Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

[Orang Utan]

Speed limits reduce deaths, but can they also cause more pollution?

Do 20mph speed limits trigger unintended consequences, such as increased pollution from carbon dioxide and particulates

www.google.co.uk

 

[Orang Utan]

Petrolheads are so dishonest - they just like driving whatever the consequences and make shit up to justify it

 

[Spymaster]

Speed limits reduce deaths, but can they also cause more pollution?

Do 20mph speed limits trigger unintended consequences, such as increased pollution from carbon dioxide and particulates

www.google.co.uk

Rubbish article. Did you read it properly?

 

[teuchter]

Do you have any studies to back that up?

Before we waste any more time on this issue, you are aware that all internal combusition vehicles, irrelevant of type of transmission, number of gears, or size engine, have speed sweet spot for the lowest fuel consumption (and therefore pollution), that is never, ever the lowest speed possible of the vehicle, right? Indeed, the best results are usually achieved in the 45-55 mph range.

This is of course irrelevant to the argument of urban driving, as those speeds are far too fast. But it proves to anyone who might have any doubts that extremely low speeds are in no fucking way the most fuel-efficient way to cover distance by any given bigger than a light 50cc scooter.

We should make 20mph the speed limit everywhere, and have manufacturers design vehicles that are most efficient at 10-20mph. Then everyone's happy.

 

[BillRiver]

Petrolheads are so dishonest - they just like driving whatever the consequences and make shit up to justify it

It does seem that way, doesn't it.

 

[Orang Utan]

Rubbish article. Did you read it properly?

I read it all.
You clearly didn’t as I only posted it a minute ago

 

[Spymaster]

I read it all.

You clearly didn't. Read it again carefully and quote the appropriate bit. .

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Any car that can’t be driven at 20kph is broken, simple as that. It’s just drivers desperately trying to come up with a new variation on “but I don’t want to drive that slowly”, nothing more.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Meh

We should make 20mph the speed limit everywhere, and have manufacturers design vehicles that are most efficient at 10-20mph. Then everyone's happy.

Except for the ambulance that is racing towards you when in life-saving need, that should be limited to 3mph, walking pace, seeing as what the etymology of Ambulance is I'm sure you'll approve.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

You clearly didn't. Read it again carefully and quote the appropriate bit. .

The key takeaway seems to be that lower limits and traffic calming measures may give a slight increase in pollution because drivers then act like dicks trying to accelerate more between speed bumps.

 

[T & P]

Speed limits reduce deaths, but can they also cause more pollution?

Do 20mph speed limits trigger unintended consequences, such as increased pollution from carbon dioxide and particulates

www.google.co.uk

Petrolheads are so dishonest - they just like driving whatever the consequences and make shit up to justify it

The report that Guardian not-at-all-biased journo is basing that article on is from 1995, and leans heavily on idle times to support its argument. There was no stop-start engine technology in 1995. It is everywhere now. Not to mention how much pollution cutting technology has moved from 1995.

I'm sorry but that report is complete invalid nowadays and proves fuck all.

Frankly, one would have to be ignorant of the most basic knowledge or understanding of how how a car works- even just from driving or simply observing them on the street- to suggest driving at 10-15 mph is ever going to be less polluting that at higher streets. It's just blatant nonsense.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Pollution. Is. Not. The. Reason. For. Low. Speed. Limits. In. Cities.


Christ almighty.

 

[T & P]

The key takeaway seems to be that lower limits and traffic calming measures may give a slight increase in pollution because drivers then act like dicks trying to accelerate more between speed bumps.

That might be because most speed bumps are designed to negotiate safely at speeds of no more than 5-10 mph if you have any regard whatsoever for the long-term health of your car's suspension.

If speed bumps were designed to be travelled safely at no less than 15- 18 mph, no driver would feel the need to accelerate between them.

 

[Spymaster]

The key takeaway seems to be that lower limits and traffic calming measures may give a slight increase in pollution because drivers then act like dicks trying to accelerate more between speed bumps.

Don't help Orang Utan !

Let him work it out himself.

 

[Spymaster]

If speed bumps were designed to be travelled safely at no less than 15- 18 mph, no driver would feel the need to accelerate between them.

If you buy a big enough car, most speed-bumps can be easily straddled at any speed you like.

 

[T & P]

Pollution. Is. Not. The. Reason. For. Low. Speed. Limits. In. Cities.


Christ almighty.

That's not the argument we were having at all, is it? Nice goalpost moving.

We were discussing the suggestion that very low speeds pollute more than slightly higher ones. But some people here (the ones who are not obstinate at all because only petrolheads are) seem completely incapable of even contemplating the possibility that not all consequences of speed reduction might have positive effects, even if the overall results are beneficial on the whole. But no, heaven fucking forbid that any aspect of road safety relating to curbing car speeds, might have a drawback, however minor it might be. No, we can't have that and must fight it with all our might, even when it's blatantly bollocks.

But it's still the 'petrolheads' who are stubborn and dishonest.

 

[T & P]

If you buy a big enough car, most speed-bumps can be easily straddled at any speed you like.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

That's not the argument we were having at all, is it? Nice goalpost moving.

We were discussing the suggestion that very low speeds pollute more than slightly higher ones. But some people here (the ones who are not obstinate at all because only petrolheads are) seem completely incapable of even contemplating the possibility that not all consequences of speed reduction might have positive effects, even if the overall results are beneficial on the whole. But no, heaven fucking forbid that any aspect of road safely curbing car speeds, however minor, might have a drawback. No, we can't have that and must fight it with all our might, even when it's blatantly bollocks.

But no. It's the 'petrolheads' who are stubborn and dishonest.

It’s important though, because it’s the line trotted out by the petrol heads when lower limits are proposed as a safety measure.

So, fine, pollution may be more with lower limits. Let’s remove the cars completely then, win-win.

 

[Spymaster]

So, fine, pollution may be more with lower limits. Let’s remove the cars completely then, win-win.

A better solution would be for everyone to stop putting so much emphasis on pollution levels like they're some kind of big deal.

 

[teuchter]

That's not the argument we were having at all, is it? Nice goalpost moving.

It's you that moved the goalposts when you started banging on about pollution when we were talking about speed limits, in this post here.

 

[Crispy]

The pollution argument will go away as electric vehicles become the norm anyway. And they're much easier to drive at slow speeds.

 

[T & P]

The pollution argument will go away as electric vehicles become the norm anyway. And they're much easier to drive at slow speeds.

Good. Once the pollution aspect is removed, the unworkable calls for completely banning cars from cities will carry even less weight than they do now.

 

[Orang Utan]

That's not the argument we were having at all, is it? Nice goalpost moving.

We were discussing the suggestion that very low speeds pollute more than slightly higher ones. But some people here (the ones who are not obstinate at all because only petrolheads are) seem completely incapable of even contemplating the possibility that not all consequences of speed reduction might have positive effects, even if the overall results are beneficial on the whole. But no, heaven fucking forbid that any aspect of road safety relating to curbing car speeds, might have a drawback, however minor it might be. No, we can't have that and must fight it with all our might, even when it's blatantly bollocks.

But it's still the 'petrolheads' who are stubborn and dishonest.

You’re on the wrong thread

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

The direct pollution you can see coming out an exhaust pipe argument will go away as electric vehicles become the norm

Fixed

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Good. Once the pollution aspect is removed, the unworkable calls for completely banning cars from cities will carry even less weight than they do now.

Nope.

 

[Teaboy]

20kph?

I can dream I suppose. Maybe at 3 in the morning.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

If you buy a big enough car, most speed-bumps can be easily straddled at any speed you like.

You should treat yourself to an Overfinch Range Rover for your birthday

 

[Spymaster]

You should treat yourself to an Overfinch Range Rover for your birthday

Nah, that's OTT.

My V8 Cuntwagon manages it fine.

 

[Spymaster]

.

 

[teuchter]

The pollution argument will go away as electric vehicles become the norm anyway. And they're much easier to drive at slow speeds.

Electric vehicles still produce lots of PM pollution, and I believe that PM has been shown to reduce with speed, so there will be an even stronger argument for lower speeds.