# Polluting Motorway Speed limit may be cut to 60mph



## albion (6 Jan 2014)

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25619914

On the face of it this sounds like it will have to be enforced and overall looks positive news.
It will cut deaths, lower pollution, for some reason decreasing traffic congestion, and cut fuel usage.

Seems the RAC was right and the, far too irresponsible AA ,wrong 
I owe the RAC an apology in my 20mph thread. I mixed te RAC up with the AA.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (6 Jan 2014)

I predict an apoplectic Pickles And good thinking from the Highways Agency. Let's see whether it disappears in a puff of particulates...


----------



## jazzkat (6 Jan 2014)

Average speed cameras on motorways would sort it straight away. You've only got to see how the traffic flows without people tailgating and causing the brake light wave-effect-thingy. 
Everyone travelling along nicely at a steady speed was probably what the motorway designers were thinking all those years ago.


----------



## albion (6 Jan 2014)

The changes to 80mph would have been massive, increasing diesel emission by up to 25% and petrol 15%. for he +10mph change.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/30/speed-limit-rise-deaths-pollution


It sounds good to me. Its those crazy lorry domino overtaking that often causes disasters. If only they could all manage 60mph uphill !


----------



## DRHysted (6 Jan 2014)

I'm presuming that they are getting the mpg figures from the manufacturers, as mine returns it's best at 3000rpm in 5th, which is not 60mph. This is from results gained from my own personal vehicle, others may get different results.


----------



## DCLane (6 Jan 2014)

That section of the M1 is one of only two where you can get your speed at atm, the other being J21 - J23A in Leicestershire.

The rest is just slow!


----------



## youngoldbloke (7 Jan 2014)

When this stretch is really busy you are lucky to reach 60 and aren't trucks (the biggest contributors to pollution) limited to 60 anyway? How would this work?


----------



## mcshroom (7 Jan 2014)

DCLane said:


> That section of the M1 is one of only two where you can get your speed at atm, the other being J21 - J23A in Leicestershire.
> 
> The rest is just slow!



As someone who grew up in Rotherham I wouldn't agree. Thorp Hesley (J35) south to Tinsley tends (J34) to back up (northwards between J34-J35 can get very busy but tends to keep moving), The Parkway (J33) often has queues in both directions spilling back onto the Motorway and the M18 Junction (J32) also frequently has queues in both directions. It tends to thin out a bit south of that, mainly because it goes from being a motorway through the urban conurbation of South Yorkshire (for most of the stretch I've covered it is the defacto boundary between Sheffield and Rotherham) out into a less populated area.

I would prefer proper active management like what has been instaled o the M62, M25 and M42, with variable speed limits, but for large chunks of the day even reaching 60mph is unlikely.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (7 Jan 2014)

jazzkat said:


> Average speed cameras on motorways would sort it straight away. You've only got to see how the traffic flows without people tailgating and causing the brake light wave-effect-thingy.
> Everyone travelling along nicely at a steady speed was probably what the motorway designers were thinking all those years ago.



I'm a regular on this section of the M1. Average speed cameras have been there for quite a while already. They're just not switched on.

*Deleted next paragraphy bit as I didn't read write*


----------



## albion (7 Jan 2014)

I spoke to soon. The RAC are now appealing to the male ego.
Who would have known that the whole question was also a male versus female thing.
Males being 'speed and destroy' and females 'protect and preserve'?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/10555266/60mph-motorway-limit-threatens-economy-says-RAC.html
Supposedly the Tories abandoned 80mph because it might have alienated women.

With claims that this eases congestion by preventing dimino effect of lane changing/breaking, are not the RAC are being disingenuous in describing this as a threat to the economy?


----------



## GrasB (7 Jan 2014)

jazzkat said:


> Average speed cameras on motorways would sort it straight away. You've only got to see how the traffic flows without people tailgating and causing the brake light wave-effect-thingy.


In my experience average speed cameras & very high density traffic promotes tail gating & cutting up causing overly aggressive braking. I've found that 30-50mph back road driving is actually more fuel efficient than the A14 in my Alfa due to regularly dropping off the bottom of 5th gear on the A14.

They work okay at lower traffic densities but you can get awful bunching & very dramatic speed changes if you get a perpetual lorry race going on the in nearside lanes.


----------



## Linford (7 Jan 2014)

Why would this Motorway issue be debated in campaigns and public policy in the cycling section ?


----------



## theclaud (7 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> Why would this Motorway issue be debated in campaigns and public policy in the cycling section ?



It's about transport policy. Some us us cherish notions of joined-upness. What's the problem?


----------



## Linford (7 Jan 2014)

theclaud said:


> It's about transport policy. Some us us cherish notions of joined-upness. What's the problem?



I cannot ever see a day when cycles will be allowed on the motorways. I do not see any relevance in this subject on a cycling policy debating board.


----------



## User482 (7 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> I cannot ever see a day when cycles will be allowed on the motorways. I do not see any relevance in this subject on a cycling policy debating board.



Look on the bright side: if it were in Current Affairs and Debates, we wouldn't have the great benefit of your wisdom.


----------



## oldfatfool (7 Jan 2014)

Its cobblers, just an excuse to bang up more speed cameras, Save lives my ass. As for the green argument as anyone ever tested every car to see which vehicles do actually pump out greater levels of co2/km at 70 rather than 60? I have yet to own a car that is more economical to run at 30mph than on a motorway run at 70.


----------



## jonesy (7 Jan 2014)

oldfatfool said:


> Its cobblers, just an excuse to bang up more speed cameras, Save lives my ass. As for the green argument as anyone ever tested every car to see which vehicles do actually pump out greater levels of co2/km at 70 rather than 60? *I have yet to own a car that is more economical to run at 30mph *than on a motorway run at 70.


And this tells us what exactly about 60mph on a motorway?


----------



## byegad (7 Jan 2014)

jazzkat said:


> Average speed cameras on motorways would sort it straight away. You've only got to see how the traffic flows without people tailgating and causing the brake light wave-effect-thingy.
> Everyone travelling along nicely at a steady speed was probably what the motorway designers were thinking all those years ago.



You are right until we get Mr Awkward Swine who will insist on driving at 53mph in the overtaking lane for mile after mile. There's plenty of them, along with the clown who used to drive North on the A1(M) in County Durham every Tuesday at 6pm at 40 mph in his 1960s Austin Cambridge Shooting Brake. They are out to cause chaos and no amount of legislation will stop them.


----------



## Linford (7 Jan 2014)

User482 said:


> Look on the bright side: if it were in Current Affairs and Debates, we wouldn't have the great benefit of your wisdom.



If I didn't post on this thread, you'd have no reason to post outside there either...yet again you come to troll....why not play the ball, and not the player for a change...or is that beyond you nowadays...


----------



## User482 (7 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> If I didn't post on this thread, you'd have no reason to post outside there either...yet again you come to troll....why not play the ball, and not the player for a change...or is that beyond you nowadays...



I've noticed that the quality of debates and your level of participation in them are inversely proportional. That being the case, I shall provide you with no further encouragement.


----------



## Linford (7 Jan 2014)

User482 said:


> I've noticed that the quality of debates and your level of participation in them are inversely proportional. That being the case, I shall provide you with no further encouragement.



I've noticed the quality of the debates ceases when continually you drag it away from the subject matter to make a personal attack...If I singled you out on a random thread to troll you in the way which you have just done, I'd rightly be excluded from it.
Now is there any chance you can go and do one, because you clearly want to add nothing more to the debate than your bile and venom...


----------



## oldfatfool (7 Jan 2014)

jonesy said:


> And this tells us what exactly about 60mph on a motorway?


That slower is not necessarily more efficient.


----------



## jonesy (7 Jan 2014)

oldfatfool said:


> That slower is not necessarily more efficient.


And who do you think is suggesting something as simplistic as that? Do you really think the HA is so stupid that it would propose a 60mph limit without any evidence on the relationship between speed and emissions? Did it not occur to you to do a very simple Google search...? And there is the minor matter that CO2 is not the same thing as local air pollution...


----------



## theclaud (7 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> Oh dear, now I don't know which way to vote - according to your experience, or according to GrasB's.



Try not to worry your pretty little head about it.


----------



## theclaud (7 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> Fankoo (as they say in Tea? I believe).



  

Or however it goes...


----------



## theclaud (7 Jan 2014)

2859123 said:


> Oi


----------



## Davidc (7 Jan 2014)

I'd be delighted if we had a 50mph national speed limit. I'm in a minority and know it won't happen any time soon.

My experience of fuel consumption is rather different from off's. My fuel consumption improves as speed goes down. Been the same for every car I've ever used. Air resistance is the key, as it is on a bike. Perhaps he drives in a vacuum. Perhaps he has the only car with a Cd of 0.


----------



## Linford (8 Jan 2014)

User said:


> The bright side for whom?
> 
> Personally, I can't wait until they have average speed cameras on every motorway and A road.



Plenty of corners around this way on NSLs or even 50mph roads which pose significant danger to the average driver in the average vehcile if they attempted to take it at the posted limit.
Given that the motorways are statistically the safest roads in the land, I think this idea is a bit of nonsense.


----------



## Linford (8 Jan 2014)

Davidc said:


> I'd be delighted if we had a 50mph national speed limit. I'm in a minority and know it won't happen any time soon.
> 
> My experience of fuel consumption is rather different from off's. My fuel consumption improves as speed goes down. Been the same for every car I've ever used. Air resistance is the key, as it is on a bike. Perhaps he drives in a vacuum. Perhaps he has the only car with a Cd of 0.




Fuel consumption is significantly better at 50mph than at 35mph in my car due to the speed which the auto box overdrive locks the torque converter.


----------



## Sara_H (8 Jan 2014)

We have rellies in Notingham so travel the M1 between sheffield and nottingham frequently. A few years back there were major works on one section, with a 50mph speed limit enforced by avaraging cameras.

I noticed that the avaraging cameras were very effective at enforcing the speed limit, I felt safer in slower moving traffic and that there was a massive benefit in fuel economy with negligible effect on journey time.


----------



## Linford (8 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> According to the bods who did my last speed awareness course - speed cameras are only put on accident black spots, i.e. there has to be a statistical link for the jusitifcation.
> 
> Whether this is the same for motorways or even true or not, i dont know.
> 
> [J21 Leicester is always relatively heavy]



They have a history for siting camera's within a certain area...that may not be on the same road, or even in the same speed limit.
Plenty of cameras I can think of which have been specifically sited to hide them from drivers until they are on top ofthem.
If they are purely looking to slow drivers down for a safety aspect and not raise money from them, then they should give plenty of warning to the position ofthe camera.


----------



## mcshroom (8 Jan 2014)

If they are looking for compliance with the speed limit then they should hide cameras and not warn people about where they are, IMHO. This is how it is done in Australia IIRC. There would be a sudden rash of speeding fines, lots of public outrage about this new front in the 'war on motorists', but within a few months drivers would obey speed limits far more widely. 

The current system with bright yellow boxes and excessive warning before hand allows people to know where they won't get caught speeding, and just like other laws such as mobile phone use (or cyclist RLJs), it's the fear of being caught that makes people comply, far more than the punishment. This was proven in Oxfordshire when they announced that all the speed cameras had been turned off, and average road speeds in the area went up as people knew they wouldn't be caught.

As an aside, it's funny how catching law breaking motorists is considered a 'money raising exercise'. There's a very simple way to never give the government any money through speed cameras.


----------



## Linford (8 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> I'm sorry, I don't believe any of that, I think its urban myth.
> 
> I know for sure there will be legislation about the signage (warnings) for them.




Speed camera in Metz way in Glouceter 
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Me...d=qh42tugZ9TFRh-Flnt4_wA&cbp=12,177.62,,0,5.4


Approach to same speed camera in Metz way from the direction you would get caught by it 


https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Me...GBw2qGXDJxIyAXZRBP_Ljg&cbp=12,313.18,,0,-1.63

now you see it......


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (8 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> If they are purely looking to slow drivers down for a safety aspect and not raise money from them, then they should give plenty of warning to the position ofthe camera.


Why on earth don't they simply post up a speed limit on clear signs so that drivers will know that they may be liable to a fine if they ignore it?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> Plenty of corners around this way on NSLs or even 50mph roads which pose significant danger to the average driver in the average vehcile if they attempted to take it at the posted limit.
> Given that the motorways are statistically the safest roads in the land, I think this idea is a bit of nonsense.


 
Only an idiot would drive constantly at a posted speed limit without regard for changes in direction or other hazards.

GC


----------



## Linford (8 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> Yes trees do have a habit of growing don't they.
> 
> Heres the warning sign further back..... https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Me...GBw2qGXDJxIyAXZRBP_Ljg&cbp=12,313.18,,0,-1.63




They post those all over the city...these signs have little relevance to the camera positions.

They have planed the trees there to deliberately obstruct the vision


----------



## Linford (8 Jan 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Only an idiot would drive constantly at a posted speed limit without regard for changes in direction or other hazards.
> 
> GC




The one I have in mind is where a local club cyclist was killed on his roadie in a 50mph limit when a car pulled out on him. He was clocking near the speed limit, and neither slowed for the bends, the side turnings which the car pulled out of, or for the fact that he was doing it at 10:30pm without lights


----------



## Linford (8 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> I think that you will find, in law, they do.
> 
> Trees are part of the police-fund-ball conspiracy theory?! C'mon.



Do you know how close to the cam they need to be ?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> The one I have in mind is where a local club cyclist was killed on his roadie in a 50mph limit when a car pulled out on him. He was clocking near the speed limit, and neither slowed for the bends, the side turnings which the car pulled out of, or for the fact that he was doing it at 10:30pm without lights


 
In a post criticising a call for widespread average speed cameras, you referred to the danger to an "average driver in the average vehcile [sic]" if he kept to a posted limit.
What's this story of a cyclist got to do with anything?
GC


----------



## byegad (8 Jan 2014)

User482 said:


> I've noticed that the quality of debates and your level of participation in them are inversely proportional. That being the case, I shall provide you with no further encouragement.


If that's aimed at me User482. I'd like to know how I've offended you. 


Edit. Unless it was you trundling up the A1(M) in an Austin Cambridge.


----------



## Linford (8 Jan 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> In a post criticising a call for widespread average speed cameras, you referred to the danger to an "average driver in the average vehcile [sic]" if he kept to a posted limit.
> What's this story of a cyclist got to do with anything?
> GC



Speed limits should be an advisory, and over and above the advice...drive or ride at a speed which you can stop withint the distance you see to be safe.

What has motorway speed limits got to do with cycling anyway ?


----------



## Linford (8 Jan 2014)

byegad said:


> If that's aimed at me User482. I'd like to know how I've offended you.
> 
> 
> Edit. Unless it was you trundling up the A1(M) in an Austin Cambridge.




It wasn't for your benefit, it wasfor mine...I made User482 feel like a bit of a tit a few years ago, and he is a poor loser. That is why he pops up on random threads occasionally to troll mine...bitter and twisted bile and venom is his trademark.


----------



## albion (8 Jan 2014)

Davidc said:


> I'd be delighted if we had a 50mph national speed limit. I'm in a minority and know it won't happen any time soon....


Spain was hellishly rational in announcing a speed reduction Pollution cut, balance of payments cut, road maintenance costs cut etc etc'.
. 
Then they backtracked and announced 'sod it, we will go bankrupt anyway'.
And funnily enough, its is maybe the lowest cost way of combating climate change.


----------



## albion (8 Jan 2014)

mcshroom said:


> If they are looking for compliance with the speed limit then they should hide cameras and not warn people about where they are, IMHO. This is how it is done in Australia IIRC. ...................
> As an aside, it's funny how catching law breaking motorists is considered a 'money raising exercise'. There's a very simple way to never give the government any money through speed cameras.



Yeh, funny how us British 'like our freedom' unlike those introvert Aussies !


----------



## User482 (8 Jan 2014)

byegad said:


> If that's aimed at me User482. I'd like to know how I've offended you.
> 
> 
> Edit. Unless it was you trundling up the A1(M) in an Austin Cambridge.



It was in reply to linford...


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> What has motorway speed limits got to do with cycling anyway ?


 
You're the one who introduced a cycling fatality anecdote where the effect of average speed cameras on drivers was being discussed. How does that story support your notion that User's idea is nonsense?

GC


----------



## Linford (8 Jan 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> You're the one who introduced a cycling fatality anecdote where the effect of average speed cameras on drivers was being discussed. How does that story support your notion that User's idea is nonsense?
> 
> GC



If you are going to quote me, then I'll thank you to do so in context Your use of selective cut and paste has removed the reason why I posted the story of the cyclist 

Whilst not written into any specific byway, travelling at a speed which one can stop within the distance they see to be safe over rides pretty much all the written speed limits...irrespective of whatever you are riding or driving.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Jan 2014)

Linford said:


> If you are going to quote me, then I'll thank you to do so in context Your use of selective cut and paste has removed the reason why I posted the story of the cyclist


 
Would you agree or disagree with the following summary of our discussion so far? :


Reg said he can't wait until they have average speed cameras on every motorway and A road.
You reply that _"there are roads which pose significant danger to the average driver in the average vehcile[sic] if they attempted to take it at the posted limit"._ You add that Reg's idea is a bit of a nonsense.
I point out the idiocy of driving constantly at the posted limit in your given scenario.
You respond with the story of a dead ninja cyclist.
I question the relevance of your anecdote.
You answer with an opinion that limits ought to be advisory and ask what motorway speed limits have to do with cycling.
I point out that it was you who introduced the cycling fatality into a discussion about ASCs and ask you how it supports your claim that Reg's call for widespread use of them is nonsense.
You say I've quoted you out of context.
 
Does that capture the essence of it?

GC


----------



## byegad (8 Jan 2014)

User482 said:


> It was in reply to linford...



NOW! It all makes sense. Linford!  4


----------



## Linford (8 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2860724, member: 45"]If anyone gets flashed by that camera and claims they didn't know it was there, they need to be taken off the road. Only a fool wouldn't know.

Linfy, you think the camera site is hidden. You couldn't have a bigger, elongated indication that there's a safety camera there, but you've missed it.[/quote]

There are plenty of places where these lines are painted on the road, but no camera, so no I disagree


----------



## jonesy (8 Jan 2014)

byegad said:


> NOW! *It all makes sense. Linford*!  4



Words seldom seen together...


----------



## srw (8 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2860724, member: 45"]
Linfy, you think the camera site is hidden. You couldn't have a bigger, elongated indication that there's a safety camera there, but you've missed it.[/quote]
To be fair, it's not desperately elongated. More repetitive and parallel.


----------



## ankaradan (9 Jan 2014)

This started out as a reasonably relevant thread about the effects of speed limits on air pollution, since I, as a cyclist, am interested in air quality, but seems to have degenerated into a pantomime type argument fueled by a jar of marmite.

However, does anyone know the reason why this particular section of motorway has been selected, rather than a blanket reduction?

Here, there are very few motorways, even though the travel distances are far greater than the UK. Almost all intercity journeys take place on dual carriageways, where the speed limit is 90 km/hr. This doesn't seem to have harmed Turkey's economy.


----------



## srw (9 Jan 2014)

It's one of the very few bits of long-distance motorway that goes straight through the middle of an urban area - so the air quality argument is directly relevant to local residents.


----------



## SquareDaff (9 Jan 2014)

ankaradan said:


> This started out as a reasonably relevant thread about the effects of speed limits on air pollution, since I, as a cyclist, am interested in air quality, but seems to have degenerated into a pantomime type argument fueled by a jar of marmite.
> 
> However, does anyone know the reason why this particular section of motorway has been selected, rather than a blanket reduction?
> 
> Here, there are very few motorways, even though the travel distances are far greater than the UK. Almost all intercity journeys take place on dual carriageways, where the speed limit is 90 km/hr. This doesn't seem to have harmed Turkey's economy.


Economically I'd guess because it fits between the "variable speed section" around Nottinghams part of the M1 and the one on the Leeds/Wakefield part that will be starting construction soon. My guess is they'll just keep the construction crew "in place" and carry on down locking the max speed at 60. The enforcement cameras will be in place then too. Geographically I don't know. Might have something to do with predominant wind direction or the fact that the motorway is higher above sea level than Sheffield centre.

Once it's all complete it will be interesting to see where it goes from there. From Leeds to Nottingham is around 70 miles so you'll have restricted the speed to 60 for 35% of the M1. Not much of an arguement for it all to be converted then!


----------



## albion (9 Jan 2014)

Apparently the chamber of Commerce is not convinced by the trial and drivers say they will pollute more.

I'd be more convinced by them if an actual trial had taken place.


----------



## jonesy (9 Jan 2014)

Are drivers, and chambers of commerce, experts in vehicle emissions?


----------



## SquareDaff (9 Jan 2014)

Lets be blunt - those sections of the motorway are always gridlocked during rush hour anyway. You could set the speed limit at 20mph and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.


----------



## jonesy (9 Jan 2014)

Is air pollution only emitted during the rush hour?


----------



## SquareDaff (9 Jan 2014)

No but a high proportion of traffic is on it at that time. The clue is in the term.


----------



## SquareDaff (9 Jan 2014)

Btw: to clarify - I don't disagree with you that in theory setting a speed limit close to an engines percieved max efficient speed would potentially reduce emissions. I do wonder what effect it would have in reality though. Pollution would, no doubt, be reduced but to what extent? I don't know. Will be interesting to see the results if they're ever published.

And also to clarify again, the original comment was lighthearted.


----------



## Dan B (9 Jan 2014)

I'm quite sure it's not beyond the talents of car manufacturers to design their vehicles such that they return maximum efficiency at lower speeds than they do currently, and that if they did so, the efficiency would be higher, because (as posted above) air resistance

This doesn't fix anything for already existing vehicles, of course, but why perpetuate the problem?


----------



## Linford (9 Jan 2014)

ankaradan said:


> This started out as a reasonably relevant thread about the effects of speed limits on air pollution, since I, as a cyclist, am interested in air quality, but seems to have degenerated into a pantomime type argument fueled by a jar of marmite.
> 
> However, does anyone know the reason why this particular section of motorway has been selected, rather than a blanket reduction?
> 
> Here, there are very few motorways, even though the travel distances are far greater than the UK. Almost all intercity journeys take place on dual carriageways, where the speed limit is 90 km/hr. This doesn't seem to have harmed Turkey's economy.



Funny you say that as I am also a cyclist. Get a bus or HGV belching soot as they drive past when on my cycle, and I'm gasping for breath. I don't get that feeling with passing cars or motorbikes.
However, how you can see relevance in what you experience in the town in terms of air pollution, and how dropping the speed limits from 70 to 60 on a road you are not legally allowed to ride on is beyond me....even more so because this limit will not make a scrap of difference to the speeds which these large vehicles travel at as they are already speed limited.
The difference it will make (and I've seen this a few times in the states) is where these articulated lorries and buses actually start overtaking all the other vehicles, and they will then create a road train of lorries which spend a lot more time crawling past the other vehicles in the middle lane...in a smaller vehicle, it is a very disconcerting feeling having them overtaking or level pegging all the time...when you see the huge wheels on 3 axles on the back of a lorry spinning quickly a couple of feet from your head and you are not legally allowed to accelerate away from them for fear of getting caught, it isn't ideal.

How about worrying about the things which actually directly concerns the lot of a cyclist on the road. It would/could be far more productive ?


----------



## totallyfixed (9 Jan 2014)

Unfortunately society today has spawned so many overweight couch potatoes that the only trickle of adrenaline released into their bloodstream is when they drive a car too fast. As TMN says, this amply aided and abetted by Top Gear and their ilk. Speed cameras are a joke, I believe they cause more problems than they are worth because of the constant "surging" that occurs as peeps slow down for them then immediately speed up again.
I recently [New Years Day] drove about 60 miles on the motorway in shocking conditions and saw 2 very serious accidents yet still the majority of drivers were way over the national speed limit.
Average cameras do work to an extent but I would advocate hiding all cameras and definitely lowering the top speed of cars. No problem with a 60 mph limit, quite apart from any other beneficial advantage it would also save energy in the form of oil which we currently guzzle as though it is limitless.


----------



## slowmotion (9 Jan 2014)

There was an interesting study of exhaust emissions in 20 mph and 30 mph speed restriction zones. Surprisingly, petrol cars produced more NOx and carbon dioxide at 20mph than at 30mph.

Here's the report...
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/busi...striction-air-quality-report-2013-for-web.pdf
The summary of emissions table is on page six.


----------



## SquareDaff (10 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> An interesting study Slowmo, thanks. The conclusions (quoted below) show that it's not as simple as it sounds though. By evening-out vehicle speed, lower limits can have a positive effect, although the effects are complicated by factors like traffic calming, junctions, and pedestrian crossings, but "air quality is unlikely to be made worse" by 20mph limits. So, mixed results; more work needed.


What's said above
.
Also of interest here would be the terrain of the proposed stretch of 60mph. There are a lot of hills, therefore lots of sections of tailbacks caused by slow moving, climbing lorries and then the inevitable increases of speeds on the downhill sections by impatient motorists (and also the inevitable concertina effects caused by accelerating too aggressively and then having to brake - which then cascades back down the line of traffic). A 60mph limit would probably go some way to reducing the effect of this. In this vein I'd also be interested in seeing the effects of adding a "crawler lane" for the uphill sections. Obviously having the 2 conditions in tandem would be the best case scenario - but would the introduction of a crawler lane and the retention of the 70mph limit generate the same benefits as a reduction to a 60mph limit and no crawler lane. I don't know, but I'd be interested to see the results of any trials.


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> The 'problem' of lorries overtaking other lorries is a 'non-problem', I mean how much does it really hold you up? For those of us who use sat-navs you will see for yourselves that you will be lucky if it adds a whole minute to your ETA, even on a substantial journey, eg the run from Manchester to Cambridge (A14). Anyone who thinks its a problem, clearly does have a problem and perhaps does not have the patience to be safe on our roads in the first place?




I am not fussed about them 'holding me up' . My reference to the States was that when they all travel at the same speed as you (in very close proximity), you have either a choice to slow down and stay behind them, or travel at a few mph more and stay ahead of them.
In the states last timeI was there, I was cruising at 75mph on the Interstate, and had 40 tonne HGV's overtaking at 80+mph on the inside, the outside, on any other lane you choose to be in, they come along side you. Bring all the traffic to 60mph, and it becomes a horrible place to be when driving a normal sized car...or motorbike

If they do introduce these lower limits, they should deregulate the motorway stretches to Dual carriageway status so the speeds of the large commercials is forced to drop to 50mph max to maintain the difference.


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> Theres a simpler solution for that....
> 
> MTFU



I'll remind you of that if I ever hear you bleating about drivers of cars intimidating you when you are on your cycle mister....


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2863560, member: 45"]Policy shouldn't be based on perceived and irrational fear, but evidence-based assessment. 

Budge up a bit Smeggers and pass us your lighter....[/quote]

I'm sure you will also feel that way next time someone decides to make a punishment pass because you held them up for 10 seconds....you'll let us know how it feels won't you....but hey, it will be OK as long as they don't actually knock you off !


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> After you've been cycling a while you get used to it, it stops bothering you so much...
> 
> Bear with it Linfy. You will get braver. Trust me.



My colleague got rear ended a few months ago....he now has a new found respect/fear for overtaking vehicles...he has been cycle commuting 25 miles every day for the last 6 years. He had a bit of a cavalier attitude before then though quoting all the stats I see here about how safe it is on a cycle....real life experiences trump any survey you might want to spew forth....you get out on your bike enough and you will eventually get caught by something or another.


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2863615, member: 45"]Rear-ended by an overtaking vehicle?[/quote]

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/colleague-just-rear-ended-on-his-e-bike.141845/


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2863640, member: 45"]Yes I remember. He wasn't overtaking.[/quote]

Either not giving enough room or just not seeing a cyclist...the result would have been the same...you sound like you are championing bad driving standards whichever way I look at it.....


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> Why not have the crawler lane and the 60 mph limit?



Or force the HGVs and buses to stay below 50mph...where they wil be a lot less polluting than when bouncing off their limiters


----------



## SquareDaff (10 Jan 2014)

User13710 said:


> Why not have the crawler lane and the 60 mph limit?


I did put that would be the best scenario (IMO) - the scientist in me would be interested to see if "smoothing out" traffic flow would have as much effect as lowering the max speed limit by 10mph. I don't know and as far as I know (and I'm willing to be corrected) no previous studies have been made.


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2863865, member: 45"]No. You're claiming that reduced speed limits on motorways are bad because of a perceived fear which might be felt by some when a large vehicle is in a lane alongside. To evidence this fear you give an example of a cyclist being rear-ended in a lane.

If you're frightened when a truck is alongside you on the motorway then this doesn't mean that the truck is driving badly, it just means that you're allowing a perceived but not real fear to affect you.

Ya dar make nar sense.[/quote]

There is a saying.. 'If others around you are losing their head, whilst you remain calm, perhaps you haven't grasped the seriousness of the situation' ...i would suggest that you might not see the dangers clearly through those rose tinted specs.

These large vehicles are a risk to all other vehcile users..be that cyclists, motorcyclists, and car drivers. On the motorway, they insist on tailgating each other 5 or 10 ft apart....this is even worse when they overtake other slower moving HGV's

My 4x4 cruises best on the motorway at about 55. This means that I mix a lot with them, and appreciate well the issues when level pegging with these large vehicles. In the bad weather, they throw up huge amounts of road spray which for other hgvs isn't really a problem due to the cab height. However If you cannot get away from them and are in a small car, you really do feel you are at their mercy, struggle to edge away from them, and when this road spray is all over you, can severely limit your visibility.
To bundle all vehciles on the motorways at the same speed it a bad idea.


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2863933, member: 45"]You need to explain what the dangers are and substantiate your fears. At the moment that's all they are.

Bicycles aren't allowed to use motorways.

You're off on a tangent now. Your argument against a 60mph limit is that lorries alongside are scarey. Tailgating trucks have nothing to do with it.



Codswallop. I've driven tiny cars for thousands of miles on motorways. Trucks would be easy to get away from if you wanted to, but there's no need, because there's minimal risk from them. I take it then that you've never used the M25?

Please stop. You're arguing against something by making stuff up. Stuff that isn't even real.[/quote]

You are missing the point...if the speed limits are lowered, and the disparity is removed, then there will be a lot more conflict between large vehicles and small ones.
Additionally, the reason why there is a disparity between weight classes of vehicles is to allow for the greater braking distances required by the bigger ones...you've never towed anything with any weight in it on the motorway ?


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> You really are a nervous road user.
> 
> No wonder you need that 4x4.



There is another saying...there are old bikers, and there are bold bikers, but you rarely see 'old, bold'bikers.

I'd like to think that my years of experience on very high performance machines have taught me when the level of risk dictates discretion.


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2863968, member: 45"]I'm not missing anything. Hence the M25 comment, where there's a pretty permanent sub-60 limit in some sections. And drivers aren't at increased risk. Some might be a bit frightened but that's perceived risk and there are alternative routes available for the less competent.

And yup, I've significant experience of towing on motorways.[/quote]


Really ? what were you towing ?


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2863978, member: 45"]Yes, really.[/quote]

I was asking you to put a bit of meat on to the bones of your claim. What were you towing all these miles, and with what ?


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> It appears to have distorted your sense of risk perception.



You mean I should be more cautious, or less ?


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

[QUOTE 2864026, member: 45"]A big thing, with a smaller thing. I don't need to prove to you that I have considerable towing experience.[/quote]

So I can ignore this as bluff and bluster....right...writes Miter Pauls experience moving heavy loads at speed as insignificant!


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


>




How about I come up to Oulton Park in the summer on my bike, you rent out another bike, and we can put that theory to the test ?


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> I dont doubt your prowess with your penis extensions Linfy, I do however question its relevance?



Perception of risk...I thought that was in question, and I'm happy to see how much of a 'pussy' we both are on closed roads.

You can of course wimp out at any time if you've not got the bottle to put it to the test ....


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> Perception of risk in a car mixing it with lorries having been "slowed" to a 60mph mandatory speed limit.... that was your fear wasnt it?
> 
> View attachment 35990



You stated my perception of risk is somehow overblown by my familiarity of using a very high performance vehicle...which kind of states that I'll be too afriad to spin theengine over, let alone take it out of the garage.

The only risk averse person on this thread is MisterP


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> It doesn't "kind of state" that at all... You have a very vivid imagination.



Saying that, going to Oulton and spending a bit of time there is only something you would undertake once you have proven that you are competent...neither you not MrP are able to make that claim....not that I'm saying that either of you are incompetent for the record


----------



## albion (10 Jan 2014)

They could easily cure the tailgating traffic jam creating truck problem.

First set their maximum at 56mph, 2nd restrict any heavy load incapable of maintaining 56mph and all wide loads to driving at night time ( 7pm till 6am). 
That would make for a big pollution reduction too.


----------



## Linford (10 Jan 2014)

User3094 said:


> Yes challenging someone without a bike license to a motorbike race around a race track is a very brave thing to do, well done, be proud of yourself.



I can do cars as well 

Stay away from Motorbikes...they are far too 'scary' and 'risky'


----------



## Spinney (10 Jan 2014)

@Smeggers II and @Linford - time to stop!


----------



## Bad Company (9 Jul 2014)

Decision made, reduced limit is not going to happen - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28210416 .

Right decision IMO.


----------



## theclaud (9 Jul 2014)

Badders! There you are - popping up to defend the indefensible every now and again. How nice.


----------



## theclaud (9 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3171146, member: 45"]Maybe if you were part of this community rather than occasionally popping in and searching for petrol head threads, *then people might engage with you...*.[/QUOTE]

I did anyway. On account of being such a big softie.


----------



## albion (9 Jul 2014)

Bad Company said:


> Decision made, reduced limit is not going to happen - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28210416 .
> ....


"the Highways Agency 18 months to devise alternative methods to tackle pollution"

Translates to, 'an election is coming so a few dozen extra deaths are less important than losing votes'. Patrick McLoughlin certainly won't be blamed if Cameron loses.

I find governance strange. Can't the choking local population now sue?


----------



## subaqua (9 Jul 2014)

GrasB said:


> In my experience average speed cameras & very high density traffic promotes tail gating & cutting up causing overly aggressive braking. I've found that 30-50mph back road driving is actually more fuel efficient than the A14 in my Alfa due to regularly dropping off the bottom of 5th gear on the A14.
> 
> They work okay at lower traffic densities but you can get awful bunching & very dramatic speed changes if you get a perpetual lorry race going on the in nearside lanes.



the A14 from cambridge to huntingdon is far far better to drive on since the average cameras got turned on in 2007/2008 . no longer start stop from the redlight ripple caused by idiots at 60 dabbing brakes when they went past the truvelos


----------



## GrasB (9 Jul 2014)

subaqua said:


> the A14 from cambridge to huntingdon is far far better to drive on since the average cameras got turned on in 2007/2008 . no longer start stop from the redlight ripple caused by idiots at 60 dabbing brakes when they went past the truvelos


Strange because on the A14 I was unable to use the CC on the Alfa due to constantly changing speed between 35 & 70mph. This is what long term users of the A14 at work say as well.


----------



## Bad Company (10 Jul 2014)

theclaud said:


> Badders! There you are - popping up to defend the indefensible every now and again. How nice.



Why indefensible? 

We were getting an 80 limit, then a 60 limit, now no change at all.


----------



## theclaud (10 Jul 2014)

Bad Company said:


> Why indefensible?
> 
> We were getting an 80 limit, then a 60 limit, now no change at all.


It's political cowardice. The case for lowering the limit is unanswerable. You can tell this from the way they are scrabbling around looking at desperate "alternative" measures. Why do we need an alternative to a simple and workable solution?


----------



## subaqua (10 Jul 2014)

GrasB said:


> Strange because on the A14 I was unable to use the CC on the Alfa due to constantly changing speed between 35 & 70mph. This is what long term users of the A14 at work say as well.


 when the truvelo were in it was start stop all the way from the crem to spittals interchange, not had experience going A14 towards ipswich from cambridge.I hated using the A14 for that reason. i now think it is a good road again.
the same used to happen on the A13 from beckton to dagenham until the average speed system went in and now although still heavy trafic the speed is around 20-30 and not start stop.


----------



## Bad Company (10 Jul 2014)

subaqua said:


> the A14 from cambridge to huntingdon is far far better to drive on since the average cameras got turned on in 2007/2008 . no longer start stop from the redlight ripple caused by idiots at 60 dabbing brakes when they went past the truvelos



I use that road often. I doubt many other regular would agree with you.


----------



## Bad Company (10 Jul 2014)

theclaud said:


> It's political cowardice. The case for lowering the limit is unanswerable. You can tell this from the way they are scrabbling around looking at desperate "alternative" measures. Why do we need an alternative to a simple and workable solution?



The nox increase for cars in moving between a steady speed of 70mph and 60mph is almost immeasurably small at the tailpipe.

Lorries produce much more but they are not traveling at 70mph.


----------



## youngoldbloke (10 Jul 2014)

There has been a 50 average speed limit on much of this stretch for a long time, J28-31 at the moment, renewing the central barrier, and forecast to continue for a long time yet. Has/is any research on omissions/noise on that stretch been done during this work?


----------



## Wobblers (10 Jul 2014)

Bad Company said:


> The nox increase for cars in moving between a steady speed of 70mph and 60mph is almost immeasurably small at the tailpipe.



Care to supply a citation for that?

And pollution is rather more than just nitrogen oxides. In fact, there's a large and growing body of evidence implicating fine particulates as a major, perhaps the major, problem.


----------



## subaqua (11 Jul 2014)

User said:


> I use it regularly. I agree with @subaqua


 thats too good a quote to not consider using as a tag line !


----------



## albion (11 Jul 2014)

Apparently 2010 was the pollution safety target but now it won't happen till 2030.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/10/uk-cities-breach-eu-pollution-limits-2030

It is in London, Birmingham, and Leeds where you all get to suffer the most.


----------



## Bad Company (11 Jul 2014)

McWobble said:


> Care to supply a citation for that?
> 
> And pollution is rather more than just nitrogen oxides. In fact, there's a large and growing body of evidence implicating fine particulates as a major, perhaps the major, problem.


 

Bit of a Google came up with - http://www.diaryofanadi.co.uk/?p=14616


McWobble said:


> Care to supply a citation for that?
> 
> And pollution is rather more than just nitrogen oxides. In fact, there's a large and growing body of evidence implicating fine particulates as a major, perhaps the major, problem.


 
_The minimal increase in roadload does not significantly increase Pmax, (the engine speed is higher (because you're generally already in top gear at 60) you can make the higher power requirement from the same torque (and hence the same Pmax/BMEP). At such speeds, the exhaust after treatment system will be fully working, and the actual tailpipe Nox emissions are incredibly tiny. For a typical passenger car, 85% of tailpipe emissions occur at cold start (when the after treatment system is not yet operational._

Admitedly I 'nicked' most of that partly from another forum and partly from speaking with my son who is a vehicle design engineer at a motor manufacturer. There is more which I will try to post up later.

Also the proposal does not account for somebody driving say a Tesla which can apparently reach 130 mph with no emmissions.


----------



## subaqua (11 Jul 2014)

Bad Company said:


> Bit of a Google came up with - http://www.diaryofanadi.co.uk/?p=14616
> 
> 
> _The minimal increase in roadload does not significantly increase Pmax, (the engine speed is higher (because you're generally already in top gear at 60) you can make the higher power requirement from the same torque (and hence the same Pmax/BMEP). At such speeds, the exhaust after treatment system will be fully working, and the actual tailpipe Nox emissions are incredibly tiny. For a typical passenger car, 85% of tailpipe emissions occur at cold start (when the after treatment system is not yet operational._
> ...




would be fairer to say without emissions at the point of use. there are still emissions from the method of generation, but these don't kill you if certain groups are to be beleived


----------



## Bad Company (11 Jul 2014)

User said:


> So, no citation then - just a reference to some petrolhead's blog...
> 
> Not exactly credible, dontchathink?


 
I did say that I 'nicked' that bit so sorry, no cigar.

In the meantime I make no apology for 'nicking' the next bit from another petrolhead forum:-

However, *if you take that spreadsheet and believe the numbers*, take a look at HGV's in terms of Nox/km. Now tell me where, if you wanted to improve local air quality, where you should be focusing your attention!


(for example, if we take an average of EU2-EU6 passenger cars g/km Nox at 70mph and 60mph respectively:

Gasoline: 59mg / 56mg
Derv: 629mg / 493mg

Current uk passenger car fleet is 70% gasoline & 30% diesel so lets amalgamate those figures to:

230mg/187mg at 70 & 60mph respectivel, and so a speed limit reduction "saves" 43mg per car, per km driven

And yet, a single Eu3 (2005 onwards) HGV puts out *5233mg/km* at a steady 56mpg!


So, removing a single truck is equivalent to ~122 cars slowing down by 10mph.
For a single pre-euro emissions standard truck then that is 262 cars equivalent!)



It's a bit like banning people from a shopping center because one person is smoking a cigarette, rather than asking the smoker to stop!


----------



## Bad Company (11 Jul 2014)

User3094 said:


> I have few rules in life, but one of them is never, ever, trust anyone who calls diesel, "Derv".....


 
*D*iesel *E*ngine *R*oad *V*ehicle .


----------



## Dan B (11 Jul 2014)

Bad Company said:


> So, removing a single truck is equivalent to ~122 cars slowing down by 10mph.


Does it take fewer or more than 122 cars to transport everything that would otherwise be moved by that truck?


----------



## theclaud (11 Jul 2014)

User3094 said:


> I have few rules in life, but one of them is never, ever, trust anyone who calls diesel, "Derv".....


I believe @User will confirm that the other important one is not to alight at stations called "Parkway".


----------



## subaqua (11 Jul 2014)

[QUOTE 3174569, member: 45"]Studies (and your needle) suggest that fuel economy drops significantly between 50 and 70mph.

That's all you need to know.[/QUOTE]
yup, I am happy at cruising at 60mph in lane 1 , overtaking where neccesary , for max fuel economy. below that it went a bit wrong. YMMV in your car.


----------



## Wobblers (12 Jul 2014)

Bad Company said:


> Bit of a Google came up with - http://www.diaryofanadi.co.uk/?p=14616
> 
> 
> _The minimal increase in roadload does not significantly increase Pmax, (the engine speed is higher (because you're generally already in top gear at 60) you can make the higher power requirement from the same torque (and hence the same Pmax/BMEP). At such speeds, the exhaust after treatment system will be fully working, and the actual tailpipe Nox emissions are incredibly tiny. For a typical passenger car, 85% of tailpipe emissions occur at cold start (when the after treatment system is not yet operational._
> ...



In other words, no.

Three way catalytic convertors work best when fuel is burned at the stoichiometric ratio [1] which happens to be the point of maximum power delivery (which probably goes some way to explaining the motor manufacturers enthusiastic adoption of them) which will see most, but not all of the nitrogen oxides removed. As long as the catalyst is up to working temperature. Or not been poisoned. Or degraded. Or coked up. Or is simply old (active surface area decreases with time as the platinum particles sinter). But they do nothing for the major pollutant - which is the fine particulates.

The amount of energy needed to move a specific distance increase with the square of the speed (because air resistance increases with the square of the speed). This means reducing speeds from 70 to 60 mph will result in one quarter reduction of emissions. Yes, this is a very crude analysis and does not take into account the various parasite loads (things like lights, pumps, all those wonderful electronic gizmos motorists just have to have) which do nothing to move the vehicle, but we're still well above the most efficient cruise speed that cars are designed for, so a substantial reduction in all pollutants can be expected.

[1] I had to spend many boring hours learning this guff, so I don't see why I should spare you!

ETA: HGVs make up a small fraction of total traffic, so it would of very limited benefit to focus on them to the exclusion of all else. Further, speed reductions will also act to reduce their emissions too.


----------



## albion (12 Jul 2014)

Ken tells it like it is though that cheap touch of blue paint might have won it for Boris..

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...on-thousands-london-dying-prematurely-drivers

"Two years later, in 2010, the government's medical advisers updated their analysis of London's air quality with the shocking conclusion that 4,300 Londoners died prematurely each year – by an average of 11 and a half years."
"In the Chinese city of Shenzen, 3,000 electric buses are already working on their streets. London does not have one."


----------



## Bad Company (13 Jul 2014)

albion said:


> "In the Chinese city of Shenzen, 3,000 electric buses are already working on their streets. London does not have one."



Where does the electricity come from?


----------



## albion (13 Jul 2014)

Coal, Hydro and then Wind.

Their use of nuclear is becoming more negligible, the risks no doubt being deemed too high.


----------



## Dan B (8 Aug 2014)

Bad Company said:


> Where does the electricity come from?


Bankers on treadmills


----------

