This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to toad:
At least it's open, heading south right now it's shut.
Is congestion between J28 and Sheffield that bad then? I've obviously seen all the new cameras and widened carriageway, but I've never known it to be too bad (except when there's a crash) but then I'm only ever up there at weekends etc.
At least it's open, heading south right now it's shut.
Is congestion between J28 and Sheffield that bad then? I've obviously seen all the new cameras and widened carriageway, but I've never known it to be too bad (except when there's a crash) but then I'm only ever up there at weekends etc.
In reply to toad:
For f*cks sake. We already have the second lowest motorway speed limit in Europe and now this? Ergh!
The bloody speed limits were created in an age where cars where very poor in terms of safety standards. These days the majority of cars are infinitely safer and yet we still have these ridiculous limits that everyone breaks. Often it's people braking suddenly for speed cameras that causes accidents.
For f*cks sake. We already have the second lowest motorway speed limit in Europe and now this? Ergh!
The bloody speed limits were created in an age where cars where very poor in terms of safety standards. These days the majority of cars are infinitely safer and yet we still have these ridiculous limits that everyone breaks. Often it's people braking suddenly for speed cameras that causes accidents.
In reply to toad:
I'm sure it's not long since the Tory party were proposing to increase motorway speed limits, presumably when Jeremy Clarkson was hobnobbing with Cameron in Chipping Norton.
The reduced limits on the M25 do a great job at smoothing traffic flow (or at least they have done any time I've experienced them).
I'm sure it's not long since the Tory party were proposing to increase motorway speed limits, presumably when Jeremy Clarkson was hobnobbing with Cameron in Chipping Norton.
The reduced limits on the M25 do a great job at smoothing traffic flow (or at least they have done any time I've experienced them).
In reply to toad:
A couple of people on here seem to have missed the point that the proposed speed reduction is to meet EU emissions laws.
A couple of people on here seem to have missed the point that the proposed speed reduction is to meet EU emissions laws.
In reply to crayefish:
We also have a fairly small but very densely populated country without long stretches of empty motorway, often only two lanes.
As were the roads; hence they are designed for 70mph. The roads were also a lot quieter then...
But there aren't (many) speed cameras on motorways.
And I don't break the speed limit, so not everybody breaks the speed limit - just everybody who thinks they are above the rules.
> For f*cks sake. We already have the second lowest motorway speed limit in Europe and now this? Ergh!
We also have a fairly small but very densely populated country without long stretches of empty motorway, often only two lanes.
> The bloody speed limits were created in an age where cars where very poor in terms of safety standards.
As were the roads; hence they are designed for 70mph. The roads were also a lot quieter then...
> These days the majority of cars are infinitely safer and yet we still have these ridiculous limits that everyone breaks. Often it's people braking suddenly for speed cameras that causes accidents.
But there aren't (many) speed cameras on motorways.
And I don't break the speed limit, so not everybody breaks the speed limit - just everybody who thinks they are above the rules.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
I occasionally work in hemel and cross the M1 on the way home. In the evenings its almost always a 40mph variable speed limit.
I occasionally work in hemel and cross the M1 on the way home. In the evenings its almost always a 40mph variable speed limit.
In reply to crayefish:
The UK also has the safest roads in Europe.
http://www.abd.org.uk/safest_roads.htm
As mentioned, ironically, lower sustained speeds can make for a quicker journey as it cuts the brake,slow-down,speed-up cycle that so often happens.
> For f*cks sake. We already have the second lowest motorway speed limit in Europe and now this? Ergh!
The UK also has the safest roads in Europe.
http://www.abd.org.uk/safest_roads.htm
As mentioned, ironically, lower sustained speeds can make for a quicker journey as it cuts the brake,slow-down,speed-up cycle that so often happens.
In reply to tony:
The jury's still out on that for me. I did a stint of driving round the northern side of the M25 from the M11 to M40 for about a year. Traffic was always flowing smoothly until the start of the variable limit bit by the M1 and then it would grind to a standstill when they put a 40 limit on the signals. On the couple of mornings the signs were out of action there was far less of a tailback. Other times it seems like it does work at keeping things moving, albeit slowly. I guess as a system there's only so much it can do and can still be overwhelmed by sheer volume of traffic.
I'd have thought the emissions problem would be improved by keeping vehicles moving rather than sitting in traffic jams and lower speeds do allow more moving vehicles per mile of road, but then more vehicles per mile of road will increase the overall emissions on that stretch of road at any given time.
> The reduced limits on the M25 do a great job at smoothing traffic flow (or at least they have done any time I've experienced them).
The jury's still out on that for me. I did a stint of driving round the northern side of the M25 from the M11 to M40 for about a year. Traffic was always flowing smoothly until the start of the variable limit bit by the M1 and then it would grind to a standstill when they put a 40 limit on the signals. On the couple of mornings the signs were out of action there was far less of a tailback. Other times it seems like it does work at keeping things moving, albeit slowly. I guess as a system there's only so much it can do and can still be overwhelmed by sheer volume of traffic.
I'd have thought the emissions problem would be improved by keeping vehicles moving rather than sitting in traffic jams and lower speeds do allow more moving vehicles per mile of road, but then more vehicles per mile of road will increase the overall emissions on that stretch of road at any given time.
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Depends how bad it is in the evenings that end of the M1. I just found the comment in the article about the speed limits remaining the same elsewhere slightly amusing.
> In that case, this will make next to no difference then?
Depends how bad it is in the evenings that end of the M1. I just found the comment in the article about the speed limits remaining the same elsewhere slightly amusing.
In reply to crayefish:
"Often it's people braking suddenly for speed cameras that causes accidents."
Agreed, which is why I can never understand why Managed Motorways uses GATSO type point-speed cameras rather than the more sensible choice of SPECS and averaging the speed between pairs of gantries.
Neil
"Often it's people braking suddenly for speed cameras that causes accidents."
Agreed, which is why I can never understand why Managed Motorways uses GATSO type point-speed cameras rather than the more sensible choice of SPECS and averaging the speed between pairs of gantries.
Neil
In reply to teflonpete:
Part of the problem is that Managed Motorways only seems to be able to go automatically as low as 40mph. While I've seen it set to 20 on the M25 it was only once, and was because of an accident obstructing the road.
I think it needs to be able to go as low as 10 to maintain a consistent crawl in very heavy traffic.
It also needs to use SPECS per my other post so people do try to maintain a consistent speed.
Neil
Part of the problem is that Managed Motorways only seems to be able to go automatically as low as 40mph. While I've seen it set to 20 on the M25 it was only once, and was because of an accident obstructing the road.
I think it needs to be able to go as low as 10 to maintain a consistent crawl in very heavy traffic.
It also needs to use SPECS per my other post so people do try to maintain a consistent speed.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
Yep. And why do they make them obvious? If a speed camera is to work properly (ie. prevent people speeding) then if you hide them, people will soon drive slower along an entire stretch of road (probably after a ticket or two) rather than only when they see a camera.
> "Often it's people braking suddenly for speed cameras that causes accidents."
> Agreed, which is why I can never understand why Managed Motorways uses GATSO type point-speed cameras rather than the more sensible choice of SPECS and averaging the speed between pairs of gantries.
> Neil
Yep. And why do they make them obvious? If a speed camera is to work properly (ie. prevent people speeding) then if you hide them, people will soon drive slower along an entire stretch of road (probably after a ticket or two) rather than only when they see a camera.
In reply to Neil Williams:
I once saw a 20mph limit on a (fairly empty) 4/5 lane section of the M42. Driving at 20mph on a motorway in a middle lane (where the motorway splits) was surprisingly terrifying - and of course everyone else was ignoring it (if you make speed limits too low everyone ignores them). Also from a safety point of view suddenly encountering stationary traffic when you are doing 40mph is quite different to suddenly encountering stationary traffic when you are doing 70-80mph.
I do love average speed cameras though
> Part of the problem is that Managed Motorways only seems to be able to go automatically as low as 40mph. While I've seen it set to 20 on the M25 it was only once, and was because of an accident obstructing the road.
I once saw a 20mph limit on a (fairly empty) 4/5 lane section of the M42. Driving at 20mph on a motorway in a middle lane (where the motorway splits) was surprisingly terrifying - and of course everyone else was ignoring it (if you make speed limits too low everyone ignores them). Also from a safety point of view suddenly encountering stationary traffic when you are doing 40mph is quite different to suddenly encountering stationary traffic when you are doing 70-80mph.
I do love average speed cameras though
In reply to crayefish:
Speed cameras used to be grey and hidden. The argument to have them changed was that they didn't slow people down they just caught the speeders so they were purely revenue makers rather than safety cameras. With them now being obvious people do at least slow down when they see them.
I suppose the answer is hidden speed cameras all along the motorway with signs making people well aware that they are there.
> Yep. And why do they make them obvious? If a speed camera is to work properly (ie. prevent people speeding) then if you hide them, people will soon drive slower along an entire stretch of road (probably after a ticket or two) rather than only when they see a camera.
Speed cameras used to be grey and hidden. The argument to have them changed was that they didn't slow people down they just caught the speeders so they were purely revenue makers rather than safety cameras. With them now being obvious people do at least slow down when they see them.
I suppose the answer is hidden speed cameras all along the motorway with signs making people well aware that they are there.
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
The answer is SPECS average speed cameras painted yellow. Having it this way means people don't speed up/slow down for the cameras, and they do slow people down rather than just cashing in.
They are very effective in roadworks and I remain astonished they weren't chosen for Managed Motorways as well.
Neil
The answer is SPECS average speed cameras painted yellow. Having it this way means people don't speed up/slow down for the cameras, and they do slow people down rather than just cashing in.
They are very effective in roadworks and I remain astonished they weren't chosen for Managed Motorways as well.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
The point of managed motorways is to slow down free flowing traffic before it gets to an obstruction; once it becomes stop - start there's not much they can do to help.
Many car speedos start at 10mph so I'm guessing they're not very accurate at low speeds.
> I think it needs to be able to go as low as 10 to maintain a consistent crawl in very heavy traffic.
The point of managed motorways is to slow down free flowing traffic before it gets to an obstruction; once it becomes stop - start there's not much they can do to help.
Many car speedos start at 10mph so I'm guessing they're not very accurate at low speeds.
In reply to robhorton:
There's a logic that says that the way it could be extended to work is to look for seas of brake lights, and to reduce the limit (right down to 10/20) until you stop seeing seas of brake lights or you hit the minimum.
Neil
There's a logic that says that the way it could be extended to work is to look for seas of brake lights, and to reduce the limit (right down to 10/20) until you stop seeing seas of brake lights or you hit the minimum.
Neil
In reply to crayefish:
..... the quality of drivers has not improved one iota.
Here's the deal. You buy the highway code, you read it, you agree to abide by it. In return we'll allow give you a driving licence.
You don't need to worry about interpreting road conditions, deciding whether your subset of rules can be applied.
Break the agreement and there's a range of penalties you'll be subject to.
If so many people didn't break their contract, we wouldn't need enforcement
> The bloody speed limits were created in an age where cars where very poor in terms of safety standards. These days the majority of cars are infinitely safer and yet .....
..... the quality of drivers has not improved one iota.
Here's the deal. You buy the highway code, you read it, you agree to abide by it. In return we'll allow give you a driving licence.
You don't need to worry about interpreting road conditions, deciding whether your subset of rules can be applied.
Break the agreement and there's a range of penalties you'll be subject to.
If so many people didn't break their contract, we wouldn't need enforcement
In reply to imkevinmc:
Yes one of the problems is that the driving test is not rigorous enough and people can pass just after a few lessons when they turn 17. A system that includes an extended probation or minimum learner duration would be good. So many terrible drivers around.
Frankly I think driving 80 on a motorway (I usually do) is nothing in comparison to those people who tailgate or change lanes without signaling. The French (despite their appalling habits on normal roads) beat us hands down on good motorway driving.
> ..... the quality of drivers has not improved one iota.
> Here's the deal. You buy the highway code, you read it, you agree to abide by it. In return we'll allow give you a driving licence.
> You don't need to worry about interpreting road conditions, deciding whether your subset of rules can be applied.
> Break the agreement and there's a range of penalties you'll be subject to.
> If so many people didn't break their contract, we wouldn't need enforcement
Yes one of the problems is that the driving test is not rigorous enough and people can pass just after a few lessons when they turn 17. A system that includes an extended probation or minimum learner duration would be good. So many terrible drivers around.
Frankly I think driving 80 on a motorway (I usually do) is nothing in comparison to those people who tailgate or change lanes without signaling. The French (despite their appalling habits on normal roads) beat us hands down on good motorway driving.
In reply to crayefish:
And just what is the point in an 80mph speed limit when you are sitting in standing traffic? Since being given a sat nav, I have been pretty amazed at how little difference driving at 80mph instead of 70mph makes to your journey time. On a trip from our house in Stockport to Tavistock in Devon, it boils down to about 30 minutes, which pales into insignificance given stops, traffic and other things that slow you down.
> For f*cks sake. We already have the second lowest motorway speed limit in Europe and now this? Ergh!
And just what is the point in an 80mph speed limit when you are sitting in standing traffic? Since being given a sat nav, I have been pretty amazed at how little difference driving at 80mph instead of 70mph makes to your journey time. On a trip from our house in Stockport to Tavistock in Devon, it boils down to about 30 minutes, which pales into insignificance given stops, traffic and other things that slow you down.
In reply to crayefish:
>The French (despite their appalling habits on normal roads) beat us hands down on good motorway driving.
But your speed is monitored on a French motorway, as you enter and leave the tolls. If you go too fast you get fined! SO I suspect they have less nutters because it costs them money and they get caught every time, Which is not the free for all you all extolling.
>The French (despite their appalling habits on normal roads) beat us hands down on good motorway driving.
But your speed is monitored on a French motorway, as you enter and leave the tolls. If you go too fast you get fined! SO I suspect they have less nutters because it costs them money and they get caught every time, Which is not the free for all you all extolling.
In reply to krikoman:
My comments on French driving were not related to speed at all, but general motorway habits such as keeping the correct distance, indicating and other such things. In this respect I have found the French to be very good! Ironic as on normal roads they are appalling. Where my parents live (in Tarn et Garonne region) they have this incredible habit of tail gating only a meter or two behind you (no kidding!) and never overtaking... until the blindest corner they find on route. Not to mention them putting the pedal to the floor if you ever try to overtake them.
> >The French (despite their appalling habits on normal roads) beat us hands down on good motorway driving.
> But your speed is monitored on a French motorway, as you enter and leave the tolls. If you go too fast you get fined! SO I suspect they have less nutters because it costs them money and they get caught every time, Which is not the free for all you all extolling.
My comments on French driving were not related to speed at all, but general motorway habits such as keeping the correct distance, indicating and other such things. In this respect I have found the French to be very good! Ironic as on normal roads they are appalling. Where my parents live (in Tarn et Garonne region) they have this incredible habit of tail gating only a meter or two behind you (no kidding!) and never overtaking... until the blindest corner they find on route. Not to mention them putting the pedal to the floor if you ever try to overtake them.
In reply to crayefish:
I sometimes feel like I am in the minority of road users and regular motorway users in that I dont see the need to drive at the speed limit all of the time. I am quite happy to stay in the nearside lane at about 60mph. As another poster has mentioned the time saved by travelling at an extra 10mph is not that great and I would far rather get to my destination later but more relaxed than sooner and stressed by driving at speed.
Not to mention the fuel savings I make by not thrashing my car every time I go somewhere.
I sometimes feel like I am in the minority of road users and regular motorway users in that I dont see the need to drive at the speed limit all of the time. I am quite happy to stay in the nearside lane at about 60mph. As another poster has mentioned the time saved by travelling at an extra 10mph is not that great and I would far rather get to my destination later but more relaxed than sooner and stressed by driving at speed.
Not to mention the fuel savings I make by not thrashing my car every time I go somewhere.
In reply to krikoman:
But they do (mostly) have an 80mph (ish) limit.
Personally I would like the limit to be raised to 80mph but for Managed Motorways with the cameras on at all times (SPECS preferably) to be rolled out to the entire network.
Neil
But they do (mostly) have an 80mph (ish) limit.
Personally I would like the limit to be raised to 80mph but for Managed Motorways with the cameras on at all times (SPECS preferably) to be rolled out to the entire network.
Neil
In reply to didntcomelast:
Driving at 70mph isn't "thrashing" a modern car. It is designed to comfortably travel at and well above that speed.
Neil
Driving at 70mph isn't "thrashing" a modern car. It is designed to comfortably travel at and well above that speed.
Neil
In reply to krikoman:
If you're comparing the M25 with the Autoroute Blanche it's a bit apples and oranges.
I think this is an urban myth, I've never had it happen, or heard of it happening to anyone. And you do have plenty of nutters for who 130kph still isn't enough.
Everyone is losing sight of the article in the OP. The aim is to reduce emissions. If your car has it, just look at the difference in fuel consumption between 60mph and 80mph - it is huge. So on that basis, it's surely a good idea.
It's only a 32 mile stretch as well FFS. It takes 8 minutes longer at 60mph than it does at 80mph.
The difference is even less when we're talking about dropping from the actual speed limit.
> >The French (despite their appalling habits on normal roads) beat us hands down on good motorway driving.
If you're comparing the M25 with the Autoroute Blanche it's a bit apples and oranges.
> But your speed is monitored on a French motorway, as you enter and leave the tolls. If you go too fast you get fined!
I think this is an urban myth, I've never had it happen, or heard of it happening to anyone. And you do have plenty of nutters for who 130kph still isn't enough.
Everyone is losing sight of the article in the OP. The aim is to reduce emissions. If your car has it, just look at the difference in fuel consumption between 60mph and 80mph - it is huge. So on that basis, it's surely a good idea.
It's only a 32 mile stretch as well FFS. It takes 8 minutes longer at 60mph than it does at 80mph.
The difference is even less when we're talking about dropping from the actual speed limit.
In reply to yorkshireman:
"Everyone is losing sight of the article in the OP. The aim is to reduce emissions. If your car has it, just look at the difference in fuel consumption between 60mph and 80mph - it is huge. So on that basis, it's surely a good idea."
You'd also reduce emissions by building decent cycle infrastructure in towns/cities and the likes. Completely unnecessary, low-speed, start-stop local journeys are far more harmful than cars running close to their most efficient speed (I think this is actually about 55mph hence the US limit, but 70 isn't much worse).
If that section is going Managed Motorways, why not just enforce the 70 with the cameras?
Neil
"Everyone is losing sight of the article in the OP. The aim is to reduce emissions. If your car has it, just look at the difference in fuel consumption between 60mph and 80mph - it is huge. So on that basis, it's surely a good idea."
You'd also reduce emissions by building decent cycle infrastructure in towns/cities and the likes. Completely unnecessary, low-speed, start-stop local journeys are far more harmful than cars running close to their most efficient speed (I think this is actually about 55mph hence the US limit, but 70 isn't much worse).
If that section is going Managed Motorways, why not just enforce the 70 with the cameras?
Neil
In reply to yorkshireman:
I only had a quick look at the consultation document but couldn't see the reasoning to target that particular stretch to reduce emissions. J32 - J35 would seem logical to me, J28 - J32 not so much.
And if as everyone seems to be saying, you rarely get above 60 anyhow then reducing the limit isn't going to reduce emissions.
I only had a quick look at the consultation document but couldn't see the reasoning to target that particular stretch to reduce emissions. J32 - J35 would seem logical to me, J28 - J32 not so much.
And if as everyone seems to be saying, you rarely get above 60 anyhow then reducing the limit isn't going to reduce emissions.
In reply to crayefish:
Never been stuck in one of their 'accordions' or suffered delays as many French drivers can't grasp the concept of filtering back into 2 lanes from 3 until the very last minute ?
Interested to see that they are experimented with reduced speed limits to ensure better flow - but apart from announcements on Traficinfo there was also not information so mostly ignored.
My partner is French, she prefers driving on UK motorways to French autoroutes despite being 'on the wrong side of the road' (her words not mine)
> The French (despite their appalling habits on normal roads) beat us hands down on good motorway driving.
Never been stuck in one of their 'accordions' or suffered delays as many French drivers can't grasp the concept of filtering back into 2 lanes from 3 until the very last minute ?
Interested to see that they are experimented with reduced speed limits to ensure better flow - but apart from announcements on Traficinfo there was also not information so mostly ignored.
My partner is French, she prefers driving on UK motorways to French autoroutes despite being 'on the wrong side of the road' (her words not mine)
In reply to Neil Williams:
Try telling that to my 61 plate 3 cylinder 900cc Vauxhall Corsa, whose body weight means that anything over 70mph is only achievable on a flat or slightly downhill stretch of road.
Try telling that to my 61 plate 3 cylinder 900cc Vauxhall Corsa, whose body weight means that anything over 70mph is only achievable on a flat or slightly downhill stretch of road.
In reply to didntcomelast:
Is there a fault with it? I learnt in a 1l 3 cylinder Corsa (late 90s) and it had no issues with 70mph or indeed beyond.
Neil
Is there a fault with it? I learnt in a 1l 3 cylinder Corsa (late 90s) and it had no issues with 70mph or indeed beyond.
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
No the new model Corsa whilst very comfortable and well equipped is very heavy for the size of the engine. I have driven the same car in a diesel version and there were no issues, the 900cc petrol though not too good. Very cheap insurance though.
I dont mind as I dont have any reason to need to travel at 70mph or higher on any road as I prefer to set off sooner and travel at a more sedate pace.
As I said I may be in the minority but I dont see the need to travel around at the fastest speed possible to try to save a few minutes here and there. I have the same issue with the fuss over high speed rail links, I can understand that some business people need to travel around the country quickly at times, but in the age of video conferencing I'm not sure that the need for speed is always there. I often wonder whether more people would take the train rather than drive if the prices were lower but the journey times were up to say half as long again as they are now.
I have never used the overnight train to Scotland from London, but it seems that that would be a service that would by no good ifthe journey time was reduced. And for me the journey is part of the experience.
No the new model Corsa whilst very comfortable and well equipped is very heavy for the size of the engine. I have driven the same car in a diesel version and there were no issues, the 900cc petrol though not too good. Very cheap insurance though.
I dont mind as I dont have any reason to need to travel at 70mph or higher on any road as I prefer to set off sooner and travel at a more sedate pace.
As I said I may be in the minority but I dont see the need to travel around at the fastest speed possible to try to save a few minutes here and there. I have the same issue with the fuss over high speed rail links, I can understand that some business people need to travel around the country quickly at times, but in the age of video conferencing I'm not sure that the need for speed is always there. I often wonder whether more people would take the train rather than drive if the prices were lower but the journey times were up to say half as long again as they are now.
I have never used the overnight train to Scotland from London, but it seems that that would be a service that would by no good ifthe journey time was reduced. And for me the journey is part of the experience.
In reply to didntcomelast:
"the age of video conferencing"
Not really. From experience, businesses barely use it as it's a solution looking for a problem. We do heavily use teleconferencing, but for true collaborative work little beats being in the same room.
FWIW high speed rail is more aimed at stopping people flying. Loads of them are doing. The WCML improvements heavily reduced the Manchester-London air market (driving can't even remotely compete on time), but to compete on London-Scotland (other than the sleeper, which is all very well but many people can't sleep on them, me included) you need to be way faster.
The other call for HS2 is of course to free up capacity on the south WCML, and if you're building a new line it might as well be high-speed - the cost difference isn't that great.
Neil
"the age of video conferencing"
Not really. From experience, businesses barely use it as it's a solution looking for a problem. We do heavily use teleconferencing, but for true collaborative work little beats being in the same room.
FWIW high speed rail is more aimed at stopping people flying. Loads of them are doing. The WCML improvements heavily reduced the Manchester-London air market (driving can't even remotely compete on time), but to compete on London-Scotland (other than the sleeper, which is all very well but many people can't sleep on them, me included) you need to be way faster.
The other call for HS2 is of course to free up capacity on the south WCML, and if you're building a new line it might as well be high-speed - the cost difference isn't that great.
Neil
Post edited at 13:21
In reply to Neil Williams:
Without wanting to hijack the original thread I wonder why people have to be in the same room for business to be conducted. I know personally I have done business over the telephone on many occassions and I would guess most people on this forum have arranged climbing trips purely via telephone. Is there that mush need to be in the same room as someone for work to be done?
I remember having to travel to a meeting once which demanded everyones presence and once we were all collected together the business was over in minutes. There was probably in excess of 10 hours collective travelling time involved for less than an hours work. Not very efficient in terms of productivity and cost.
Without wanting to hijack the original thread I wonder why people have to be in the same room for business to be conducted. I know personally I have done business over the telephone on many occassions and I would guess most people on this forum have arranged climbing trips purely via telephone. Is there that mush need to be in the same room as someone for work to be done?
I remember having to travel to a meeting once which demanded everyones presence and once we were all collected together the business was over in minutes. There was probably in excess of 10 hours collective travelling time involved for less than an hours work. Not very efficient in terms of productivity and cost.
In reply to yorkshireman:
On both these principles, same as the OP, we'd see a reduction in the national speed limited to 60 or even less.
> Everyone is losing sight of the article in the OP. The aim is to reduce emissions. If your car has it, just look at the difference in fuel consumption between 60mph and 80mph - it is huge. So on that basis, it's surely a good idea.
> It's only a 32 mile stretch as well FFS. It takes 8 minutes longer at 60mph than it does at 80mph.
On both these principles, same as the OP, we'd see a reduction in the national speed limited to 60 or even less.
In reply to didntcomelast:
"Is there that mush need to be in the same room as someone for work to be done?"
It depends what the "work" is. Collaborative work is much, much easier to do in person - workshops and the likes. Meetings where you're just talking about stuff work well on teleconference, and that's how we do most of them.
Neil
"Is there that mush need to be in the same room as someone for work to be done?"
It depends what the "work" is. Collaborative work is much, much easier to do in person - workshops and the likes. Meetings where you're just talking about stuff work well on teleconference, and that's how we do most of them.
Neil
In reply to toad:
The problem is largely nitrogen oxides, which is mainly produced by diesel vehicles, the same diesel cars that people have been buying due to the lower tax rates because the VED rates are based on CO2 not NOs.
In London (for example) half the NOs are produced by goods vehicles, already restricted to 60 for motorways.
So this measure appears to be mainly targeting diesel cars. It would be better just to restrict diesel drivers to 60mph, bar them from the outside lane and make them wait for 30 minutes at Tibshelf aervices.
The problem is largely nitrogen oxides, which is mainly produced by diesel vehicles, the same diesel cars that people have been buying due to the lower tax rates because the VED rates are based on CO2 not NOs.
In London (for example) half the NOs are produced by goods vehicles, already restricted to 60 for motorways.
So this measure appears to be mainly targeting diesel cars. It would be better just to restrict diesel drivers to 60mph, bar them from the outside lane and make them wait for 30 minutes at Tibshelf aervices.
In reply to yorkshireman:
Not comparing particular routes... just general motorways around Britain and the south of France (particularly around Toulouse). I prefer the French motorway driving any day but would rather drive on a normal road in Tanzania than France! (ok slight exaggeration... Tanzanian roads are pretty lethal and seen hundreds off accidents on them).
> If you're comparing the M25 with the Autoroute Blanche it's a bit apples and oranges.
Not comparing particular routes... just general motorways around Britain and the south of France (particularly around Toulouse). I prefer the French motorway driving any day but would rather drive on a normal road in Tanzania than France! (ok slight exaggeration... Tanzanian roads are pretty lethal and seen hundreds off accidents on them).
In reply to Neil Williams:
No, that was to save fuel not emissions.
> The US did this to 55mph on those grounds, no?
> Neil
No, that was to save fuel not emissions.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Apparently not with some modern diesels, which are producing more NOs than previous models, something to do with the way manufacturers are tweaking the cat converters.
I wonder what the effect of introducing the mandatory 5% biodiesel last year will bring too.
Apparently not with some modern diesels, which are producing more NOs than previous models, something to do with the way manufacturers are tweaking the cat converters.
I wonder what the effect of introducing the mandatory 5% biodiesel last year will bring too.
In reply to toad:
You're lucky that you've got a motorway. Up here in the frozen north we've got the A9 & we're going to get averaging cameras for almost all its length. That'll screw up the journey times to the Cairngorms.
But it's cheaper, of course, than actually improving the road and making it safer by making it a dual carriageway!!
You're lucky that you've got a motorway. Up here in the frozen north we've got the A9 & we're going to get averaging cameras for almost all its length. That'll screw up the journey times to the Cairngorms.
But it's cheaper, of course, than actually improving the road and making it safer by making it a dual carriageway!!
In reply to toad:
If reducing emissions was a priority, I imagine having a system of public transport that's cheaper than driving between cities and, y'know, not crap would be helpful. Something reasonably well integrated and ideally not privatised in a really stupid half-arsed kind of a way so that dozens of different companies don't run it with their own short-term profits being more or less the only thing they're interested in. Just a crazy idealistic dream.
If reducing emissions was a priority, I imagine having a system of public transport that's cheaper than driving between cities and, y'know, not crap would be helpful. Something reasonably well integrated and ideally not privatised in a really stupid half-arsed kind of a way so that dozens of different companies don't run it with their own short-term profits being more or less the only thing they're interested in. Just a crazy idealistic dream.
In reply to winhill:
Unlikely I'd have to say. New Euro 6 emissions coming in this year has forced manufacturers to half the NOx emissions which has been a struggle but in the most part it has been achieved.
A more efficient modern engine (with higher flame temp) will produce more NOx than an older one but the latest generation of diesel cats have sorted this out.
> Apparently not with some modern diesels, which are producing more NOs than previous models, something to do with the way manufacturers are tweaking the cat converters.
Unlikely I'd have to say. New Euro 6 emissions coming in this year has forced manufacturers to half the NOx emissions which has been a struggle but in the most part it has been achieved.
A more efficient modern engine (with higher flame temp) will produce more NOx than an older one but the latest generation of diesel cats have sorted this out.
In reply to deepsoup:
According to a talking head on radio 4 yesterday the reason for the need to reduce emissions, and therefore the speed limit as a means by which to achieve this, is that this section of motorway is going to become one of the four lane stretches where the hard shoulder us used as a traffic lane.
Using the hard shoulder thus means that the flow of traffic is closer to houses and that is why particular emissions levels have to be observed.
If this is so then the reduced speed limit actually comes about because of an attempt to render the motorway more free flowing.
According to a talking head on radio 4 yesterday the reason for the need to reduce emissions, and therefore the speed limit as a means by which to achieve this, is that this section of motorway is going to become one of the four lane stretches where the hard shoulder us used as a traffic lane.
Using the hard shoulder thus means that the flow of traffic is closer to houses and that is why particular emissions levels have to be observed.
If this is so then the reduced speed limit actually comes about because of an attempt to render the motorway more free flowing.
In reply to didntcomelast:
Maybe you should change your username.
> I sometimes feel like I am in the minority of road users and regular motorway users in that I dont see the need to drive at the speed limit all of the time. I am quite happy to stay in the nearside lane at about 60mph.
Maybe you should change your username.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...