to allow it. It means the police need to crack down and prosecute those muppets.



    And the police should have been out in force to deal with those who were speeding.
    If you build a system around everyone following the rules then it will fail. It is a nice fantasy world of everyone doing the limit but then reality swerves into your lane and slams the brakes on hard. If the Police prosecuted everyone for ever doing 71MPH on any stretch of motorway they'd be so bogged down with convictions that they'd get nothing done.

    Enforcement needs to be concentrated on areas where safety is a top concern such as roadworks where a lower 50MPH speed limit means something. Not setting limits so a bird miles away doesn't fall off it's perch dead because it breathed in a few more grams of car fumes (because you know the only way that 60 limit will be enforced is with surveillance).

  6. #36

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,608
    Thank Post
    514
    Thanked 2,441 Times in 1,889 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by CAM View Post
    If you build a system around everyone following the rules then it will fail. It is a nice fantasy world of everyone doing the limit but then reality swerves into your lane and slams the brakes on hard. If the Police prosecuted everyone for ever doing 71MPH on any stretch of motorway they'd be so bogged down with convictions that they'd get nothing done.

    Enforcement needs to be concentrated on areas where safety is a top concern such as roadworks where a lower 50MPH speed limit means something. Not setting limits so a bird miles away doesn't fall off it's perch dead because it breathed in a few more grams of car fumes (because you know the only way that 60 limit will be enforced is with surveillance).
    That's an absurd argument. Why bother having rules and laws if you just don't pay any attention to them?

    I don't think I could disagree with a sentiment any more than I do this one. If the law states 70MPH, then the police should be prosecuting those going above those speeds - simple as that. The whole point of the criminal justice system is to prosecute people, which then discourages others from committing the same crime.

    If the punishment for breaking that law is so weak that people don't really care, then it needs hardening not softening by ignoring it!!

  7. #37
    d0pefish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    329
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 109 Times in 35 Posts
    Rep Power
    65
    As an addition to this, I had to drive this exact stretch of M1 over the holidays to a wedding in Sheffield. SatNav took me on to the M1 then when I got near J28 it said it was calculating a new route and took me somewhere else to avoid the 50mph roadworks in effect there.

    Having a permanent 60mph limit there will mean a lot of SatNavs (if updated) will probably calculate a route up to J28 then take you through more built up areas where traffic could be a bit quieter. So potentially having an adverse effect on pollution and congestion

  8. #38

    sparkeh's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    6,729
    Thank Post
    1,271
    Thanked 1,644 Times in 1,100 Posts
    Blog Entries
    22
    Rep Power
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Dopefish View Post
    As an addition to this, I had to drive this exact stretch of M1 over the holidays to a wedding in Sheffield. SatNav took me on to the M1 then when I got near J28 it said it was calculating a new route and took me somewhere else to avoid the 50mph roadworks in effect there.

    Having a permanent 60mph limit there will mean a lot of SatNavs (if updated) will probably calculate a route up to J28 then take you through more built up areas where traffic could be a bit quieter. So potentially having an adverse effect on pollution and congestion
    I doubt it. Surely your satnav rerouted you as they were roadworks and reported to and recorded by whatever organisation your satnav gets it info from.
    A slower speed limit will just mean your satnav will tell you that the speed limit is 60 rather than 70.

  9. #39
    d0pefish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    329
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 109 Times in 35 Posts
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by sparkeh View Post
    I doubt it. Surely your satnav rerouted you as they were roadworks and reported to and recorded by whatever organisation your satnav gets it info from.
    A slower speed limit will just mean your satnav will tell you that the speed limit is 60 rather than 70.
    that all depends, it routed me to dual carriageways where i could drive at 70. so it could take me away from 60mph motorways to the 70mph dual carriageways close by and i'm travelling quicker.

  10. #40

    jinnantonnixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    In the Calamatorium.
    Posts
    1,949
    Thank Post
    109
    Thanked 481 Times in 330 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    281
    The stretch is 32 miles long. The additional time to cover that distance at 60mph rather than 70mph is an extra four and a half minutes, assuming you are able to achieve a steady 60/70mph respectively.

    In practice, you'll probably find that the travel time will be quicker with a 60mph limit than a 70mph limit, at busy times. To find out why, research the cause of phantom traffic jams.

    Yes, it's counter-intuitive, but some things are.

    As an indirect effect, speed limits reduce the frequency of lane changes. The majority of discretionary lane changes are no longer made since most of them are no longer associated with a significant incentive. Furthermore, the perturbations resulting from the remaining discretionary and the mandatory lane changes are weaker since fewer acceleration/braking actions are necessary to change lanes. This means speed limits help prevent or delay traffic breakdowns by reducing the traffic jam factor (C): Perturbations in the flow itself.
    Traffic Flow Dynamics: Data, Models and Simulation (Kesting, Arne)
    Last edited by jinnantonnixx; 7th January 2014 at 09:29 AM.

  11. #41

    abillybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    2,397
    Thank Post
    209
    Thanked 302 Times in 223 Posts
    Rep Power
    191
    I think they should think about what that newly built Arab city is doing (forgotten the name of the place) where they have free automated electric taxis underground ferrying everyone around to work etc and above at ground level is strictly for pedestrians. I read somewhere there was a talk a few years back of something like this where you'd have HGV, vans etc on a road beneath and all domestic like cars on top therefore stopping as much congestion. Though this idea was scrapped for some reason.

    Just Google these I'm sure you'd find them. What makes me angry is that when I went to buy an electric car you need o pay 80 a month to the car manufacturer to rent the batteries and on top of that you have to charge them up including the extortionate price of the electric cars in the first place and you will find it's cheaper to get yourself a 2 litre petrol car over a 6 year period before you make any money back on the electric one!!

    I know this has no relevance to the M1 speed change all I'm saying is if the government wanted to do something about emissions subsidising the electric car batteries etc would be a much better way they just like the speeding tickets as far as im concerned!
    Last edited by abillybob; 7th January 2014 at 09:54 AM.

  12. #42
    d0pefish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    329
    Thank Post
    0
    Thanked 109 Times in 35 Posts
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by alexbillbridgnorth View Post
    I think they should think about what that newly built Arab city is doing (forgotten the name of the place) where they have free automated electric taxis underground ferrying everyone around to work etc and above at ground level is strictly for pedestrians. I read somewhere there was a talk a few years back of something like this where you'd have HGV, vans etc on a road beneath and all domestic like cars on top therefore stopping as much congestion. Though this idea was scrapped for some reason.

    Just Google these I'm sure you'd find them. What makes me angry is that when I went to buy an electric car you need o pay 80 a month to the car manufacturer to rent the batteries and on top of that you have to charge them up including the extortionate price of the electric cars in the first place and you will find it's cheaper to get yourself a 2 litre petrol car over a 6 year period before you make any money back on the electric one!!

    I know this has no relevance to the M1 speed change all I'm saying is if the government wanted to do something about emissions subsidising the electric car batteries etc would be a much better way they just like the speeding tickets as far as im concerned!
    I believe Milton Keynes are going to be trialling autonomous electric "pods" soon

  13. #43

    GREED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Portsmouth
    Posts
    2,968
    Thank Post
    367
    Thanked 359 Times in 293 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    173
    There are a few ideas floating round such as convoys where lorries drive with long convoys behind of cars controlled wirelessly cutting speed and in theory accidents and congestion.

    Also is Googles automated car, and predicted for the future is people will not own cars but rather just order a car much like a taxi and will take you wherever. Cross between a taxi and a hire car.

  14. #44

    SpuffMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,229
    Thank Post
    54
    Thanked 278 Times in 186 Posts
    Rep Power
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by GREED View Post
    There are a few ideas floating round such as convoys where lorries drive with long convoys behind of cars controlled wirelessly cutting speed and in theory accidents and congestion.
    Sounds almost like some strange thing I saw once called "a train"

  15. #45

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    634
    Thank Post
    271
    Thanked 51 Times in 43 Posts
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by SpuffMonkey View Post
    Sounds almost like some strange thing I saw once called "a train"
    but trains don't go where roads do....

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. EU plans to fit all cars with speed limiters
    By Arthur in forum General Chat
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 4th September 2013, 08:37 PM
  2. Point to point network speed test tools
    By tarquel in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 26th February 2013, 10:49 PM
  3. Limit internet speed with windows xp?
    By dany2010 in forum Windows
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11th January 2013, 11:24 AM
  4. Proposal to increase Motorway speed limit
    By laserblazer in forum General Chat
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 3rd March 2011, 10:25 AM
  5. speed limits and penalties
    By timbo343 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 26th September 2007, 12:56 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •