|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25619914
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 6 Jan 14 at 12:46
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25619914
moved, as someone beat you to it by a couple of mins
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 6 Jan 14 at 12:46
|
|
No doubt backed up with lots of cash generating cameras.
|
|
If that is what it takes, at minimal cost, so be it!
|
|
The pollution was probably caused by years of roadworks adding the extra lane, gantries and the new concrete central barrier. All now wasted because they are reducing the flow back to how it was before!
|
"All now wasted because they are reducing the flow back to how it was before!"
If a new lane has been added, then the throughput has been increased by some considerable margin.
|
The consultation document, which is linked from the article too, is here:
goo.gl/9guHS8
This is being linked to the managed motorway scheme (hard shoulder running and variable speed limits) which, it is said, would cause air quality limits to be exceeded. The offset is the speed limit reduction.
Enforcement will be by cameras, they don't say whether average or spot speed.
I do wonder if simple enforcement of the 70 limit would achieve what is needed at least in terms of traffic flow. That is a very congested section and typically you have the faster traffic racing at 85+ to the back of a queue, repeatedly.
There is no chance of the consultation changing the intention. I imagine the idiotic BRAKE will be asking for 50.
Difficult to argue with really. But I wonder what unintended consequences will emerge. I can see there being a lot more LGV/car conflict with many drivers keeping to '60' actually getting under the feet of the the knights of the road, effectively joining the elephant races, if average speeds cameras are used across the full stretch.
|
>>I do wonder if simple enforcement of the 70 limit would achieve what is needed at least in
>> terms of traffic flow.
Absolutely the right approach. However, I fear that simply dropping the speed limit to 60 will result in a similar average speed reduction for much less effort.
|
|
I don't drive at that stretch, but looking at the readers' comments, it seems 60 MPH is quite ambitious there at peak hours.
|
What a PITA. All roads outside urban areas should be unlimited. Urban limit should be 30 in very congested central areas, 40 elsewhere and 50 in suburban areas.
Most drivers are cautious, safe and sensible. There should be many more traffic police in unmarked cars and dangerous driving when provable should result in long ban, lifetime in very extreme cases. The driving test should become serious and should be focused on driving ability in all conditions, not just the ability to mimse reasonably smoothly in a highly formal manner round a few easy back streets.
Pity we can't afford it and no government would risk the resulting revenue losses.
|
>> no government would risk the resulting revenue losses.
Au contraire, raising speed limits will increase fuel use and thus revenues.
>> Most drivers are cautious, safe and sensible
True, but I'm not interested in most drivers: I want to avoid giving carte blanche to morons to be even bigger morons, only to remove them from the driving pool when they have mangled enough people.
>> The driving test should become serious
It should be repeated every few years, and perhaps annually if your previous scores have been starting to slip.
This is definitely a vote loser, however, and will never see light-of-day.
|
|
Amen, Lygo. You have my vote.
|
I was thinking of the revenue losses that would result in the long term from fewer people passing the driving test and dangerous drivers being banned, resulting eventually in fewer cars sold, less fuel used and so on.
The more comprehensive traffic policing would be very expensive Lygonos. But it would ideally result in most of your moron drivers being extracted surgically (as it were) before they maimed anyone. It isn't rocket science really. Ask Fullchat... and the Old Bill can scold and advise people in advance, before they need to bust them off the road.
Pollyannaish of me I know. Too expensive, and we drivers are on the defensive anyway, an unpopular species like druggers, boozers and smokers.
|
On the contrary, I would expect to see huge revenue increases from fines if there were lots of traffic police.
When I sat "huge" I mean 10 times or more.
Just think of all the drivers you see with mobiles clasped to their ears.
..I can see a local traffic Officer collecting 100 + miscreants a day..
|
|
If you ban lots of drivers you would get more people driving without licences and insurance.
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Mon 6 Jan 14 at 16:38
|
|
Pull anyone on sus, no licence or insurance lifetime ban and car confiscated. Easy peasy, just be legal.
|
>> Pull anyone on sus, no licence or insurance lifetime ban and car confiscated. Easy peasy,
>> just be legal.
>>
Easy peasy to clone a car, it comes up clean on ANPR.
|
>>Pull anyone on sus, no licence or insurance lifetime ban and car confiscated. Easy peasy, just be legal
Half of them would be banned already.
But I almost like the draconian deterrence principle. Less need to spend on detection for the same compliance. You can't afford too many miscarriages of justice though.
I was about to recall an old Brian Redhead interview with a prominent Muslim many years ago, when I remembered I had rambled about it before -
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=2472&m=48538
|
>> On the contrary, I would expect to see huge revenue increases from fines if there
>> were lots of traffic police.
>>
>> When I sat "huge" I mean 10 times or more.
>>
>> Just think of all the drivers you see with mobiles clasped to their ears.
>>
>> ..I can see a local traffic Officer collecting 100 + miscreants a day..
Except that the miscreants wouldn't do it if there was a good chance of being caught, and a meaningful penalty.
Deterrence is unprofitable. You won't even get any indirect payback for that, since there is no evidence I can see that mobile phone use has increased accidents.
|
Tsk.
The point really is that the privately-owned automobile is a main driving force of world monopoly capitalism. On it are based the colossal pyramids of oil and gas, steel, the vehicle industry and maintenance aftermarket, road construction and so on. And for national governments big bonanzas in the myriad forms and levels of taxation.
But nothing is ever quite stable and it is in the interests of many not to rock the boat too violently. Tremors alarm people and markets, not so?
|
This makes no sense on many levels:
1. Vehicles pollute at all times, so why is the speed limit, in the name of reducing pollution, only operative part time.
2. Proportionately, most pollution comes from HGVs, which are unaffected by this proposal.
3. Most pollution is caused by slow-moving congested traffic. This proposal will have no affect on that.
4. At 70 mph, my engine is doing 1900 rpm. At 60 mph it is doing 1700 rpm. Such a tiny difference in emissions as to be worthless.
|
|
The pollution was caused by the years of roadworks on this stretch.
|
>> At 70 mph, my engine is doing 1900 rpm. At 60 mph it is doing 1700 rpm.
>>
Shome mishtake?
50mph/1,000rpm?
|
50 x 1.9 = 95, not 70mph.
However, a car uses about 10% more fuel to travel the same distance at 70mph compared to 60mph so emissions will be about 10% lower per vehicle per mile.
Still looks like a load of crapola to me in the grand scheme of pollution.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 6 Jan 14 at 20:57
|
So because of tighter EU emission controls we have to cut the speed limit to 60mph..
So in Germany where a lot of the Autobahns are still limitless they don't have pollution issues?
I drove to Munich in the summer, and the roads were either manic with cars flying past or so congested this wasn't possible...
|
>> But it would ideally result
>> in most of your moron drivers being extracted surgically (as it were) before they maimed
>> anyone. It isn't rocket science really.
Nice in theory but won't work, they will drive illegally as many do now.
|
>>
>> >> The driving test should become serious
>>
>> It should be repeated every few years, and perhaps annually if your previous scores have
>> been starting to slip.
>>
If applied rigorously, that would end up getting more cars off the road than even the Green Party could manage. Remember you need 50% of drivers to hold a full license if the other 50% are to be on permanent L-plates. ;-)
Last edited by: Harleyman on Tue 7 Jan 14 at 23:37
|
>> >
>> It should be repeated every few years, and perhaps annually if your previous scores have
>> been starting to slip.
>>
>> This is definitely a vote loser, however, and will never see light-of-day.
>>
I've posted replies to this suggestion many times before and I can't be bothered to do so again, but I'll just make three points -
1/ It would be logistically impossible.
2? It would make naff all difference to road safety.
3/ Believe me, however nice it is in theory I can assure you YOU WOULD NOT LIKE IT. The results would not be what you expect.
|
>> Most drivers are cautious, safe and sensible.
???
Where do you drive?
|
Just eliminate/exterminate the Audi drivers and problemo solved. :-)
|
|
How about allowing people within the and including the M25 being allowed to drive on alternate days :)
|
>> How about allowing people within the and including the M25 being allowed to drive on
>> alternate days :)
>>
However the number plates are divided into two groups, most people have access to more than one car so it would not make any difference. I believe Athens has (or had) an odd / even number plate system so everyone made sure they had an odd and even numbered car.
|
>> I believe Athens has (or had) an odd / even number plate system so everyone made sure they had an odd and even numbered car.
Not just Athens, other places too. And you're quite right, those with the money have two cars with appropriate numbers, or lots of cars and some sort of piece of paper that trumps everything... been there, done that.
Hard on the poor that sort of thing. But then life is.
|
>> How about allowing people within the and including the M25 being allowed to drive on
>> alternate days :)
You can only get onto the M25 on alternate days. Join the slip road on Monday, and you might get a slot by tuesday
|
Article in the times(?) yesterday linked the increased pollution to the way the HA are managing traffic at the Meadowhall Junction.
|
The limit on freeways here in Victoria is generally 100kmh (62mph), occasionally rising to 110kmh when away from urban areas. It is rigidly enforced (leeway is 3kmh or 1.8mph) and consequently generally adhered to.
The result is that I regularly get up to 50mpg out of my twincharger DSG Golf on a run, I can certainly see the economy/emissions benefit of these lower speed limits, doesn't seem to increase journey times significantly either but it can be very, very boring and three lanes of nose-to-tail bored drivers travelling at exactly the same speed feels unsafe.
|
Part of M1 to be 60 limit ? - henry k
