Making sense

Making sense

Making sense

First published in Letters by

GODFREY Bloom (Letters, January 13) is right to criticise the proposal to limit speeds to 60mph over a 34- mile stretch of the M1.

Has the Government really looked into this idea? A vehicle travelling at 60mph will take around an extra six minutes to cover that distance than one travelling at 70mph. Yet those extra six minutes will not make the slightest difference to reducing exhaust emissions. In fact, it may cause more air pollution.

Those six minutes have to be multiplied by the thousands of vehicles using that stretch, and then it becomes apparent that there is a good chance of more, rather than less, CO2.

Government proposals are so often flawed and in reality directed at other parties (The Greens, for example) to appease them rather than toward helping the man or woman in the street.

Leaving the 70mph limit in place makes much more sense.

Philip Roe, Roman Avenue South, Stamford Bridge, York.

 

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:21am Sat 18 Jan 14

old_geezer says...

It doesn't work out as a neat x minutes per vehicle times millions of vehicles extra, Mr Roe. Because of braking distances, the way vehicles (many of which don't or aren't legally allowed to do 70 anyway) cluster and manoeuvre, and optimum fuel consumption speed, there are benefits from a slightly lower average speed that won't translate into economic woe.
It doesn't work out as a neat x minutes per vehicle times millions of vehicles extra, Mr Roe. Because of braking distances, the way vehicles (many of which don't or aren't legally allowed to do 70 anyway) cluster and manoeuvre, and optimum fuel consumption speed, there are benefits from a slightly lower average speed that won't translate into economic woe. old_geezer
  • Score: 4

10:48am Sat 18 Jan 14

George Appleby says...

I agree Philip, over an eight year period in the 60s I averaged 1,000 miles a week, and many years doing 30,000 a year, seeing people on appointments and it would have made a big difference. However, I always tried hard to keep within the 70 mile limit on motor ways and other restrictions, particularly in built up areas and near schools. I am proud to have suffered nothing more than 1 or 2 minor bumps and did the business. I was stopped once on the outer approaches to Leeds and contested it in court. I was let off with a one pound, face saving fine, and congratulated by the sergeant who stopped me. I have an unblemished license for a further 3 years. Our car is our freedom! I am angry when people are up my bottom, trying to get past when in these restricted areas!!! When it is clear in front I signal them through to get them off my tail! They don't have to go but invariably do!
I agree Philip, over an eight year period in the 60s I averaged 1,000 miles a week, and many years doing 30,000 a year, seeing people on appointments and it would have made a big difference. However, I always tried hard to keep within the 70 mile limit on motor ways and other restrictions, particularly in built up areas and near schools. I am proud to have suffered nothing more than 1 or 2 minor bumps and did the business. I was stopped once on the outer approaches to Leeds and contested it in court. I was let off with a one pound, face saving fine, and congratulated by the sergeant who stopped me. I have an unblemished license for a further 3 years. Our car is our freedom! I am angry when people are up my bottom, trying to get past when in these restricted areas!!! When it is clear in front I signal them through to get them off my tail! They don't have to go but invariably do! George Appleby
  • Score: 1

1:13pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Mulgrave says...

Perhaps someone who travels this stretch regularly will take some MPG readings from their trip computer before and after.
Perhaps someone who travels this stretch regularly will take some MPG readings from their trip computer before and after. Mulgrave
  • Score: 7

2:53am Sun 19 Jan 14

Magicman! says...

old_geezer wrote:
It doesn't work out as a neat x minutes per vehicle times millions of vehicles extra, Mr Roe. Because of braking distances, the way vehicles (many of which don't or aren't legally allowed to do 70 anyway) cluster and manoeuvre, and optimum fuel consumption speed, there are benefits from a slightly lower average speed that won't translate into economic woe.
perhaps so, but if we put up 20mph limits on the M1 so every vehicle clustered together much closer, would it be any good for the environment - which is what this 60mph limit is supposedly about?
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: It doesn't work out as a neat x minutes per vehicle times millions of vehicles extra, Mr Roe. Because of braking distances, the way vehicles (many of which don't or aren't legally allowed to do 70 anyway) cluster and manoeuvre, and optimum fuel consumption speed, there are benefits from a slightly lower average speed that won't translate into economic woe.[/p][/quote]perhaps so, but if we put up 20mph limits on the M1 so every vehicle clustered together much closer, would it be any good for the environment - which is what this 60mph limit is supposedly about? Magicman!
  • Score: 0

9:06am Sun 19 Jan 14

old_geezer says...

Magicman! wrote:
old_geezer wrote:
It doesn't work out as a neat x minutes per vehicle times millions of vehicles extra, Mr Roe. Because of braking distances, the way vehicles (many of which don't or aren't legally allowed to do 70 anyway) cluster and manoeuvre, and optimum fuel consumption speed, there are benefits from a slightly lower average speed that won't translate into economic woe.
perhaps so, but if we put up 20mph limits on the M1 so every vehicle clustered together much closer, would it be any good for the environment - which is what this 60mph limit is supposedly about?
No, that's just silly. The optimum for MPG averages upper 50s (why the USA introduced a national limit for several years following the 1973 oil price shock). The gains from decreased braking distance would diminish with any further limit reduction below 60, as would further emission reductions. Various factors combine to make 60 a sensible limit for that particular stretch.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: It doesn't work out as a neat x minutes per vehicle times millions of vehicles extra, Mr Roe. Because of braking distances, the way vehicles (many of which don't or aren't legally allowed to do 70 anyway) cluster and manoeuvre, and optimum fuel consumption speed, there are benefits from a slightly lower average speed that won't translate into economic woe.[/p][/quote]perhaps so, but if we put up 20mph limits on the M1 so every vehicle clustered together much closer, would it be any good for the environment - which is what this 60mph limit is supposedly about?[/p][/quote]No, that's just silly. The optimum for MPG averages upper 50s (why the USA introduced a national limit for several years following the 1973 oil price shock). The gains from decreased braking distance would diminish with any further limit reduction below 60, as would further emission reductions. Various factors combine to make 60 a sensible limit for that particular stretch. old_geezer
  • Score: 1

10:21am Sun 19 Jan 14

Mulgrave says...

old_geezer wrote:
Magicman! wrote:
old_geezer wrote:
It doesn't work out as a neat x minutes per vehicle times millions of vehicles extra, Mr Roe. Because of braking distances, the way vehicles (many of which don't or aren't legally allowed to do 70 anyway) cluster and manoeuvre, and optimum fuel consumption speed, there are benefits from a slightly lower average speed that won't translate into economic woe.
perhaps so, but if we put up 20mph limits on the M1 so every vehicle clustered together much closer, would it be any good for the environment - which is what this 60mph limit is supposedly about?
No, that's just silly. The optimum for MPG averages upper 50s (why the USA introduced a national limit for several years following the 1973 oil price shock). The gains from decreased braking distance would diminish with any further limit reduction below 60, as would further emission reductions. Various factors combine to make 60 a sensible limit for that particular stretch.
Decreased braking distance is a bit of a red herring when you are talking about motorways, ideally there is little need for any. A vehicle will use more fuel at 70mph than 60mph due to the increased drag factor and this effect becomes more marked as the speed rises further, but whether lowering the limit will bring about fuel/emissions savings is a different matter, as other factors come into play.

The principle of variable lower limits (enforced by cameras) that operate on certain motorways to reduce congestion works by smoothing traffic flow and eliminating the effect of the faster vehicle that brakes harshly when encountering slower traffic causing the following vehicles to brake ever more severely until traffic actually comes to a stop. This has to be balanced by the effect of reducing the capacity of what was a free flowing motorway by the 10mph limit reduction, causing the type of driving where traffic bunches up and every small speed fluctuation has drivers either prodding their brakes or pushing the throttle thinking they are going to be on their way, with the more laid back wanting nothing to do with that and leaving a 200 metre gap in front.

I think the limit is going to be part time, and suspect that it will have to be camera enforced to make it stick, in which case some of the negatives will be eliminated. Being a very infrequent user of this route it may even be similar story to a 20mph sign at the head of a 25 metre long cul-de-sac, with no-one actually getting over 60mph anyway.
[quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]old_geezer[/bold] wrote: It doesn't work out as a neat x minutes per vehicle times millions of vehicles extra, Mr Roe. Because of braking distances, the way vehicles (many of which don't or aren't legally allowed to do 70 anyway) cluster and manoeuvre, and optimum fuel consumption speed, there are benefits from a slightly lower average speed that won't translate into economic woe.[/p][/quote]perhaps so, but if we put up 20mph limits on the M1 so every vehicle clustered together much closer, would it be any good for the environment - which is what this 60mph limit is supposedly about?[/p][/quote]No, that's just silly. The optimum for MPG averages upper 50s (why the USA introduced a national limit for several years following the 1973 oil price shock). The gains from decreased braking distance would diminish with any further limit reduction below 60, as would further emission reductions. Various factors combine to make 60 a sensible limit for that particular stretch.[/p][/quote]Decreased braking distance is a bit of a red herring when you are talking about motorways, ideally there is little need for any. A vehicle will use more fuel at 70mph than 60mph due to the increased drag factor and this effect becomes more marked as the speed rises further, but whether lowering the limit will bring about fuel/emissions savings is a different matter, as other factors come into play. The principle of variable lower limits (enforced by cameras) that operate on certain motorways to reduce congestion works by smoothing traffic flow and eliminating the effect of the faster vehicle that brakes harshly when encountering slower traffic causing the following vehicles to brake ever more severely until traffic actually comes to a stop. This has to be balanced by the effect of reducing the capacity of what was a free flowing motorway by the 10mph limit reduction, causing the type of driving where traffic bunches up and every small speed fluctuation has drivers either prodding their brakes or pushing the throttle thinking they are going to be on their way, with the more laid back wanting nothing to do with that and leaving a 200 metre gap in front. I think the limit is going to be part time, and suspect that it will have to be camera enforced to make it stick, in which case some of the negatives will be eliminated. Being a very infrequent user of this route it may even be similar story to a 20mph sign at the head of a 25 metre long cul-de-sac, with no-one actually getting over 60mph anyway. Mulgrave
  • Score: 1

10:39am Sun 19 Jan 14

Mulgrave says...

* I didn't mean to imply there was no need to allow for having to stop on a motorway, rather by driving to eliminate the need for braking every time traffic slows you have covered the need to stop if it arises.
* I didn't mean to imply there was no need to allow for having to stop on a motorway, rather by driving to eliminate the need for braking every time traffic slows you have covered the need to stop if it arises. Mulgrave
  • Score: 2

10:54am Mon 20 Jan 14

spiritofyork says...

once again ukip speaking up for the common man. if the far right do one thing well its listen to the people's anger, good on then.
once again ukip speaking up for the common man. if the far right do one thing well its listen to the people's anger, good on then. spiritofyork
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree