8ball
Decolonise colons!
True for some parameters, with more exceptions than cases where it follows.
Road safety: UK set to adopt vehicle speed limiters
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
True for some parameters, with more exceptions than cases where it follows.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I’m not sure tasers work like that.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I can remember starting out with underpowered motorbikes. Riding an underpowered motorbike means you are constantly at the mercy of other road users, it doesn't feel safe. It wasn't until I had a bike that was fast enough to keep up with the faster cars that I started to feel I could control my position on the road.
mauvais
on reddit or something
The other thing I'd like our speed limit evangelists to consider is: speed limits change.
There are lots of roads in the UK where, ever since its introduction, the speed limit was the national speed limit, usually 60 mph. And I mean chosen & accepted as such - not some barely-travelled rural lane where they never bothered to set a limit.
Without any material change in the environment (e.g. new housing, increased traffic), many local authorities have recently decided to reduce these limits, e.g. to 50 or 40 mph. Therefore one day it was legal to drive at 60, or indeed overtake someone doing 40, and the next day, it wasn't.
Now, that's a legitimate choice - you might not agree with it, but we ought to be able to change limits even if it's to suit policy, so whatever.
The trouble is: people were driving it at 60 for all those years. What about them? Does their driving retrospectively become unsafe? Is the new limit now the safe speed, or is it just as arbitrary? If I drive it at 60 on the first day, with noone else around, it's illegal but is it any more or less safe than the day before?
It's almost like you can't rely on a number on a pole to tell you what's safe or not.
And before you all shit yer trews and ruin your shoes, there's lots of reasons (like expectation) as to why safe speed does change with the speed limit, because hey it's complicated, but you can't have it your way all the time.
There are lots of roads in the UK where, ever since its introduction, the speed limit was the national speed limit, usually 60 mph. And I mean chosen & accepted as such - not some barely-travelled rural lane where they never bothered to set a limit.
Without any material change in the environment (e.g. new housing, increased traffic), many local authorities have recently decided to reduce these limits, e.g. to 50 or 40 mph. Therefore one day it was legal to drive at 60, or indeed overtake someone doing 40, and the next day, it wasn't.
Now, that's a legitimate choice - you might not agree with it, but we ought to be able to change limits even if it's to suit policy, so whatever.
The trouble is: people were driving it at 60 for all those years. What about them? Does their driving retrospectively become unsafe? Is the new limit now the safe speed, or is it just as arbitrary? If I drive it at 60 on the first day, with noone else around, it's illegal but is it any more or less safe than the day before?
It's almost like you can't rely on a number on a pole to tell you what's safe or not.
And before you all shit yer trews and ruin your shoes, there's lots of reasons (like expectation) as to why safe speed does change with the speed limit, because hey it's complicated, but you can't have it your way all the time.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Not sure why but we’re both using guesswork, and it’d be both useful and interesting if a study was done to reveal the numbers. Having said that I would like to think some simple stats must exist somewhere, such as for instance how many DVLA registered vehicles in the UK fall within the category of lorries or larger vans over certain tonnage, which are already limited by law and/or installed limiters.
Bottom line is, I get the impression that opponents of an 80 mph mway limit seem to think such increase would result in a disastrous free-for-all, when in fact a great many vehicles would be completely unaffected.
The degree of the additional pollution impact is even more debatable though sadly impossible to quantify. But when one considers that much of a vehicle’s emissions totals comes from a cold start and low speed fluctuations, that most of the worst polluters are heavy diesel vehicles unaffected by this measure since they can never reach such speed, and that for for any modern car with just a reasonable engine size that is capable of higher speeds anyway the transition between 70 and 80 demands little extra performance, the total extra pollution generated by those vehicles transitioning between 70 and 80 would be microscopic.
There's also the issue that it is a widely accepted fact that coppers or speed cameras simply don't bother prosecuting for speeds of up to 76-77 mph on mways. So if we were to have a limiter enforced 80 limit, a lot of the already limited pool of drivers who can or choose to go over 70 would only increase their speed by 3-4 mph.
Basically, nobody can quantify the degree of extra pollution that would be caused by an increase to 80, but every indicator and angle I can think of points to a very insignificant increase. But if someone thinks otherwise I'd like to hear their reasoning behind it.
scifisam
feck! arse! girls! drink!
Health checks for all drivers, currently there are none beyond being able to read a number plate. Anyone in less than perfect fitness can join editor on the bus. Reducing congestion and pollution
Actually, technically those do exist. You don't have to have a health test, but if you apply for a provisional licence you're meant to declare whether you have a condition that could affect your driving.
Cite: Check if a health condition affects your driving
If you are diagnosed with such a condition after you have your full licence then you're supposed to declare it, but in practice, except for certain conditions like, I dunno, losing both your eyes (the guidance really is that vague), you seem to be able to depend on your doctor not saying to you "don't drive."
There's pretty much no enforcement of this, NHS GPs are overloaded with work, and the fines for not reporting are low, which is the problem.
Obvs I know you were joking, but drivers continuing to drive when they shouldn't is a huge problem and the laws to combat that already exist, and enforcing and refining them would help.
Tractors, like other slow moving vehicles, have (should have) flashing amber lights to alert you. Don't guess the nuns did.
I'm sure Calamity1971 can defend herself but as she's getting somewhat piled on, I just wanted to say that it's completely reasonable not to expect a car to be doing 30 on a 60 road. I have only been driving for four months, so my learning is much fresher than any of yoursand I would have been cursed out by my instructor for doing 30 on a fast road. You're meant to keep up with the flow of traffic.
Any non-driver who doesn't understand this should picture themselves walking along a busy working street, somewhere like Canary Wharf at 9am where most people are walking quickly to work and the flow goes smoothly, until suddenly it doesn't because some fucking twat a few person-spaces ahead is dawdling.
Sometimes you realise that the person ahead of you is the equivalent of a tractor with flashing ambers because they have obvious physical difficulties. (I'm cripped so I'm allowed to say this). Sometimes it's clearly a tourist slowing down and looking up at the sights. Sometimes you can't tell which it is. In all three cases there's a backlog created where everyone has to go more slowly and people bump into each other and occasionally trip up.
And people can change directions with their feet much more quickly when walking than they can when driving.
keybored
Well done. You remember cat good.
Nobody can quantify it but there surely is a significant difference. Really, there's been some total bollocks on this thread about speed/safety but from an environmental stance, you can't possibly think any vehicle on the road is going to consume the same or less fuel (miles per gallon) at 80mph than at 70mph.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Spot on. Although all but impossible to prove (unless there are published studies I am unaware of) it'd be difficult to argue that If the public deems a given law as having been written objectively, rationally and fairly, rather than having been drawn from a position of kneejerkism or politcs-driven, a higher proportion of them will be willing to respect it and observe across the board.
But if you have limits that are clearly draconian or at the least unrealistically slow (and one does not need to be either a petrolhead or an expert to reasonably to think so, and be right about it), invariably more people will dismiss all speed limits as questionable.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
I never said that actually. I simply argued that the net increase to the total car-related emissions would be very small indeed, and that if an 80 mph increase was done as the same time as the compulsory limiters were enforced, the collective reduction in speed across the entire vehicle population would not just cancel out but be greater than the pollution the much smaller percentage of cars who would be able to travel at 80 would cause. So the grand total emission figures would undoubtedly in my mind go down.
Of course, one could say that if the mway limit wasn't raised the overall figures would go down even more. But things would get better not worse, and it still seems obvious to me the increase generated would be a very small percentage.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Okay, I'd trade down to one of those sparky gas hob lighters beloved of grandmas in the '70s, after decades of burning their fingers with Swan Vestas.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
One where you don't kill or injure anyone, including yourself.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
IIRC, back in the 60s and 70s, epilepsy was a named condition with which you couldn't drive, but as more was learned about it, you just had to be seizure-free for a certain length of time.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Depending on how up-to-date your car's "brain" is, you may not use very much more fuel at 80mph, than at 70mph, as the speed increase is less than 15%, and increase in drag is minimal in modern cars
Riklet
procrastinación
The aim is to make public transport faster, cheaper and more enjoyable than driving, even with no speed limits.
Guess it would help if the government actually cared about making cars greener and reducing emmitions in towns rather than this virtue-signalling token gesture stuff.
Guess it would help if the government actually cared about making cars greener and reducing emmitions in towns rather than this virtue-signalling token gesture stuff.
keybored
Well done. You remember cat good.
Drag is a big factor at those speeds. And not the only factor.
Mpg For Speed - Fuel Efficiency Vs. Speed
Can't vouch for the source but those stats are roughly true for every modern car I've driven. ie. There is a significant drop in fuel economy at 80mph compared to 70mph
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
It's not so much "design of the engine", as "design of the transmission" that will make a difference, in my limited experience.
2hats
Dust.
It also crosses into education.
Yet it does: a grown adult (presumably) is trying to make the case that they should judge where and when to take greater risks with other people's lives on the public road.
One that minimises pollution, risk to life and journey dead time.
The posted speed limit is exactly that. Get over it. Try to keep the fidgety boy racer inside in check for the greater good of society.
This is a reason for also driving electric cars slower - reduces the pollution per unit distance travelled.
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
To a point. Past 80, the increase in air resistance is crazy enough to override the fact that you're in 8th gear doing 1500rpm. I hate driving on French motorways. Such awful mileage when my car is really designed for 70. Whereas I once had a BMW that was most comfortable doing 80. I mean, efficiency was still worse, but it didn't drop off a cliff until you passed 80, unlike the current motor.
mauvais
on reddit or something
Yes, literally and unashamedly this. Because that's what driving fundamentally entails.
What are you doing when you get in a car?
mauvais
on reddit or something
Also whilst you totally failed to address the point, I did very much like the boy racer label, great stuff. I've got all the hallmarks of the boy racer stereotype, me: an old French estate and a copy of Roadcraft, as found in any McDonalds car park after dusk. Maybe if I trade in my OEM CD changer for a pair of string backed driving gloves I can really complete the look.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You have to go a year without experiencing any symptoms in order to be issued with any kind of motor vehicle licence. The DVLA will require a letter accounting for this from your GP, who may well require input from a neurologist, depending on the nature of the epilepsy.
Regarding speed against emissions, this from the EEA from 2011 is relatively interesting. The real-life 2-3% cuts it states are small, although on the other hand they would be but one of the measures to decrease road vehicle emissions. Greater would surely be reducing the total number of miles driven, which would be for another thread.
Steel Icarus
we move
This is true. My mum had epilepsy and I seem to remember she had to be seizure-free for two years, and unfortunately her fits came on average around every 18 months, so she never learned to drive in the end.
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Another way, and presently looking the most likely to make a difference, is achieving a reduction through less polluting vehicles. I reckon education and campaigns to discourage superfluous driving can only succeed so far to be honest. People will always drive to some degree even if less.
But an eradication of fossil fuel vehicles is pretty much a given and actually unfolding at a very fast pace at the moment. Diesel cars are on their way out very soon, that's obvious. And hybrid and all-electric car ranges are getting better at an impressive rate. In as little as 10-15 years internal combustion engines might well have gone from accounting from 95% of all vehicles to 20% or less. In 30-odd years they'll be gone.
Additional reductions now by other means are good of course, but we should avoid implementing too draconian a set of measures to stop people from most of their driving for the sake of partially reducing pollution when it is all but certain it is going to happen anyway within a little more than a decade, and all but eliminated altogether within a generation or so.
friedaweed
Me and me girl named Jane
My new car has lane assist which stops me drifting, auto breaking sensors which stops me driving into the car in front and cruise control which means I can do a steady 80 and basically put my feet up and take some calls. 
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
My new car has lane assist which stops me drifting, auto breaking sensors which stops me driving into the car in front and cruise control which means I can do a steady 80 and basically put my feet up and take some calls.
Would make skinning up a breeze.
Similar threads
