Polluting Motorway Speed limit may be cut to 60mph

[glasgowcyclist]

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]

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]

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]

It was in reply to linford...

NOW! It all makes sense. Linford! 4

 

[Linford]

[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]

NOW! It all makes sense. Linford! 4

Words seldom seen together...

 

[srw]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[SquareDaff]

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]

Is air pollution only emitted during the rush hour?

 

[SquareDaff]

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