Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Jun 02, 2026 03:55

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 19:59 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 15:49
Posts: 393
A NETWORK of motorway speed cameras, strictly enforcing the 70mph speed limit, would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by almost four million tonnes, says a recent study.

Fuel efficiency declines rapidly at higher speeds, with an average-sized petrol car emitting 14 per cent more carbon dioxide per mile at 80mph than at 70mph.

More than half of cars exceed the motorway limit, and one in five travels at more than 80mph.

The UK Energy Research Centre, a government-funded body, concludes that enforcement of the 70mph limit would be the fairest and most acceptable way of reversing the growth in CO2 emissions from transport.

The Government has previously rejected the idea of enforcing the speed limit to reduce emissions, claiming that it would reduce CO2 emissions by less than two million tonnes a year.

However, the study uses the latest information on vehicle emissions and speeds to calculate that, if all drivers observed the 70mph limit, their vehicles would emit 3.5 million fewer tonnes of CO2 next year and 3.7 million fewer tonnes in 2009.

The centre recommends the use of cameras which calculate a vehicle’s average speed between two points. They are more effective than Gatso cameras at making drivers adhere to the limit over a longer distance. The study also calculates that reducing the speed limit on motorways to 60mph would reduce vehicle emissions of CO2 by seven million tonnes a year, or 5.4 per cent. A 60mph limit would also reduce congestion on motorways and reduce the severity of crashes.

The study states that lowering the speed limit would be fairer than using taxation, such as raising fuel duty, to reduce emissions.

Making fuel more expensive would have a disproportionate effect on poorer drivers and those living in rural areas. “With suitable publicity and explanation, the public may consider lower speed limits the most acceptable, as well as the most convenient of all the options,” the study says.

However, it concedes that lowering the limit would be less acceptable to Britain’s 32 million drivers than simply ensuring compliance with the existing law.

Enforcing the speed limit was one of the options considered under the Government’s climate change review last year. Douglas Alexander, the Transport Secretary, said in June that the policy was not included for fear of “popular antagonism”.

In August, the Commons Environmental Audit Committee criticised ministers for failing to take action to lower emissions. It called on the Government to “lower or rigorously enforce the current 70mph limit”.


http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/articl ... 20,00.html


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 20:20 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
Typically they have tried obsessive speed enforcement in the name of safety now they are trying it in the name of climate change hot air as people now know the truth about their useless road safety policy.

If they really want to reduce pollution then all speed humps would be ripped up and they'd rephase all traffic lights and road building to ease traffic congestion rather than create it. Pigs will fly first....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 20:21 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
another study from the school of pulling numbers out of your arse...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 20:24 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
teabelly wrote:
in the name of climate change

funny how it's suddenly become "climate change" and not global warming since they've realised their warming numbers are a complete fabrication. Still, have to keep the hair shirts on as whatever we do we're going to destroy the planet (well we peasants are, the doom mongers will keep jetsetting to "climate change" conferences all around the world).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 20:29 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
orange wrote:
Fuel efficiency declines rapidly at higher speeds, with an average-sized petrol car emitting 14 per cent more carbon dioxide per mile at 80mph than at 70mph.

I assume my diesel will be excempt then.
30-40mpg @ 90mph isn't too bad, right?

Of course there would be the side-effects. More congestion? More accidents? (causing more congestion) But let's not think about those. :roll:

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 20:53 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Quote:
The UK Energy Research Centre, a government-funded body, concludes that enforcement of the 70mph limit would be the fairest and most acceptable way of reversing the growth in CO2 emissions from transport.


My bold above.

This is all you need to know about this study. :roll:

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 21:37 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
Actually, the easiest way to reduce road-based CO2 emissions would be for the money-grabbing exchequer to admit that pure vegetable oil (such as you can buy off the supermarket shelf) meets the fiscal requirements to be biodiesel, and should be taxed at the biodiesel rate rather than as a fuel substitute. Vegetable oil is almost carbon-neutral (and is completely carbon neutral if harvested and processed using renewable energy). In concert with legislation permitting current set-aside to be used for fuel crops, this would have massively more impact than the hair-brained proposed scam.

That said, most vehicles are most efficient at between 50mph and 60mph - so they'd need to do a "double-nickel" as per the infamous failure in the USA :roll:

BTW, the facts from the 2000 UN climate change report are pretty revealing. Stuart Beatty (RIP) did an enormous amount of work analysing that tome. Although they'd buried the facts pretty deep, IIRC the salient details are:
  • Of all CO2 emissions worldwide, only 0.6% is attributable to transport (land, air, or sea).
  • UK is responsible for less than 2% of worldwide pollution.
  • CO2 is responsible for about 5% of total greenhouse effect, the other 95% is mainly due to water vapour.
So, the amount of greenhouse effect contribution by UK, transport-derived CO2 is 0.05 * 0.006 * 0.02 = 0.000006 (or about half of one thousandth of one percent). Now that's for all UK transport (land, sea, or air). Ergo the amount from UK cars is insignificant. (We can ignore lorries and buses because they're limited to below the proposed 70 mph anyway.) To put it another way, if all cars were removed from UK roads right now, there'd be absolutely no discernible effect on worldwide climate change. IOW, the proposal is nothing but BS.

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 21:41 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
DfT know it's a stupid idea. That puts them in an interesting position.

Do they back the stupid idea or do they own up to the fact that enforcing the speed limit is sometimes dangerous and unnecessary?

Funny how the gaps in the policy are all lining up to bite at DfT isn't it? I have no sympathy.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 21:45 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Surely this argument is a two way thing - slowing for speed humps, or driving below the optimum speed for your vehicle ALL use more fuel - thus producing more Carbon Dioxide! :lol:
Ergo, we would do well to adopt a minimum speed limit, and uproot those polluting humps - and save on the energy it takes to build them too!

20 mph zones would be a bummer to the environment too! :o

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 22:15 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
johnsher wrote:
teabelly wrote:
in the name of climate change

funny how it's suddenly become "climate change" and not global warming since they've realised their warming numbers are a complete fabrication. Still, have to keep the hair shirts on as whatever we do we're going to destroy the planet (well we peasants are, the doom mongers will keep jetsetting to "climate change" conferences all around the world).

Yeh.. Funny that... And it wasn't all that long ago that "Global Cooling" was the great satan... I found these on a blog a while ago...
Quote:
Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend.. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. - Peter Gwynne, Newsweek, April 28, 1975.

Quote:
[T]he threat of the new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. - Nigel Calder, International Wildlife, July, 1975.

Quote:
The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations.. If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000. - Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, 1976.

Quote:
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since World War II is also in accord with the increased global air pollution associated with industrialisation, mechanisation, urbanisation and an exploding population. - Reid Bryson, Global Ecology: Readings Towards A Rational Strategy For Man, 1971.

Quote:
An increase by only a factor of four in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 degrees Kelvin.. sufficient to trigger an ice-age. - Dr S I Rasool and Dr S H Schneider, Science, July 9, 1971.

Quote:
This last is quite interesting, because then Dr Schneider pops up again, describing nicely the climate change advocates' methodology.
Quote:
[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. - Quoted by Jonathan Schell in The Fate Of The Earth, 1982.

Remind you of anyone/thing?

So, take your pick folks... Fry or Freeze...? :-)

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 22:19 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
On the news this morning - how to save energy ( and reduce the effects of global warming ) -things like switching off TVs (not just puting on standbye ) , only boiling enough water for a cuppa ,and then on to public enemy no 1 -the car.No mention of all the photocopiers, monitors, fax machines( and the paper wasted by spam faxes) or the paper wasted by junk mail.

had the grandkids round this afternoon -BBC newsround (kids program ) --the same old story, but this time adding a bit about leaving the kettle plugged in -----so if the kids pester you to unplug the kettle - you know where it came from :lol:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 23:01 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
HA! At last they've come out and admitted it! I've long had the theory that this over-zealous enforcement of motorway speed limits has been a covert effort to reduce CO2 emissions rather than save lives! Now that the saving lives bit has lost all credibility, they've had to come out and admit it!

Sooooo...

I don't get this "...uses the latest information on vehicle emissions and speeds to calculate..." bit though.

WHAT "LATEST INFORMATION" WOULD THAT BE THEN????

The EC drive cycle that all cars have to go through for their emissions test before they can be sold doesn't go anywhere NEAR 70 (or 80) for that matter!

I completely agree that there is a general principle whereby the faster you go, the more fuel you use BUT there are small anomalies in many (if not MOST) cars. The way the cars' engine management computers are mapped gives rise to the odd "sweet spot" at particular load/ speed combination that might actually give a small improvement in economy over a slightly lower figure (say 80 instead of 75). Given that we don't have a motor industry any more and most other EC countries have an 80MPH motorway limit, it would not be unreasonable for manufacturers to "map" their vehicles to give their best at around the motorway limit. Certainly, I've driven cars that are little or no worse at 80 than 70!

Let's see the figures - that's what I say!

Of course, if this IS about CO2 (and not safety, as we've been lead to believe) then presumably they'll have no objection to me exceeding the speed limit in a hydrogen-fuelled BMW 7 Series or an electric "Tesla" sports car or an ordinary car using "biofuel" or even a motorbike????

yeah, right!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 23:53 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:05
Posts: 1044
Location: Hillingdon
*sigh*

I propose reducing CO2 emissions by shooting every lentil-eating sandal-wearing greenie who so much as considers spewing forth any more climate change scaremongering - I figure a few thousand fewer people breathing out a couple of lungfuls of CO2 every few seconds ought to make as significant a dent in the UK emissions as all the crackpot schemes they've put forth so far, and not having to listen to their mutterings of doom and gloom every other day might also make the country a slightly more appealing place to live for those of us who're left...

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 07:57 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
in case anyone's even slightly convinced by the doom mongers the senate report is a great read. Here are some quotes

Quote:
MEDIA COVERAGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE:

Many in the media, as I noted earlier, have taken it upon themselves to drop all pretense of balance on global warming and instead become committed advocates for the issue.

Here is a quote from Newsweek magazine:

“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.”

A headline in the New York Times reads: “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output.” Here is a quote from Time Magazine:

“As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.”

All of this sounds very ominous. That is, until you realize that the three quotes I just read were from articles in 1975 editions of Newsweek Magazine and The New York Times, and Time Magazine in 1974. http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive ... 14,00.html

They weren’t referring to global warming; they were warning of a coming ice age.

Let me repeat, all three of those quotes were published in the 1970’s and warned of a coming ice age.

In addition to global cooling fears, Time Magazine has also reported on global warming. Here is an example:

“[Those] who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”

Before you think that this is just another example of the media promoting Vice President Gore’s movie, you need to know that the quote I just read you from Time Magazine was not a recent quote; it was from January 2, 1939.

Yes, in 1939. Nine years before Vice President Gore was born and over three decades before Time Magazine began hyping a coming ice age and almost five decades before they returned to hyping global warming.

Time Magazine in 1951 pointed to receding permafrost in Russia as proof that the planet was warming.

In 1952, the New York Times noted that the “trump card” of global warming “has been the melting glaciers.”

BUT MEDIA COULD NOT DECIDE BETWEEN WARMING OR COOLING SCARES

There are many more examples of the media and scientists flip-flopping between warming and cooling scares.

Here is a quote from the New York Times reporting on fears of an approaching ice age.

“Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.”

That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

Let me repeat. 1895, not 1995.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor “Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.”

The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: “Ice Age Coming Here.”

By the 1930’s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming:

“America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933. The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.

An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared:

“Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.” The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be “wiped out” and Switzerland would be “entirely obliterated.”

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.”

The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that “A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable.” These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don’t they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president’s brand of climate alarmism.

After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today’s voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom.

Much of the 100-year media history on climate change that I have documented here today can be found in a publication titled “Fire and Ice” from the Business and Media Institute. http://www.businessandmedia.org/special ... swarns.asp


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 07:59 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
orange wrote:
A 60mph limit would also reduce congestion on motorways and reduce the severity of crashes.


Meanwhile back on planet UK.

Congested motorways rarely reach 60mph, and how many motorway accidents actually occur in free flowing traffic?

Somebody needs to get out more.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 09:00 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
Climate change is the new communisim/neo socialism

I've been saying on here for the last 18 months.

Cars are about the individual and they represent property.

Property is theft, the individual is greedy.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:18 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 09:44
Posts: 516
Location: Swindon, the home of the Magic Roundabout and no traffic planning
Twister wrote:
*sigh*

I propose reducing CO2 emissions by shooting every lentil-eating sandal-wearing greenie who so much as considers spewing forth any more climate change scaremongering - I figure a few thousand fewer people breathing out a couple of lungfuls of CO2 every few seconds ought to make as significant a dent in the UK emissions as all the crackpot schemes they've put forth so far, and not having to listen to their mutterings of doom and gloom every other day might also make the country a slightly more appealing place to live for those of us who're left...


Oh My God, ROTFL PMSL LMAO :D :D :D :D
Nicely put!

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 13:53 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 02:07
Posts: 242
They tried that in the USA. The speed limit there in most states is 55mph because that is considered the optimal speed that consumers the least amount of fuel. The equivalent in km/hr is around 90.

Actually although 55mph may be optimal as an average speed, the actual optimal speed can vary according to whether you are going downhill or uphill.

The worst polluting speed is 0mph, i.e. stopped at traffic lights on in traffic queues. So if they really wanted to cut pollution, they would aim at cutting congestion and reducing the number of traffic lights.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 20:53 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
civil engineer wrote:
Climate change is the new communisim/neo socialism

I've been saying on here for the last 18 months.

Cars are about the individual and they represent property.

Property is theft, the individual is greedy.


I sorry CE, but this is nonsense. The effect of proposed policies by this government would be to INCREASE inequality in favour of the rich at the expense of the poorer. If flights and car use become very expensive they become the preserve of the wealthy.

This is elitism not socialism - they will take us back to the 1930s where only the rich had cars and holidays.

NOTE - I DO NOT agree with what I say next, but: a "socialist" approach to reducing emissions from airliners would be to issue each member of the population with so many "air miles" beyond which they would be banned from flying. No one is proposing this I note.

Who knows - once they have driven the hoi-polloi from the roads they may increase all the the speed limits so the the few rich people who can still afford cars can enjoy the empty roads ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 13:03 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
Quote:

Who knows - once they have driven the hoi-polloi from the roads they may increase all the the speed limits so the the few rich people who can still afford cars can enjoy the empty roads ;)



Yeahhhh.
But who's going to pay for the upkeep of the roads ?
Buses, lorries and the rich would face a 1 million percent increase in road taxes !


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.026s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]