Rigid enforcement of 70mph limit on motorways.

Posted by: Steve Toy on 14 November 2005

The government is proposing the above in another of their leaked secret reports. Having virtually lost the debate from the safety angle they are trying a different pretext - exhaust emissions. Apparently engines become much less efficient beyond the magical figure of 70 that just happens to coincide with the current speed limit. Officials agree that the move could be highly sensitive (and a poll I took part in confirmed that 75% of respondents were opposed to such authoritarian control.)

Given the governments much weaker majority and the bloody nose it received in Parliament on the Terrorism Bill, I very much doubt they will go through with it. The proposals are likely to create a stir in the media before being flatly denied, as we've seen a few times before in recent years.

I'm convinced the proposals would simply be in keeping with the totalitarian bent that exists solely to make people in power feel powerful under suitable pretexts that the public are expected to swallow i.e: safety, the environment or national security.

We've already discussed ad nauseum what the government would need to do if they really wanted to make the roads safer. Now we need to consider measures that would reduce emissions of greenhouse gases without necessarily imposing more restrictions on drivers.

If the government wants to reduce emissions I suggest the following:

1) Removal of all speed humps and chicanes. The process of stopping/starting, slowing down/speeding up, or even maintaining a constant speeed of 15 to 20 mph does not make for an engine running efficiently. The emergency services would be delighted at this and more lives could be saved as a result!

2) Reverse all those speed limit reductions that didn't actually reduce the accident rate. Engines are more efficient at 40mph plus than at 30mph. The 30 mph limit should be reserved exclusively for roads in densely built up areas and not on arterial suburban roads that used to (and were designed to) carry limits of 40, 50 mph or even national speed limit.

3) Stop removing parking spaces from our cities forcing drivers to go round in circles adding to traffic while they look for somewhere to stop.

4) Tax punitively the use and ownership of fanny cages.

5) Address the issue of emissions from factories and fossil-fuelled power stations.

6) Build more nuclear power stations and wind generators, promoting renewable energy sources in general.

Alternatively they can use every pretext available to limit our freedom as they usually do. It is only a question of the gullibility of the electorate.
Posted on: 17 November 2005 by andy c
quote:
If tail-gating was made a very serious offense with huge penalties we could all relax a bit and concentrate on our driving.



Its already an offence. You just don't get enforcement of it cos the number of traffic cops has been reduced to deal with govn't priorities elsewhere. Fact.
Posted on: 17 November 2005 by marvin the paranoid android
Sorry if I miss the point, but I continually fail to understand what the rush is?

Going to work, on a bike, I get passed by the same people in the same 40mph zones everty day. However, I get to work near as dammit the same time. The main deiffernce being stress, I'm feeling bright and breezy, they are annoyed and hacked off! I actually got verbally abused for travelling at 30mph in a village with that speed limit.
The same is true going home after work. At 1700 they race to the car, join the que to leave the site, and desperatly jump each other just to get 1 car length advantage. That's one of the benefits of riding a bike, once I have got my gear on, earplugs and helmet on, walmed it up, the ques have gone and it's a fairly clear ride home, sometimes by the long way round if the weather's nice.

Similar story when travelling north to see the folks or climbing. I set the cruise control on the truck to 60, put something tuneful on the cdp and let the world zoom past. However, I do not need to stop to refuel (Kia Sorrento may be a 4wd but it is ok on diesel) and just as importantly get out the other end feeling relatively fresh, the same for my passengers who have not been subjected to violent changes in speed and direction, and no one bothers us.

From my perspective, it requires a sea change in perspective. Why rush around saving a second or two whilst putting yourself in jeopardy and taking much longer to recover?

Oh, to those who object to 4wd, in north wales sometimes it is necessary, as the bloke in the beemer 2 doors down will testify. The telescopic tow bar comes in usefull. The real reason for buying it is so I can see over hedges!

Cheer up!

Marvin
Posted on: 17 November 2005 by Fisbey
There's too many cars and people drive too fast - end of.
Posted on: 17 November 2005 by Matt F
In the words of the late, great LJK Setright:

"Speed is a matter of how you use your brain. Driving in the end is not about the skills because dependence on skills is terribly immature. It's really about judgement and intelligence and so long as your brain can go faster than your going at any time, you're all right and it isn't fast"

Matt.
Posted on: 17 November 2005 by BigH47
quote:
The real reason for buying it is so I can see over hedges!


Reason 43 in the why I have 4WD tank. I hope it has suitably pedestrian un friendly bull bars fitted? Winker
Mind you if it handles anything like it's people carrier sibling,60 MPH is more than enough.

Howard
Posted on: 17 November 2005 by Steve Toy
I think some points have been missed of late in this thread. The issues are rigid enforcement and the general question of the government's penchant for imposing restrictions on our liberty under the pretexts of safety/environment/national security.

Other than that, I guess if you are happy driving along the motorway at 70 mph or less then I suppose you've got nothing to worry about.

Unless you've forgotten to set the cruise control...
Posted on: 17 November 2005 by Steve G
My local council (Edinburgh) has had to back down because one of their latest "traffic management" schemes (which cost £3M) aimed at reducing pollution and cutting pedestrian involved accidents went horribly wrong.

For years now that council has been focussed on driving people out of their vehicles by a variety of mad congestion causing schemes. Fixing those (and other traffic management mistakes like having a big fuck off roundabout where several trunk roads meet on the city bypass) would have a far, far greater effect on the environment than any clamp-down on motorway speed limits.

Also the 10's of millions wasted on such schemes could instead have been put into more environmentally friendly council and local transport vehicles if they really were concerned about the environment. This is a council which bought dual-fuel vehicles which they only ever run on petrol though, because it was too much hassle to do otherwise.
Posted on: 17 November 2005 by Martin D
CO2 @

15kph
87.64

20kph
79.74

25kph
72.59

30kph
66.18

120kph
78.05
Posted on: 17 November 2005 by John Sheridan
quote:
Originally posted by Martin D:
CO2 @

is that per km, per minute or something else entirely? Also what car, what size engine etc?
Normal quoted figures are g/km and are usually well over 100.
Posted on: 17 November 2005 by Martin D
sorry john:
The figures below show just how your speed affects the amount and type of emissions a medium sized petrol car will emit.
Variation of Emission Factors (in grammes per km) with average speed for a medium sized petrol car registered between 1992 and 1996
Posted on: 17 November 2005 by Martin D
just seen the date on this - bet its lower now with a recent car
Posted on: 17 November 2005 by John Sheridan
I don't get it, even a prius is only claiming 92g/km

"LPG Prius CO2 emissions only 92g per km."
Posted on: 17 November 2005 by Martin D
sorry if i've cocked up here john, i came by this when googling

http://www.eta.co.uk/news/newsview.asp?n=313
Posted on: 17 November 2005 by John Sheridan
I'd love to know how they made up that information. Today's medium size cars are quoting around the 200g/km mark so 90s models must have been higher still.
What needs to be remembered is that you don't maintain a constant speed for very long around town so any figure below 80km/h is pretty meaningless anyway.
Posted on: 18 November 2005 by marvin the paranoid android
Reason 43 in the why I have 4WD tank. I hope it has suitably pedestrian un friendly bull bars fitted?
Mind you if it handles anything like it's people carrier sibling,60 MPH is more than enough.

Howard

This pathetic little diatribe doesn't really require answering.

So I won't


Yes I'm quite happy dithering about sub-70, the extra time saved by going faster is only spent waiting in que's further on, filling the vehicle up and unwinding at the end of the journey.
There is little enjoyment in making any journey by car, I much prefer one of my bikes. Cars are then avoided as much as possible - BMW and 'hot' hatches being the ones who are to be avoided the most. Also, I don't use motorways on a bike, too many vehicles, too many lanes and not enough mass to be noticed. Mind you, the nearest one to me is the otherside of liverpool, so not much cause to use one anyway.

Have fun

Marvin
Posted on: 18 November 2005 by Steve Toy
Marvin,

You can hardly decribe it as diatribe as it wasn't aimed at you personally but possibly the vehicle you drive.

I take it that despite being built like tanks, fanny cages must have feelings.
Posted on: 19 November 2005 by Martin Payne
quote:
Originally posted by marvin the paranoid android:
Apparrantly the M42 now has SPECS cameras from where it leaves the M5 until after the junction with the M6. ... Mind you, legislation forbidding travel at 'under' 30 would probably be swiftly brought in.



Marvin,

it's time you re-read the Highway Code.

30 MPH has been the minimum speed on the motorway for at least 20 years, and I suspect since they were first introduced.

cheers, Martin
Posted on: 20 November 2005 by Nime
quote:
Originally posted by Martin Payne:

30 MPH has been the minimum speed on the motorway for at least 20 years, and I suspect since they were first introduced.

cheers, Martin


Don't rub it in! It's stressful enough sitting at a complete standstill on a motorweay without worrying about being charged for doing it.

The though of a juggernaut bearing down on the back of the queue while the driver is using his mobile phone, eating a sandwich, smoking and reading his paper simultaneously is enough to give one pause... Just as it was when he sped through the busy shopping high street only recently.
Posted on: 20 November 2005 by u5227470736789439
Dear Friends,

Though statistacally, I have been told, though whether it is true I don't know, motorways are supposed to be the safest roads, I find them very stressful. I have devised a way of driving that reduces this to a minimum:

Having got on the M-way, drive at 70 mph till I catch up with a nice big powerful lorry, and then follow it at about quarter of a mile. Let him do the pacing, whether that be 55 or 60+ mph. Don't concern muself with being overtaken as I have left enough room for the overtaker to drop in between me and and the lorry. I make sufficient progress for it still to be faster and more fuel efficient than most A Roads. If the M-way is empty carry on at 70. I have a Volvo 240 that regularly gets just over 40 mpg driven in this style. If I could afford it I would like a Peugeot 206, 1.4 diesel, which I guess would get about 60 mpg in the same style of driving, but I am all too aware that the Volvo is no longer depreciating, being 16 years old. You will understand from this that no speed camera has ever caught me, which is not smugness on my part, but an outright terror of driving too fast of itself, rather than an especial desire to keep to the law, though naturally that as well!

Fredrik
Posted on: 20 November 2005 by marvin the paranoid android
Below is an extract from the current highway code, as found by a simple google.
As far as I cab see there is no reference to a minimum speed limit either recommended as part of the code or a regulation in the Road Traffic Act.
Of course, iy you konw better.



34: When you can see well ahead and the road conditions are good, you should

drive at a steady cruising speed which you and your vehicle can handle safely and is within the speed limit (see table)
keep a safe distance from the vehicle in front and increase the gap on wet or icy roads, or in fog (see Rules 105 & 210).
235: You MUST NOT exceed 70 mph, or the maximum speed limit permitted for your vehicle (see table). If a lower speed limit is in force, either permanently or temporarily, at roadworks for example, you MUST NOT exceed the lower limit. On some motorways, mandatory motorway signals (which display the speed within a red ring) are used to vary the maximum speed limit to improve traffic flow. You MUST NOT exceed this speed limit.
Law RTRA sects 17, 86, 89 & sch 6

As regards the puerile attempt at the choice of vehicle made by an individual.
It depends what it is for.
My wife owns the car. She is a health care provider and we live in rural north wales where she needs access along single reack roads that are untreated and also up farm tracks. At the moment it is -5 outside and the ice that formed in some tracks last weekend is still there.
Some people should realise that they do not know the reasons behind people's purchase of the vehicle they own. Sometimes it is driven (sic) by fashion, others by necessity. My wife prefers to sit high in the vehicle to see way ahead, also over hedges to see what is coming around the next blind narrow bend. She also likes the low transfer box to control a slippery descent.

Personaly, a vehicle should have no more wheels than 2! I have always made it into work, regardless of the weather, even when land rover discovery drivers have not because of snow.

So long and thanks for all the fish
Posted on: 20 November 2005 by Nime
quote:
Originally posted by marvin the paranoid

So long and thanks for all the fish


Is this goodbye marvin? So soon? Roll Eyes

Beth sydd yn bod? Ble rwyt ti yn mynd? Mae'n oer noswaith!