|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 3, 2023 17:47:00 GMT
Are you denying that slower speed limits increase the duration of the traveling - if not then what is the argument, of course pollution will increase. Going slower causes less pollution. "Reducing speed limits from 30mph to 20mph reduces brake and tyre wear, which contributes to particulate pollution. It also reduces fuel use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions when driving in an appropriate gear at a steady pace. A study showed an 8% reduction in NOx and PM10 emissions for 20mph compared to 30mph in diesel cars. 20mph limits massively cut toxic diesel emissions. Getting a vehicle to 30mph takes 2.25 times that to get to 20mph, and it is the repeated depletion (braking) and then acceleration to peak speed that uses most fuel. Not if your journey takes longer it doesn't. Engines are most efficient at around 55-60mph, so driving at a less efficient speed for longer is going to increase pollution. While it might seem intuitive that a resting or slow-moving car produces less pollution than a speeding one, the inverse is actually true.
One study has shown that emissions increase when a car travels below 45mph and above 65mph – so the so-called golden zone of fuel consumption and emissions reduction is between 45mph and 65mph.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 3, 2023 17:47:22 GMT
I think the thing that most of us don't like, it isn't being done in the name of safety, or environmental issues, it's purely down for financial gain, so we just want the lefties to cut to the chase, and do away with their bullshit lame excuses for money making rackets. This is Tory nonsenses. Just one child not killed by slower speeds is worth it.The '20 is plenty' is a Tory policy. Of course, but it's a insult to our intelligence if the lefty Councils think we believe that's the reason they've introduced it. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Oct 3, 2023 17:50:14 GMT
I think the thing that most of us don't like, it isn't being done in the name of safety, or environmental issues, it's purely down for financial gain, so we just want the lefties to cut to the chase, and do away with their bullshit lame excuses for money making rackets. That is a ridiculous statement if the speed limit is 20mph and you stay on or below 20mph you do not get a fine., going slower saves lives, what's not to like. Sounds great like start stop technology, oh but wait it only works with a special battery which has to show full charge or it doesn't work, while constant stop start puts stress on the electrical system like the alternator and starter and its special battery which all fail much faster than a normal system. All for the greater good of course. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 3, 2023 17:59:57 GMT
Going slower causes less pollution. "Reducing speed limits from 30mph to 20mph reduces brake and tyre wear, which contributes to particulate pollution. It also reduces fuel use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions when driving in an appropriate gear at a steady pace. A study showed an 8% reduction in NOx and PM10 emissions for 20mph compared to 30mph in diesel cars. 20mph limits massively cut toxic diesel emissions. Getting a vehicle to 30mph takes 2.25 times that to get to 20mph, and it is the repeated depletion (braking) and then acceleration to peak speed that uses most fuel. Not if your journey takes longer it doesn't. Engines are most efficient at around 55-60mph, so driving at a less efficient speed for longer is going to increase pollution. While it might seem intuitive that a resting or slow-moving car produces less pollution than a speeding one, the inverse is actually true.
One study has shown that emissions increase when a car travels below 45mph and above 65mph – so the so-called golden zone of fuel consumption and emissions reduction is between 45mph and 65mph.
We have been through this Pacifico. While it is true, I agree counter-intuitively, that most cars will burn less fuel running at a steady 30mph than at a steady 20mph. But urban roads don’t work like that. On urban roads you get traffic lights and roundabouts and people changing lane and zebra crossing congestion etc etc . So cars don’t run at steady speed. They are constantly accelerating and then slowing often to a stop. And the act of accelerating is by far the biggest gas guzzling and you do much more accelerating trying to get to 30 than you do to 20. Hence for most urban roads as well as saving lives, we also save petrol and therefore pollution by dropping speed limit to 20. Try to understand the facts before forming your opinion and be prepared to change your opinion when you discover that what you thought weee facts is in fact untrue. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 3, 2023 18:00:12 GMT
Going slower causes less pollution. "Reducing speed limits from 30mph to 20mph reduces brake and tyre wear, which contributes to particulate pollution. It also reduces fuel use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions when driving in an appropriate gear at a steady pace. A study showed an 8% reduction in NOx and PM10 emissions for 20mph compared to 30mph in diesel cars. 20mph limits massively cut toxic diesel emissions. Getting a vehicle to 30mph takes 2.25 times that to get to 20mph, and it is the repeated depletion (braking) and then acceleration to peak speed that uses most fuel. Not if your journey takes longer it doesn't. Engines are most efficient at around 55-60mph, so driving at a less efficient speed for longer is going to increase pollution. While it might seem intuitive that a resting or slow-moving car produces less pollution than a speeding one, the inverse is actually true.
One study has shown that emissions increase when a car travels below 45mph and above 65mph – so the so-called golden zone of fuel consumption and emissions reduction is between 45mph and 65mph.
We have been through this Pacifico. While it is true, I agree counter-intuitively, that most cars will burn less fuel running at a steady 30mph than at a steady 20mph. But urban roads don’t work like that. On urban roads you get traffic lights and roundabouts and people changing lane and zebra crossing congestion etc etc . So cars don’t run at steady speed. They are constantly accelerating and then slowing often to a stop. And the act of accelerating is by far the biggest gas guzzling and you do much more accelerating trying to get to 30 than you do to 20. Hence for most urban roads as well as saving lives, we also save petrol and therefore pollution by dropping speed limit to 20. Try to understand the facts before forming your opinion and be prepared to change your opinion when you discover that what you thought weee facts is in fact untrue. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 3, 2023 18:00:49 GMT
So obvious I thought I’d post it twice…..
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 3, 2023 18:03:28 GMT
So obvious I thought I’d post it twice….. We heard you the first time. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Oct 3, 2023 19:00:20 GMT
I think the thing that most of us don't like, it isn't being done in the name of safety, or environmental issues, it's purely down for financial gain, so we just want the lefties to cut to the chase, and do away with their bullshit lame excuses for money making rackets. That is a ridiculous statement if the speed limit is 20mph and you stay on or below 20mph you do not get a fine., going slower saves lives, what's not to like. Because they know that people won't.
It's the same with ULEZ - they don't want you to comply, they want you to get the fine.
Wakey, wakey, Wonky.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 3, 2023 19:10:25 GMT
If you choose to break the law, don’t complain when you get fined
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 3, 2023 19:34:00 GMT
30 km/h (20 mph) zones are very common, I'd even say the norm, in French villages and congested urban areas, especially in busy pedestrian zones and in the vicinity of schools. Nobody gets very aereated about it or demands a scientific inquiry into what seems like basic common sense. It's a nuisance as a motorist but there we are it's not the end of the world. That's the point — slower zones are set up where they're needed.
But it's the blanket imposition, as in Hackney (and no doubt by other authorities), on some previously 30mph roads that are often able to carry two or three lanes of traffic in the same direction — coming on top of the installation of widespread blocking of streets to motor traffic — that has irritated local drivers and even residents of affected streets.
TfL has realised that restricting some roads, like Islington's Upper Street and Holloway Road, would cause problems, so these are exempt. I guess we have to hope TfL's own observations will show what other 20mph restricted roads (like much of the A10) will cause traffic problems, and revert to previous restrictions...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2023 20:10:45 GMT
This interferance by the government is a direct attack on democracy Speed limits in residential areas, in urban envioronments ARE NOT A MATTER FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, it is a matter for local authorities who are governed by elected councillors to represent the people who elected them. If a Lib Dem, Tory or Labour council decides that 20 mph would be safer in a particular residential area, then it must be up to that authority to decide whether or not to impliment a 20 mph zone. If the local electorate and local residents oppose such a scheme, they can vote for a different candidate next time. As long as local authorities do not impose these limits on motorways, trunk roads, primary routes or major routes, then the government should keep their noses out of what does not concern them. What the fuck has democracy got to do with it? What about what the motorists want? There is a novelty you may like to ponder on. How many trees in our cities been cut down to make way for this bullshit by labour councils? This has fuck all to do with net zero its just an attack on our personal freedom and choice. Fuck the motorists - a very large minority of motorists laugh at any kind of speed limit, [Speed Kills], far too many motorists are selfish and havn't a care in the world about anyone else except for themselves. If there are occurences of accidents, or repeated occurences of of accidents, or speeding motorists in residential areas where families live, and where children play, the why shouldn't local authorities be allowed to introduce speed controls. The government should try governing the country, and let local authorities do their job |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2023 20:14:24 GMT
Says the Labour Party who rely on extortion and shitting on the working man. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 3, 2023 21:26:29 GMT
Not if your journey takes longer it doesn't. Engines are most efficient at around 55-60mph, so driving at a less efficient speed for longer is going to increase pollution. While it might seem intuitive that a resting or slow-moving car produces less pollution than a speeding one, the inverse is actually true.
One study has shown that emissions increase when a car travels below 45mph and above 65mph – so the so-called golden zone of fuel consumption and emissions reduction is between 45mph and 65mph.
We have been through this Pacifico. While it is true, I agree counter-intuitively, that most cars will burn less fuel running at a steady 30mph than at a steady 20mph. But urban roads don’t work like that. On urban roads you get traffic lights and roundabouts and people changing lane and zebra crossing congestion etc etc . So cars don’t run at steady speed. They are constantly accelerating and then slowing often to a stop. And the act of accelerating is by far the biggest gas guzzling and you do much more accelerating trying to get to 30 than you do to 20. Hence for most urban roads as well as saving lives, we also save petrol and therefore pollution by dropping speed limit to 20. Try to understand the facts before forming your opinion and be prepared to change your opinion when you discover that what you thought weee facts is in fact untrue. The basic fact that you keep avoiding is that a car running creates more pollution than a car that is switched off - so increasing the time it takes to complete a journey will increase pollution. But then you would need to understand facts.. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 3, 2023 21:53:40 GMT
What the fuck has democracy got to do with it? What about what the motorists want? There is a novelty you may like to ponder on. How many trees in our cities been cut down to make way for this bullshit by labour councils? This has fuck all to do with net zero its just an attack on our personal freedom and choice. Fuck the motorists - a very large minority of motorists laugh at any kind of speed limit, [Speed Kills], far too many motorists are selfish and havn't a care in the world about anyone else except for themselves. If there are occurences of accidents, or repeated occurences of of accidents, or speeding motorists in residential areas where families live, and where children play, the why shouldn't local authorities be allowed to introduce speed controls. The government should try governing the country, and let local authorities do their job More total bollocks. I bet your view will change when the shops are empty thanks to transport hold ups caused by this total fucking labour virtual signalling bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Oct 3, 2023 21:58:13 GMT
Says the Labour Party who rely on extortion and shitting on the working man. The day our kids can play in the streets are long gone thanks to labours lefty woke virtual signalling. Kids now are not safe from matchette carrying arseholes and kiddie fiddlers. SF must live on a different planet to the rest of us. |
|
