Proposed 60mph Speed Limit on J28 - J35 of M1 will reduce emissions

Depends what you drive.

11807662265_be3054cd05_c.jpg

Note: I think the above is in American mpg. That isn't my title. Source: http://blog.automatic.com/cost-speeding-save-little-time-spend-lot-money/

My Honda Insight 2 seems to behave a bit like the Civic in that graph. Seems to get best mpg around 55 but 70 is a sweet spot. It seems to lose a few mpg at 60.

I regularly drive that stretch of the M1. The problem isn't so much the speed, it's the morons that drive too close to each other.
 
Last edited:
Big debate with some friends on FB yesterday about this deal. The entire proposal stinks of greed. Noticing in particular the very narrow bandwidth of channels officially allocated to give feedback.
 
Muffin` said:
What's greed got to do with it?
Click to expand...

What's greed, but a second hand emotion?

I guess he's referring to the fact that a lot of people will still ignore the limit, and drive at whatever speed they would do now, meaning there's a larger proportion of drivers breaking the law that can be fined.

Thing is, this would require the presence of police on the motoways to enforce it (rofl) or more cameras.
 
Erm, speeding ticket enforcement, revenue for a gvmt that is too corrupt to legitimately source funds in other ways. Too busy engaged with back patting hairdressers. No offence to hairdressers.
 
It's being undertaken by the Highways Agency because of pollution limits mandated by the European Union, two bodies which do not get an income from speeding fines. It has to be enforced or we'll have to pay for the costs of the consultation, implementation and then the fines for when we fail to meet the levels. Police won't be required as it can be managed by speed cameras at either end.

What I feel has been overlooked is the main pollution contributors as they'll still be chugging along at 56mph.

The testing is also quite selective with what it can and does test, Diesel is apparently cleaner, but it really isn't.
 
Muffin` said:
It's being undertaken by the Highways Agency because of pollution limits mandated by the European Union, two bodies which do not get an income from speeding fines.
Click to expand...

I'd love to know how Germany circumvents this with the open Autobahn sections (mind you I am not sure German coffers are quite so hard up at the moment). The 'greed' element is a corporate reference. How much does it really costs to fit and run a digital speed camera or distance trap.

Isn't it also an alternate push for the subtle promotion of HST into the bargain which this back peddling govt would want to let run. I mean I am just giving my opinion from inside my cosy bubble here but I think I recognize a plot that's all.

Muffin` said:
What I feel has been overlooked is the main pollution contributors as they'll still be chugging along at 56mph.
Click to expand...

Yesterday I referenced the current system as being antiquated and constantly patched up again to bumble along a few more years until the next pipe falls off. Large vehicles are a necessary part of these pollution hardened arteries. If root cause analysis took place we could be going to much greater lengths to preserve momentum and movement across more than just the roads. Instead we'll squander progress with a slower than slow agency dialogue and a back up plan that invites driver exploitation into the bargain.

I don't feel it is large vehicles at fault (arguably a contributor but definately not sole party to pollution), but if it were then we would all be under a permanent haze of red hot days this midwinter. Well, something like that.

Muffin` said:
The testing is also quite selective with what it can and does test, Diesel is apparently cleaner, but it really isn't.
Click to expand...

These days the diesel engines are so artificially squeezed into the Euro zones cleanliness act it would warrant it's own book to explain I'm sure. But although they aren't heavy goods vehicles you just have to see inside the inlet tracts of the average 30k mileage diesel car manufactured in the last decade to appreciate just how they 'engineer' work around solutions to keep them viable and within those guidelines.

And the ecological argument is lost totally. They can twist statistics any which way they like to make it sound plausible.
 
Tute said:
Decisions like this are financially based. It's simple - drop the limit, wait for people to not notice and sit down there with a speed gun.

"Emissions" are only used as a vehicle for taxation and generation of revenue.
Click to expand...

they don't need a speed gun

that section is part of the "managed" motorways project so has speed cameras every half mile or so and dynamic changing speed limits like the M25.

All they do is permanently set it to 60 so the speed cameras are on( they aren't active when the limit isn't displayed and at 70) and watch the money roll in.
 
I think the guy who wrote the pistonheads article had a good point. Trucks emit like 30 x more than the average car. And yet it doesn't penalise them because they should be limited to like 55mph.

Its already painful enough driving through this section when its at 50mph right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom