Road safety: UK set to adopt vehicle speed limiters

[Sasaferrato]

I wish people could understand this. I've had similar horrors driving in the fog when people think the speed limit is a compulsory minimum.

I don't go out in fog now unless it is essential. Too many scares over the years. The stupid bastards drive far too fast in heavy rain as well.

 

[8ball]

Yes, because there is no electricity fairy. Granted, renewable energy is more prevalent than it was, but electricity generation using gas or wood is still in place. If an electric car requires more juice because it is going faster, then there is a pollution hit. Fuel cells produce nothing but water of course.

Fuel cells still take the pollution hit at the source of power generation.

 

[mauvais]

You pay for your own private roads, then.

Not a thing, unfortunately. Thatcher made speed limits apply to anything that resembles a road, hence e.g. the M6 Toll is limited.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Right. So you want to go faster on motorways and encourage more people to drive, but the increased pollution doesn't bother you because, err, other stuff pollutes somewhere else?

Christ all fucking mighty.

No, I don't want to encourage more people to drive. But I don't want simplistic nonsense to dictate road policy either. It really isn't as simple as "cars are bad, okay".

What is needed:

Car use to be reduced/eliminated in urban areas and for short trips. Penalties for speeding increased. This has to be the priority. It will massively reduce both accident rates and pollution levels.

But we can't ignore the fact that for long distance trips, or even relatively short distances between cities and towns, the car is still the most convenient/accessible method of transport. Massive investment is needed in railway, buses etc. But I don't see it coming any time soon.

So, look at motorways - many are already setup as "smart" lanes, with variable limits based on both traffic volumes and conditions. These need to be the standard everywhere. For most of the time they tend to have the limits in place, so reduced pollution. But For a lone car driving on a deserted road at 3am? Fuck it, make the limit open. It's been shown this is safe (Germany) and any pollution created by that car is so minuscule it can be ignored.

 

[8ball]

Not a thing, unfortunately. Thatcher made speed limits apply to anything that resembles a road, hence e.g. the M6 Toll is limited.

Not now, obviously. You'll need a special "luxury cars only subscription road".
And stick them on pylons or in tunnels so you don't mess up the countryside.

 

[Sasaferrato]

And the "potentially lethal" bit? What have you got that backs that up in relation to the OP which you've pointlessly quoted?

From Danny:

'Coming back from my daughter’s flat in Glasgow, I join the M8 at the junction next to Stow College (deceased). It’s junction 17 or 18, but it’s where you join when you come from Great Western Road heading East. It’s a slip road which joins the fast lane on a stretch that has 5 or more lanes at various points. The limit here is 60. You can’t join from stopped, you have to match the speed of the lane you’re joining. And sometimes that means going faster than 60 for a short burst. To not do so would result in collisions.'

From the CEO of the AA:

'He has had experience of driving a car with this type of technology, he found himself on the slip road to the M1, uanble to accelerate and join the motorway. The vehicle held him to 30mph.'

Coming onto a motorway at 30mph is a death sentence, pretty much. The purpose of the slip road is to let you increase your speed to match that of the motorway traffic. If the software prevents you from doing that, it is beyond serious, it lethal, not potentially, but actually.

 

[editor]

Christ all fucking mighty.

No, I don't want to encourage more people to drive. But I don't want simplistic nonsense to dictate road policy either. It really isn't as simple as "cars are bad, okay".

What is needed:

Car use to be reduced/eliminated in urban areas and for short trips. Penalties for speeding increased. This has to be the priority. It will massively reduce both accident rates and pollution levels.

But we can't ignore the fact that for long distance trips, or even relatively short distances between cities and towns, the car is still the most convenient/accessible method of transport. Massive investment is needed in railway, buses etc. But I don't see it coming any time soon.

So, look at motorways - many are already setup as "smart" lanes, with variable limits based on both traffic volumes and conditions. These need to be the standard everywhere. For most of the time they tend to have the limits in place, so reduced pollution. But For a lone car driving on a deserted road at 3am? Fuck it, make the limit open. It's been shown this is safe (Germany) and any pollution created by that car is so minuscule it can be ignored.

But you understand that by increasing the maximum car speed, you make rail journeys seem less attractive and this increase pollution and congestion? And all these extra cars don't just magically stop driving when they get off the motorway: they continue driving and polluting away into all those urban areas where you want fewer cars on the road. So we get more urban traffic too - something you said you were against.

And then there's the matter of lorries and freight...

 

[8ball]

No, I don't want to encourage more people to drive. But I don't want simplistic nonsense to dictate road policy either. It really isn't as simple as "cars are bad, okay".

Good point that if you live in a city with good public transport it's easy to lose sight of how important cars (currently) are for so many people. As for deserted roads at 3am having open limits - I'm sure that isn't going to make things any safer in the rural area I grew up. People kill themselves speeding late at night frequently enough, and at best the lack of deterrent will have minimal effect, at worst the nevs will be out racing.

 

[editor]

From Danny:

'Coming back from my daughter’s flat in Glasgow, I join the M8 at the junction next to Stow College (deceased). It’s junction 17 or 18, but it’s where you join when you come from Great Western Road heading East. It’s a slip road which joins the fast lane on a stretch that has 5 or more lanes at various points. The limit here is 60. You can’t join from stopped, you have to match the speed of the lane you’re joining. And sometimes that means going faster than 60 for a short burst. To not do so would result in collisions.'

From the CEO of the AA:

'He has had experience of driving a car with this type of technology, he found himself on the slip road to the M1, uanble to accelerate and join the motorway. The vehicle held him to 30mph.'

Coming onto a motorway at 30mph is a death sentence, pretty much. The purpose of the slip road is to let you increase your speed to match that of the motorway traffic. If the software prevents you from doing that, it is beyond serious, it lethal, not potentially, but actually.

Who the fuck is Danny? And I'd like actual research to back up your claims, not anecdotes from random people and the head of a road lobby firm, who might just be a teensy weensy bit biased.

 

[8ball]

But you understand that by increasing the maximum car speed, you make rail journeys seem less attractive and this increase pollution and congestion?

I've never liked this argument that we have to make something shitter to make a shitty alternative seem less so.
The answer is to improve the alternatives to car use.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Fuel cells still take the pollution hit at the source of power generation.

Yes, they do, in common with every manufactured article. An internal combustion engine also takes a pollution hit at manufacture, but unlike a fuel cell, continues to pollute for all of its working life.

 

[8ball]

Who the fuck is Danny?

 

[editor]

I've never liked this argument that we have to make something shitter to make a shitty alternative seem less so.
The answer is to improve the alternatives to car use.

Well of course. But I'm not arguing to make something shitter.

 

[8ball]

Yes, they do, in common with every manufactured article. An internal combustion engine also takes a pollution hit at manufacture, but unlike a fuel cell, continues to pollute for all of its working life.

Not comparable at all. Do I need to link to how fuel cells work?

 

[Sasaferrato]

Who the fuck is Danny? And I'd like actual research to back up your claims, not anecdotes from random people and the head of a road lobby firm, who might just be a teensy weensy bit biased.

If you don't know who danny la rouge is, I'm more than a tad confused.

Discussing motoring with a non driver who lives in a city with a fabulous (and I really envy you it) transport system, is rather like discussing colour with someone who cannot see... pointless.

 

[danny la rouge]

Who the fuck is Danny?

 

[Sasaferrato]

Not comparable at all. Do I need to link to how fuel cells work?

Fuel cell - Wikipedia

'General Motors and its partners estimated that per mile traveled, a fuel cell electric vehicle running on compressed gaseous hydrogen produced from natural gas could use about 40% less energy and emit 45% less greenhouse gasses than an internal combustion vehicle.'

I realise that there is 'nowt for nowt' in this life, every action has a reaction. It is a matter of trying to get the most energy for the least pollution, and the internal combustion engine is never going to win that battle.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

But you understand that by increasing the maximum car speed, you make rail journeys seem less attractive

Nah, not one person is going to say "you know what, now I can drive 15 mph more on the motorway I'm not going to bother catching that train". That's nonsense.

all these extra cars don't just magically stop driving when they get off the motorway: they continue driving and polluting away into all those urban areas where you want fewer cars on the road

City to city journeys by car don't have to be door to door. If we had better infrastructure - park and rides etc it would be less of a problem.

The whole argument always comes back to infrastructure, or rather the lack of it in this country.

And then there's the matter of lorries and freight...

Isn't going to go away. We need goods moved around.

Good point that if you live in a city with good public transport it's easy to lose sight of how important cars (currently) are for so many people. As for deserted roads at 3am having open limits - I'm sure that isn't going to make things any safer in the rural area I grew up. People kill themselves speeding late at night frequently enough, and at best the lack of deterrent will have minimal effect, at worst the nevs will be out racing.

I'm specifically talking about motorways there, not rural roads.

 

[Calamity1971]

Massive investment is needed in railway, buses etc. But I don't see it coming any time soon.

This.
Where I live there are three buses a day finishing at 5pm. You have to go into Durham centre to get back out again.
How will this technology work on a road that is signed 60, but it really is only safe to drive at 30 (twisties).
No mention of motorbikes either?

 

[8ball]

Well of course. But I'm not arguing to make something shitter.

Fair enough - your argument wasn't quite that, but happy that you appreciate it's a rum gambit.

 

[8ball]

Fuel cell - Wikipedia

'General Motors and its partners estimated that per mile traveled, a fuel cell electric vehicle running on compressed gaseous hydrogen produced from natural gas could use about 40% less energy and emit 45% less greenhouse gasses than an internal combustion vehicle.'

Nice one, now read the rest of it.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Quite.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

Anything that reduces speeding idiots is a good thing, and it should be a compulsory retrofit on older vehicles.

 

[editor]

If you don't know who danny la rouge is, I'm more than a tad confused.

The quote his whole fucking name next time.

 

[8ball]

I'm specifically talking about motorways there, not rural roads.

Fair enough. Though it seems to me that arseholes might well arrange races on stretches of motorway in that case.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Fair enough. Though it seems to me that arseholes might well arrange races on stretches of motorway in that case.

So arrest them. There's already legislation in place that gives police powers to stop the Max Power brigade doing their late night "cruises".

 

[editor]

If you don't know who danny la rouge is, I'm more than a tad confused.

Discussing motoring with a non driver who lives in a city with a fabulous (and I really envy you it) transport system, is rather like discussing colour with someone who cannot see... pointless.

Except I'm not "dissing motoring" at all, am I? I'm just against increased motorway speeds. If you want a grown up argument, stop posting up bullshit.

 

[editor]

So arrest them. There's already legislation in place that gives police powers to stop the Max Power brigade doing their late night "cruises".

I'm sure there's loads of spare police budget for that.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Nice one, now read the rest of it.

I did.

I wonder what would happen if vehicle manufacturers were told that they had ten years, then the diesel and petrol pumps are scrapped?

 

[editor]

City to city journeys by car don't have to be door to door. If we had better infrastructure - park and rides etc it would be less of a problem.

But people DO drive door to door all the time, and by making driving more attractive with higher speeds, do you think that's going to increase or decrease city traffic?

And dreaming of currently unplanned park and rides suddenly popping up to lighten the load is hardly a basis for debate.