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.
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!
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).
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!!
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
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.
Traffic Flow Dynamics: Data, Models and Simulation (Kesting, Arne)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.
Last edited by jinnantonnixx; 7th January 2014 at 09:29 AM.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)