£150k boost for air quality in York

PLANS to improve York’s air quality have been boosted by £150,000 of Government funding for five schemes in the city.

The money will come from Defra and is the most any single local authority in the UK will receive, with £94,490 being put towards bringing in “low emission strategy” measures and £54,490 being used to assess their impact, as well as supporting greener transport initiatives.

City of York Council will use the funding to launch a public information campaign designed to raise awareness of the health impact of air pollution - which is believed to cause the premature deaths of more than 150 people in York every year - and promote low-emission vehicles and taxis.

This will include vehicle demonstration days, the purchase or lease of a low-emission vehicle for promotion activity and the development of a low emission taxi incentive scheme.

A study will also be carried out to assess the likely reduction in emissions through the i-Travel York campaign, aimed at encouraging more people to use transport methods other than cars. Meanwhile, the authority will carry out work on potentially introducing “anti-idling” policies, urging drivers to switch off their engines when they are parked for some time.

“This funding will allow us to support and implement further our push for low emissions in York,” said Coun Dave Merrett, cabinet member for transport, planning and sustainability.

“The opportunity to educate residents about air pollution and the damage it can cause, along with the promotion of low-emission vehicles, will be a big boost to improving air quality in the city.”

Comments (39)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:06am Fri 4 Jan 13

MrsHoney says...

Better off staying in your car then if it's all polluted outside. ;-)
Better off staying in your car then if it's all polluted outside. ;-) MrsHoney
  • Score: 0

9:22am Fri 4 Jan 13

razor08 says...

If the council concentrated on keeping the traffic in York flowing rather than standing with engines running. There are several traffic light caused jams in York, the lights at the junction of Tower St and Skeldergate bridge cause standing traffic all the way up Bishopthorpe & Scarcroft road every morning, and the other way round on an evening. Get the traffic planners to sort the light sequences throughout the city!
If the council concentrated on keeping the traffic in York flowing rather than standing with engines running. There are several traffic light caused jams in York, the lights at the junction of Tower St and Skeldergate bridge cause standing traffic all the way up Bishopthorpe & Scarcroft road every morning, and the other way round on an evening. Get the traffic planners to sort the light sequences throughout the city! razor08
  • Score: 0

10:23am Fri 4 Jan 13

tobefair says...

They would improve the air quality round here if they emptied the bins!
They would improve the air quality round here if they emptied the bins! tobefair
  • Score: 0

10:37am Fri 4 Jan 13

pedalling paul says...

I noticed a local news item yesterday about electric buses being manufactured by Optaire at their Sherburn in Elmet site. Although these have sold well in the UK and overseas, none have been bought so far by Yorkshire bus operators. Perhaps an incentive to trial one in the City should be considered.

Visit http://www.scoot-utc
.com/ to learn more about the technology that is currently helping to delay gridlock in York.

No Local Authority in the world can cater for the instinctive demands of every car user. Traffic will only "flow" if there is less private car use at peak times. So, more car sharing, bus priority and cycle routes are the only long term options to encourage modal shift.
I noticed a local news item yesterday about electric buses being manufactured by Optaire at their Sherburn in Elmet site. Although these have sold well in the UK and overseas, none have been bought so far by Yorkshire bus operators. Perhaps an incentive to trial one in the City should be considered. Visit http://www.scoot-utc .com/ to learn more about the technology that is currently helping to delay gridlock in York. No Local Authority in the world can cater for the instinctive demands of every car user. Traffic will only "flow" if there is less private car use at peak times. So, more car sharing, bus priority and cycle routes are the only long term options to encourage modal shift. pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

10:54am Fri 4 Jan 13

BL2 says...

Meanwhile, the authority will carry out work on potentially introducing “anti-idling” policies, urging drivers to switch off their engines when they are parked for some time.


So they're spending money on investigating policies that cannot be enforced and will, no doubt, be ignored anyway? Good idea...!
[quote] Meanwhile, the authority will carry out work on potentially introducing “anti-idling” policies, urging drivers to switch off their engines when they are parked for some time. [/quote] So they're spending money on investigating policies that cannot be enforced and will, no doubt, be ignored anyway? Good idea...! BL2
  • Score: 0

11:13am Fri 4 Jan 13

Keeet Lemon says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I noticed a local news item yesterday about electric buses being manufactured by Optaire at their Sherburn in Elmet site. Although these have sold well in the UK and overseas, none have been bought so far by Yorkshire bus operators. Perhaps an incentive to trial one in the City should be considered.

Visit http://www.scoot-utc

.com/ to learn more about the technology that is currently helping to delay gridlock in York.

No Local Authority in the world can cater for the instinctive demands of every car user. Traffic will only "flow" if there is less private car use at peak times. So, more car sharing, bus priority and cycle routes are the only long term options to encourage modal shift.
Are you on crack?
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I noticed a local news item yesterday about electric buses being manufactured by Optaire at their Sherburn in Elmet site. Although these have sold well in the UK and overseas, none have been bought so far by Yorkshire bus operators. Perhaps an incentive to trial one in the City should be considered. Visit http://www.scoot-utc .com/ to learn more about the technology that is currently helping to delay gridlock in York. No Local Authority in the world can cater for the instinctive demands of every car user. Traffic will only "flow" if there is less private car use at peak times. So, more car sharing, bus priority and cycle routes are the only long term options to encourage modal shift.[/p][/quote]Are you on crack? Keeet Lemon
  • Score: 0

11:37am Fri 4 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

You can see the problem here from PP comments above. The minority campaigners have only one solution – force you out of your car.

Every time a set of traffic light fail in York the true cause of congestion in this city is revealed as the queues disappear. And every time the council make changes to junctions and traffic light phasing more queues appear.

What we really need is a modal shift in thinking but unfortunately that is not going to happen. As you can see from the award of this funding there is a lot of money available which no doubt it is helping to continue the employment of those who promote the anti car policies in York.
You can see the problem here from PP comments above. The minority campaigners have only one solution – force you out of your car. Every time a set of traffic light fail in York the true cause of congestion in this city is revealed as the queues disappear. And every time the council make changes to junctions and traffic light phasing more queues appear. What we really need is a modal shift in thinking but unfortunately that is not going to happen. As you can see from the award of this funding there is a lot of money available which no doubt it is helping to continue the employment of those who promote the anti car policies in York. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Fri 4 Jan 13

pedalling paul says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
You can see the problem here from PP comments above. The minority campaigners have only one solution – force you out of your car.

Every time a set of traffic light fail in York the true cause of congestion in this city is revealed as the queues disappear. And every time the council make changes to junctions and traffic light phasing more queues appear.

What we really need is a modal shift in thinking but unfortunately that is not going to happen. As you can see from the award of this funding there is a lot of money available which no doubt it is helping to continue the employment of those who promote the anti car policies in York.
Unfortunately the professional transport planners who advise York's Councillors, cannot stick their heads in the sand as you are doing. They have to consider the real world that our descendants will inherit, and in which York faces the reality of peak gridlock.
Cars will always be essential for some journeys. But I'll always beat you hands down on my bike, for a peak time suburban commute.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: You can see the problem here from PP comments above. The minority campaigners have only one solution – force you out of your car. Every time a set of traffic light fail in York the true cause of congestion in this city is revealed as the queues disappear. And every time the council make changes to junctions and traffic light phasing more queues appear. What we really need is a modal shift in thinking but unfortunately that is not going to happen. As you can see from the award of this funding there is a lot of money available which no doubt it is helping to continue the employment of those who promote the anti car policies in York.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately the professional transport planners who advise York's Councillors, cannot stick their heads in the sand as you are doing. They have to consider the real world that our descendants will inherit, and in which York faces the reality of peak gridlock. Cars will always be essential for some journeys. But I'll always beat you hands down on my bike, for a peak time suburban commute. pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Keeet Lemon says...

pedalling paul wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
You can see the problem here from PP comments above. The minority campaigners have only one solution – force you out of your car.

Every time a set of traffic light fail in York the true cause of congestion in this city is revealed as the queues disappear. And every time the council make changes to junctions and traffic light phasing more queues appear.

What we really need is a modal shift in thinking but unfortunately that is not going to happen. As you can see from the award of this funding there is a lot of money available which no doubt it is helping to continue the employment of those who promote the anti car policies in York.
Unfortunately the professional transport planners who advise York's Councillors, cannot stick their heads in the sand as you are doing. They have to consider the real world that our descendants will inherit, and in which York faces the reality of peak gridlock.
Cars will always be essential for some journeys. But I'll always beat you hands down on my bike, for a peak time suburban commute.
Been on his crack pipe again!
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: You can see the problem here from PP comments above. The minority campaigners have only one solution – force you out of your car. Every time a set of traffic light fail in York the true cause of congestion in this city is revealed as the queues disappear. And every time the council make changes to junctions and traffic light phasing more queues appear. What we really need is a modal shift in thinking but unfortunately that is not going to happen. As you can see from the award of this funding there is a lot of money available which no doubt it is helping to continue the employment of those who promote the anti car policies in York.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately the professional transport planners who advise York's Councillors, cannot stick their heads in the sand as you are doing. They have to consider the real world that our descendants will inherit, and in which York faces the reality of peak gridlock. Cars will always be essential for some journeys. But I'll always beat you hands down on my bike, for a peak time suburban commute.[/p][/quote]Been on his crack pipe again! Keeet Lemon
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Fri 4 Jan 13

tobefair says...

It's still quicker at most times to drive through town rather than go round the northern ring road. This is why the planners do all they can to slow traffic down in the centre of York to encourage drivers to use the car park, sorry I meant the ring road
It's still quicker at most times to drive through town rather than go round the northern ring road. This is why the planners do all they can to slow traffic down in the centre of York to encourage drivers to use the car park, sorry I meant the ring road tobefair
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Fri 4 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

pedalling paul wrote:
strangebuttrue? wrote:
You can see the problem here from PP comments above. The minority campaigners have only one solution – force you out of your car.

Every time a set of traffic light fail in York the true cause of congestion in this city is revealed as the queues disappear. And every time the council make changes to junctions and traffic light phasing more queues appear.

What we really need is a modal shift in thinking but unfortunately that is not going to happen. As you can see from the award of this funding there is a lot of money available which no doubt it is helping to continue the employment of those who promote the anti car policies in York.
Unfortunately the professional transport planners who advise York's Councillors, cannot stick their heads in the sand as you are doing. They have to consider the real world that our descendants will inherit, and in which York faces the reality of peak gridlock.
Cars will always be essential for some journeys. But I'll always beat you hands down on my bike, for a peak time suburban commute.
Paul. Of course you will beat me in peak time traffic that is what all of the anti car, traffic congestion, pollution creation Council schemes are supposed to achieve.

What I am suggesting is that we stop and re-think. After all how many years does it take to change thinking in an organisation? Experts say about 6 years or alternatively as long as it takes to change the top management team.

The the council have been at this for a lot longer than that from the first baby steps of needlessly changing Boroughbridge Road to a single lane from Carr lane to Poppleton Road increasing journey times from 5 mins to 25 mins until people found alternative routes. Before you say it, this was done under the guise of providing a cycle lane to improve safety – tosh they soon put the cycle lane on the wide footpath when it suited.

The people of this country have never given in to bullying or we would all be eating sauerkraut by now and this anti car policy is no more than that – bullying, so I am saying think again.

The Professional transport planners you mention have their heads well above the sand they can see that as long as they continue to create the congestion and pollution they will stay in a job funded by the Government as is demonstrated by this article so their part in this is self serving.

Let us have a day when all the traffic lights are turned off and people are warned to be extra careful at junctions and let’s see the effect. No, as that would prove the point and of course the excuse for not doing it would be Safety.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: You can see the problem here from PP comments above. The minority campaigners have only one solution – force you out of your car. Every time a set of traffic light fail in York the true cause of congestion in this city is revealed as the queues disappear. And every time the council make changes to junctions and traffic light phasing more queues appear. What we really need is a modal shift in thinking but unfortunately that is not going to happen. As you can see from the award of this funding there is a lot of money available which no doubt it is helping to continue the employment of those who promote the anti car policies in York.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately the professional transport planners who advise York's Councillors, cannot stick their heads in the sand as you are doing. They have to consider the real world that our descendants will inherit, and in which York faces the reality of peak gridlock. Cars will always be essential for some journeys. But I'll always beat you hands down on my bike, for a peak time suburban commute.[/p][/quote]Paul. Of course you will beat me in peak time traffic that is what all of the anti car, traffic congestion, pollution creation Council schemes are supposed to achieve. What I am suggesting is that we stop and re-think. After all how many years does it take to change thinking in an organisation? Experts say about 6 years or alternatively as long as it takes to change the top management team. The the council have been at this for a lot longer than that from the first baby steps of needlessly changing Boroughbridge Road to a single lane from Carr lane to Poppleton Road increasing journey times from 5 mins to 25 mins until people found alternative routes. Before you say it, this was done under the guise of providing a cycle lane to improve safety – tosh they soon put the cycle lane on the wide footpath when it suited. The people of this country have never given in to bullying or we would all be eating sauerkraut by now and this anti car policy is no more than that – bullying, so I am saying think again. The Professional transport planners you mention have their heads well above the sand they can see that as long as they continue to create the congestion and pollution they will stay in a job funded by the Government as is demonstrated by this article so their part in this is self serving. Let us have a day when all the traffic lights are turned off and people are warned to be extra careful at junctions and let’s see the effect. No, as that would prove the point and of course the excuse for not doing it would be Safety. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

2:21pm Fri 4 Jan 13

meme says...

get rid of traffic lights and the city will flow better traffic wise
Its clear when they break down the traffic runs well
at least try it and see what happens?
get rid of traffic lights [except pedestrian ones] and the city will flow better traffic wise Its clear when they break down the traffic runs well at least try it and see what happens? meme
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Dallwan says...

Strangebuttrue has hit the nail on the head. The reality is that people will not be bullied out of their cars. The council does need to have a major rethink for everyone's sake. Quite clearly their policies are failing and they need to be realistic and allow traffic to flow. Meddling with junctions and the disappearance of the left filter lights just causes more standing traffic. When you come up to a set of traffic lights in the middle of the night and they change to red in front of you, when no other traffic is about, there is something clearly wrong. How about a trial period of turning off all the traffic lights and opening up all the "no access" roads to see how the traffic flows??
Strangebuttrue has hit the nail on the head. The reality is that people will not be bullied out of their cars. The council does need to have a major rethink for everyone's sake. Quite clearly their policies are failing and they need to be realistic and allow traffic to flow. Meddling with junctions and the disappearance of the left filter lights just causes more standing traffic. When you come up to a set of traffic lights in the middle of the night and they change to red in front of you, when no other traffic is about, there is something clearly wrong. How about a trial period of turning off all the traffic lights and opening up all the "no access" roads to see how the traffic flows?? Dallwan
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Mullarkian says...

That's right have everyone grinding around in second or third gear whilst they negotiate speed humps, chicanes & 20 mph limits and see how air quality improves.
You couldn't make it up!
That's right have everyone grinding around in second or third gear whilst they negotiate speed humps, chicanes & 20 mph limits and see how air quality improves. You couldn't make it up! Mullarkian
  • Score: 0

9:52pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Paul Meoff says...

Mullarkian wrote:
That's right have everyone grinding around in second or third gear whilst they negotiate speed humps, chicanes & 20 mph limits and see how air quality improves.
You couldn't make it up!
So a car at, say, 2000 rpm in 3rd doing a steady 20mph in 3rd creates more pollution than the same car at the same revs in 4th at 30mph? More pollution comes from accelerating. Lower speed, less accelerating and more steady speed cruising would mean less pollution. Also more people would cycle as roads would be safer so less pollution.

Of course, this would only work with rigorously applied limits. Over 20mph meaning no questions asked 3 points and fine. People would quickly get the message. Plenty of unmarked cameras and mobile average speed checks would do the trick.
[quote][p][bold]Mullarkian[/bold] wrote: That's right have everyone grinding around in second or third gear whilst they negotiate speed humps, chicanes & 20 mph limits and see how air quality improves. You couldn't make it up![/p][/quote]So a car at, say, 2000 rpm in 3rd doing a steady 20mph in 3rd creates more pollution than the same car at the same revs in 4th at 30mph? More pollution comes from accelerating. Lower speed, less accelerating and more steady speed cruising would mean less pollution. Also more people would cycle as roads would be safer so less pollution. Of course, this would only work with rigorously applied limits. Over 20mph meaning no questions asked 3 points and fine. People would quickly get the message. Plenty of unmarked cameras and mobile average speed checks would do the trick. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

11:50pm Fri 4 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

Paul Meoff wrote:
Mullarkian wrote:
That's right have everyone grinding around in second or third gear whilst they negotiate speed humps, chicanes & 20 mph limits and see how air quality improves.
You couldn't make it up!
So a car at, say, 2000 rpm in 3rd doing a steady 20mph in 3rd creates more pollution than the same car at the same revs in 4th at 30mph? More pollution comes from accelerating. Lower speed, less accelerating and more steady speed cruising would mean less pollution. Also more people would cycle as roads would be safer so less pollution.

Of course, this would only work with rigorously applied limits. Over 20mph meaning no questions asked 3 points and fine. People would quickly get the message. Plenty of unmarked cameras and mobile average speed checks would do the trick.
Fuel consumption figures

30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption figures
• Steady 30mph (4th gear):
60.7 mpg (small petrol car), 55.6 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 58.15 mpg (average)
• Steady 20mph (3rd gear):
55.5 mpg (small petrol car), 49.1 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 52.3 mpg (average)
• Speed humps (6 over 1/2 mile at 20-30 mph):
33.8 mpg (small petrol car), 27.9 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 30.85 mpg (average)
30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption differences
• Change 30 mph zone to 20 mph:
increases fuel consumption by 5.85 miles per gallon, or 10.1 per cent.
• Add speed humps to a 30 mph zone:
increases fuel consumption by 27.3 miles per gallon, or 46.9 per cent.
The AA's fuel consumption tests were carried out at Millbrook proving ground by an independent engineer and car tester, using a fuel flow meter.
In 2000, the then Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions argued against reducing the 30 mph limit for fear of increasing emissions.

Need I say more?
[quote][p][bold]Paul Meoff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mullarkian[/bold] wrote: That's right have everyone grinding around in second or third gear whilst they negotiate speed humps, chicanes & 20 mph limits and see how air quality improves. You couldn't make it up![/p][/quote]So a car at, say, 2000 rpm in 3rd doing a steady 20mph in 3rd creates more pollution than the same car at the same revs in 4th at 30mph? More pollution comes from accelerating. Lower speed, less accelerating and more steady speed cruising would mean less pollution. Also more people would cycle as roads would be safer so less pollution. Of course, this would only work with rigorously applied limits. Over 20mph meaning no questions asked 3 points and fine. People would quickly get the message. Plenty of unmarked cameras and mobile average speed checks would do the trick.[/p][/quote]Fuel consumption figures 30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption figures • Steady 30mph (4th gear): 60.7 mpg (small petrol car), 55.6 mpg (medium petrol car) = 58.15 mpg (average) • Steady 20mph (3rd gear): 55.5 mpg (small petrol car), 49.1 mpg (medium petrol car) = 52.3 mpg (average) • Speed humps (6 over 1/2 mile at 20-30 mph): 33.8 mpg (small petrol car), 27.9 mpg (medium petrol car) = 30.85 mpg (average) 30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption differences • Change 30 mph zone to 20 mph: increases fuel consumption by 5.85 miles per gallon, or 10.1 per cent. • Add speed humps to a 30 mph zone: increases fuel consumption by 27.3 miles per gallon, or 46.9 per cent. The AA's fuel consumption tests were carried out at Millbrook proving ground by an independent engineer and car tester, using a fuel flow meter. In 2000, the then Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions argued against reducing the 30 mph limit for fear of increasing emissions. Need I say more? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

4:04am Sat 5 Jan 13

Magicman! says...

Spending the money on a public awareness campaign... yes because that will work won't it?! Instead why not remove obstructions they've put in place such as those stupid chicanes along Huntington Road and the idiotic single lane narrowing of Heslington Field Lane....

Or even better why not go radical... close lendal bridge to cars and build a tram system from Monks Cross to the rail station, with a stop in Duncombe Place? Yeah, like that would ever happen!
Spending the money on a public awareness campaign... yes because that will work won't it?! Instead why not remove obstructions they've put in place such as those stupid chicanes along Huntington Road and the idiotic single lane narrowing of Heslington Field Lane.... Or even better why not go radical... close lendal bridge to cars and build a tram system from Monks Cross to the rail station, with a stop in Duncombe Place? Yeah, like that would ever happen! Magicman!
  • Score: 0

4:06am Sat 5 Jan 13

Magicman! says...

pedalling paul wrote:
I noticed a local news item yesterday about electric buses being manufactured by Optaire at their Sherburn in Elmet site. Although these have sold well in the UK and overseas, none have been bought so far by Yorkshire bus operators. Perhaps an incentive to trial one in the City should be considered.

Visit http://www.scoot-utc

.com/ to learn more about the technology that is currently helping to delay gridlock in York.

No Local Authority in the world can cater for the instinctive demands of every car user. Traffic will only "flow" if there is less private car use at peak times. So, more car sharing, bus priority and cycle routes are the only long term options to encourage modal shift.
Actually there was a trial of these and similar vehicles. an Optare Tempo, AlexanderDennis Enviro 400H, and a Wright Gemini Volvo B5TL were all trialled on the number 7 P&R route... but as always with trials of buses a bit different to the normal York fleet, nothing has happened about them since. We had a Wright Electrocity trialled on the number 6 in about 2003/2004 and nothing ever came to fruition from that trial either.
[quote][p][bold]pedalling paul [/bold] wrote: I noticed a local news item yesterday about electric buses being manufactured by Optaire at their Sherburn in Elmet site. Although these have sold well in the UK and overseas, none have been bought so far by Yorkshire bus operators. Perhaps an incentive to trial one in the City should be considered. Visit http://www.scoot-utc .com/ to learn more about the technology that is currently helping to delay gridlock in York. No Local Authority in the world can cater for the instinctive demands of every car user. Traffic will only "flow" if there is less private car use at peak times. So, more car sharing, bus priority and cycle routes are the only long term options to encourage modal shift.[/p][/quote]Actually there was a trial of these and similar vehicles. an Optare Tempo, AlexanderDennis Enviro 400H, and a Wright Gemini Volvo B5TL were all trialled on the number 7 P&R route... but as always with trials of buses a bit different to the normal York fleet, nothing has happened about them since. We had a Wright Electrocity trialled on the number 6 in about 2003/2004 and nothing ever came to fruition from that trial either. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

4:11am Sat 5 Jan 13

Magicman! says...

The Enviro 400H at the James Street depot... almost 2 years ago now
http://www.flickr.co
m/photos/10110677@N0
7/6978182807/

Still waiting for Hybrids to arrive....
The Enviro 400H at the James Street depot... almost 2 years ago now http://www.flickr.co m/photos/10110677@N0 7/6978182807/ Still waiting for Hybrids to arrive.... Magicman!
  • Score: 0

8:12am Sat 5 Jan 13

Paul Meoff says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
Paul Meoff wrote:
Mullarkian wrote:
That's right have everyone grinding around in second or third gear whilst they negotiate speed humps, chicanes & 20 mph limits and see how air quality improves.
You couldn't make it up!
So a car at, say, 2000 rpm in 3rd doing a steady 20mph in 3rd creates more pollution than the same car at the same revs in 4th at 30mph? More pollution comes from accelerating. Lower speed, less accelerating and more steady speed cruising would mean less pollution. Also more people would cycle as roads would be safer so less pollution.

Of course, this would only work with rigorously applied limits. Over 20mph meaning no questions asked 3 points and fine. People would quickly get the message. Plenty of unmarked cameras and mobile average speed checks would do the trick.
Fuel consumption figures

30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption figures
• Steady 30mph (4th gear):
60.7 mpg (small petrol car), 55.6 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 58.15 mpg (average)
• Steady 20mph (3rd gear):
55.5 mpg (small petrol car), 49.1 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 52.3 mpg (average)
• Speed humps (6 over 1/2 mile at 20-30 mph):
33.8 mpg (small petrol car), 27.9 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 30.85 mpg (average)
30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption differences
• Change 30 mph zone to 20 mph:
increases fuel consumption by 5.85 miles per gallon, or 10.1 per cent.
• Add speed humps to a 30 mph zone:
increases fuel consumption by 27.3 miles per gallon, or 46.9 per cent.
The AA's fuel consumption tests were carried out at Millbrook proving ground by an independent engineer and car tester, using a fuel flow meter.
In 2000, the then Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions argued against reducing the 30 mph limit for fear of increasing emissions.

Need I say more?
The data proves the point that I was making - acceleration is the primary cause of increased consumption, not absolute speed.

This talks about economy at steady speed and the most noticeable difference is over speed humps in the 20 - 30mph range.

If you get 55.5 mpg at a steady 20mph but this drops to 33.8 mpg at 20 - 30mph over speed humps why is this? It's because people slow to 20 over the humps, accelerate to 30 then brake hard to 20 for the next hump. It's the acceleration that uses the extra fuel, not the going up and down over the bump.

Try it yourself. Stick to 20 on a clear road where there are speed humps and you will not need to slow down or accelerate.

Same would happen in 'normal' driving. How much time is spent at a steady 30 in a 30 limit? Mostly it will be slowing, stopping, starting and, especially if a taxi, accelerating to 45 before slowing and stopping again. At a rigorously enforced 20, the acceleration would be for a much shorter duration hence consumption would increase.

If the argument was based on maximising consumption you would conclude that 50mph in 5th or 6th is optimal. However, how many would accept one of their children getting killed by a car driving faster in the interests of economy?

Reduce the limits, enforce them rigorously, increase safety, reduce pollution and have marginal or even beneficial impacts on journey times. I know most would see this as an infringement of their rights to choose what laws to obey, but how much journey time would they need to save to make the death of one of their own children a price worth paying?
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paul Meoff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mullarkian[/bold] wrote: That's right have everyone grinding around in second or third gear whilst they negotiate speed humps, chicanes & 20 mph limits and see how air quality improves. You couldn't make it up![/p][/quote]So a car at, say, 2000 rpm in 3rd doing a steady 20mph in 3rd creates more pollution than the same car at the same revs in 4th at 30mph? More pollution comes from accelerating. Lower speed, less accelerating and more steady speed cruising would mean less pollution. Also more people would cycle as roads would be safer so less pollution. Of course, this would only work with rigorously applied limits. Over 20mph meaning no questions asked 3 points and fine. People would quickly get the message. Plenty of unmarked cameras and mobile average speed checks would do the trick.[/p][/quote]Fuel consumption figures 30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption figures • Steady 30mph (4th gear): 60.7 mpg (small petrol car), 55.6 mpg (medium petrol car) = 58.15 mpg (average) • Steady 20mph (3rd gear): 55.5 mpg (small petrol car), 49.1 mpg (medium petrol car) = 52.3 mpg (average) • Speed humps (6 over 1/2 mile at 20-30 mph): 33.8 mpg (small petrol car), 27.9 mpg (medium petrol car) = 30.85 mpg (average) 30mph/20mph/speed humps petrol car consumption differences • Change 30 mph zone to 20 mph: increases fuel consumption by 5.85 miles per gallon, or 10.1 per cent. • Add speed humps to a 30 mph zone: increases fuel consumption by 27.3 miles per gallon, or 46.9 per cent. The AA's fuel consumption tests were carried out at Millbrook proving ground by an independent engineer and car tester, using a fuel flow meter. In 2000, the then Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions argued against reducing the 30 mph limit for fear of increasing emissions. Need I say more?[/p][/quote]The data proves the point that I was making - acceleration is the primary cause of increased consumption, not absolute speed. This talks about economy at steady speed and the most noticeable difference is over speed humps in the 20 - 30mph range. If you get 55.5 mpg at a steady 20mph but this drops to 33.8 mpg at 20 - 30mph over speed humps why is this? It's because people slow to 20 over the humps, accelerate to 30 then brake hard to 20 for the next hump. It's the acceleration that uses the extra fuel, not the going up and down over the bump. Try it yourself. Stick to 20 on a clear road where there are speed humps and you will not need to slow down or accelerate. Same would happen in 'normal' driving. How much time is spent at a steady 30 in a 30 limit? Mostly it will be slowing, stopping, starting and, especially if a taxi, accelerating to 45 before slowing and stopping again. At a rigorously enforced 20, the acceleration would be for a much shorter duration hence consumption would increase. If the argument was based on maximising consumption you would conclude that 50mph in 5th or 6th is optimal. However, how many would accept one of their children getting killed by a car driving faster in the interests of economy? Reduce the limits, enforce them rigorously, increase safety, reduce pollution and have marginal or even beneficial impacts on journey times. I know most would see this as an infringement of their rights to choose what laws to obey, but how much journey time would they need to save to make the death of one of their own children a price worth paying? Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

10:00am Sat 5 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

Amazing. You see when I say that the minority campaigners have only one view!! They take data and then skew it to come back to their own way of thinking then throw in safety and child killing for good measure. Of course everyone knows that acceleration uses more fuel but this is only for a few seconds. The other bit of AA data in here which is conveniently ignored by Paul Meoff is as follows: -
• Steady 30mph (4th gear):
60.7 mpg (small petrol car), 55.6 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 58.15 mpg (average)
• Steady 20mph (3rd gear):
55.5 mpg (small petrol car), 49.1 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 52.3 mpg (average)

Conclusion.
• Change 30 mph zone to 20 mph:
INCREASES fuel consumption by 5.85 miles per gallon, or 10.1 per cent.

As I have said before, thanks to the green lobby, I have a little computer in my car which tells me my average fuel consumption. This little computer tells me what I already knew and what this data appears to show - I use more fuel at 20 MPH than 30 MPH and in my case that includes acceleration under normal driving conditions in York.
Amazing. You see when I say that the minority campaigners have only one view!! They take data and then skew it to come back to their own way of thinking then throw in safety and child killing for good measure. Of course everyone knows that acceleration uses more fuel but this is only for a few seconds. The other bit of AA data in here which is conveniently ignored by Paul Meoff is as follows: - • Steady 30mph (4th gear): 60.7 mpg (small petrol car), 55.6 mpg (medium petrol car) = 58.15 mpg (average) • Steady 20mph (3rd gear): 55.5 mpg (small petrol car), 49.1 mpg (medium petrol car) = 52.3 mpg (average) Conclusion. • Change 30 mph zone to 20 mph: INCREASES fuel consumption by 5.85 miles per gallon, or 10.1 per cent. As I have said before, thanks to the green lobby, I have a little computer in my car which tells me my average fuel consumption. This little computer tells me what I already knew and what this data appears to show - I use more fuel at 20 MPH than 30 MPH and in my case that includes acceleration under normal driving conditions in York. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

10:06am Sat 5 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

By the way you will note that when I presented the data in the first instance I gave it all not just the bits which fit an alternative view.
By the way you will note that when I presented the data in the first instance I gave it all not just the bits which fit an alternative view. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Paul Meoff says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
Amazing. You see when I say that the minority campaigners have only one view!! They take data and then skew it to come back to their own way of thinking then throw in safety and child killing for good measure. Of course everyone knows that acceleration uses more fuel but this is only for a few seconds. The other bit of AA data in here which is conveniently ignored by Paul Meoff is as follows: -
• Steady 30mph (4th gear):
60.7 mpg (small petrol car), 55.6 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 58.15 mpg (average)
• Steady 20mph (3rd gear):
55.5 mpg (small petrol car), 49.1 mpg (medium petrol car)
= 52.3 mpg (average)

Conclusion.
• Change 30 mph zone to 20 mph:
INCREASES fuel consumption by 5.85 miles per gallon, or 10.1 per cent.

As I have said before, thanks to the green lobby, I have a little computer in my car which tells me my average fuel consumption. This little computer tells me what I already knew and what this data appears to show - I use more fuel at 20 MPH than 30 MPH and in my case that includes acceleration under normal driving conditions in York.
Clearly the concept is too complicated for you. If you drive at 20 it cannot include acceleration.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Amazing. You see when I say that the minority campaigners have only one view!! They take data and then skew it to come back to their own way of thinking then throw in safety and child killing for good measure. Of course everyone knows that acceleration uses more fuel but this is only for a few seconds. The other bit of AA data in here which is conveniently ignored by Paul Meoff is as follows: - • Steady 30mph (4th gear): 60.7 mpg (small petrol car), 55.6 mpg (medium petrol car) = 58.15 mpg (average) • Steady 20mph (3rd gear): 55.5 mpg (small petrol car), 49.1 mpg (medium petrol car) = 52.3 mpg (average) Conclusion. • Change 30 mph zone to 20 mph: INCREASES fuel consumption by 5.85 miles per gallon, or 10.1 per cent. As I have said before, thanks to the green lobby, I have a little computer in my car which tells me my average fuel consumption. This little computer tells me what I already knew and what this data appears to show - I use more fuel at 20 MPH than 30 MPH and in my case that includes acceleration under normal driving conditions in York.[/p][/quote]Clearly the concept is too complicated for you. If you drive at 20 it cannot include acceleration. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Sat 5 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

Oh yes did I mention that other trait of the minority campaigner? When all else fails throw in an insult on someone’s intelligence.

Happy New Year Paul
Oh yes did I mention that other trait of the minority campaigner? When all else fails throw in an insult on someone’s intelligence. Happy New Year Paul strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Sat 5 Jan 13

Paul Meoff says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
Oh yes did I mention that other trait of the minority campaigner? When all else fails throw in an insult on someone’s intelligence.

Happy New Year Paul
Not insulting your intelligence, just pointing out the invalidity of your argument.

You cannot make any conclusions about fuel consumption at 20mph that includes acceleration. Acceleration is a change of velocity so cannot be at steady speed unless you are referring to cornering while at 20.

Obviously the instantaneous consumption you see at 20 with foot down getting to 30 or more will be lower than any steady speed as you are accelerating through 20.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Oh yes did I mention that other trait of the minority campaigner? When all else fails throw in an insult on someone’s intelligence. Happy New Year Paul[/p][/quote]Not insulting your intelligence, just pointing out the invalidity of your argument. You cannot make any conclusions about fuel consumption at 20mph that includes acceleration. Acceleration is a change of velocity so cannot be at steady speed unless you are referring to cornering while at 20. Obviously the instantaneous consumption you see at 20 with foot down getting to 30 or more will be lower than any steady speed as you are accelerating through 20. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Sun 6 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

Sorry folks I would not normally get drawn into this but find this one irresistible for some reason. Could be because I also believe that the minority campaigner also uses the tactic of wearing you down to silence all but those who promote their cause.

Paul Meoff Said...
“Clearly the concept is too complicated for you”
And then-
“Not insulting your intelligence, just pointing out the invalidity of your argument.””

I will let others be the judge of that.

Just to be clear about what I was saying.
The AA data states that when driving at a steady 20 you use 10.1% more fuel than driving at steady 30. I would agree that you use more fuel at a steady 20 than a steady 30 from observation of my fuel consumption computer in my own car although in my car the disparity is unfortunately somewhat greater than the AA measured in theirs.

Now to get to from 0 or 10 to 20 or 30 (to increase your speed) you have to accelerate or change your velocity if you like.

My own observation on my little in car computer have shown me that:-
If I accelerate for a few seconds to 20 then drive at a steady 20 because I am using more fuel for longer at a steady 20 than I would be at a steady 30 overall I use more fuel than if I accelerate for a few more seconds to 30 and then drive more economically at a steady 30 over the same distance. This is due to the negation of the additional fuel used to get from 20 to 30 by the more economical running at 30 for less time than I would at 20 over the same distance.
Sorry folks I would not normally get drawn into this but find this one irresistible for some reason. Could be because I also believe that the minority campaigner also uses the tactic of wearing you down to silence all but those who promote their cause. Paul Meoff Said... “Clearly the concept is too complicated for you” And then- “Not insulting your intelligence, just pointing out the invalidity of your argument.”” I will let others be the judge of that. Just to be clear about what I was saying. The AA data states that when driving at a steady 20 you use 10.1% more fuel than driving at steady 30. I would agree that you use more fuel at a steady 20 than a steady 30 from observation of my fuel consumption computer in my own car although in my car the disparity is unfortunately somewhat greater than the AA measured in theirs. Now to get to from 0 or 10 to 20 or 30 (to increase your speed) you have to accelerate or change your velocity if you like. My own observation on my little in car computer have shown me that:- If I accelerate for a few seconds to 20 then drive at a steady 20 because I am using more fuel for longer at a steady 20 than I would be at a steady 30 overall I use more fuel than if I accelerate for a few more seconds to 30 and then drive more economically at a steady 30 over the same distance. This is due to the negation of the additional fuel used to get from 20 to 30 by the more economical running at 30 for less time than I would at 20 over the same distance. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

10:43pm Sun 6 Jan 13

Paul Meoff says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
Sorry folks I would not normally get drawn into this but find this one irresistible for some reason. Could be because I also believe that the minority campaigner also uses the tactic of wearing you down to silence all but those who promote their cause.

Paul Meoff Said...
“Clearly the concept is too complicated for you”
And then-
“Not insulting your intelligence, just pointing out the invalidity of your argument.””

I will let others be the judge of that.

Just to be clear about what I was saying.
The AA data states that when driving at a steady 20 you use 10.1% more fuel than driving at steady 30. I would agree that you use more fuel at a steady 20 than a steady 30 from observation of my fuel consumption computer in my own car although in my car the disparity is unfortunately somewhat greater than the AA measured in theirs.

Now to get to from 0 or 10 to 20 or 30 (to increase your speed) you have to accelerate or change your velocity if you like.

My own observation on my little in car computer have shown me that:-
If I accelerate for a few seconds to 20 then drive at a steady 20 because I am using more fuel for longer at a steady 20 than I would be at a steady 30 overall I use more fuel than if I accelerate for a few more seconds to 30 and then drive more economically at a steady 30 over the same distance. This is due to the negation of the additional fuel used to get from 20 to 30 by the more economical running at 30 for less time than I would at 20 over the same distance.
I thought cars were generally more efficient at about 50, although that is disputed by what I'm sure is the Green Parties favourite publication, What Car. They states the lower the speed (within reason) the greater the economy.

http://www.whatcar.c
om/car-news/fuel-eco
nomy-making-every-ga
llon-count/the-test-
findings/233124

I also found the AA article quoted to back up the increased economy at 30 over 20. Strangebuttrue missed the comment which states:
"Along shorter roads with junctions and roundabouts, limiting acceleration to up to 20 mph reduces fuel consumption"

It doesn't quantify 'shorter' but try setting cruise control to 30 in York as I have in the past. I'd challenge anyone to find a stretch of 30mph limited road where you could maintain that setting for a mile between 8am and 7pm.

I'm don't doubt that 30mph is more efficient than 20mph on a test track. The benefit would only be achieved in York if you did laps of the outer ring road at 3am.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Sorry folks I would not normally get drawn into this but find this one irresistible for some reason. Could be because I also believe that the minority campaigner also uses the tactic of wearing you down to silence all but those who promote their cause. Paul Meoff Said... “Clearly the concept is too complicated for you” And then- “Not insulting your intelligence, just pointing out the invalidity of your argument.”” I will let others be the judge of that. Just to be clear about what I was saying. The AA data states that when driving at a steady 20 you use 10.1% more fuel than driving at steady 30. I would agree that you use more fuel at a steady 20 than a steady 30 from observation of my fuel consumption computer in my own car although in my car the disparity is unfortunately somewhat greater than the AA measured in theirs. Now to get to from 0 or 10 to 20 or 30 (to increase your speed) you have to accelerate or change your velocity if you like. My own observation on my little in car computer have shown me that:- If I accelerate for a few seconds to 20 then drive at a steady 20 because I am using more fuel for longer at a steady 20 than I would be at a steady 30 overall I use more fuel than if I accelerate for a few more seconds to 30 and then drive more economically at a steady 30 over the same distance. This is due to the negation of the additional fuel used to get from 20 to 30 by the more economical running at 30 for less time than I would at 20 over the same distance.[/p][/quote]I thought cars were generally more efficient at about 50, although that is disputed by what I'm sure is the Green Parties favourite publication, What Car. They states the lower the speed (within reason) the greater the economy. http://www.whatcar.c om/car-news/fuel-eco nomy-making-every-ga llon-count/the-test- findings/233124 I also found the AA article quoted to back up the increased economy at 30 over 20. Strangebuttrue missed the comment which states: "Along shorter roads with junctions and roundabouts, limiting acceleration to up to 20 mph reduces fuel consumption" It doesn't quantify 'shorter' but try setting cruise control to 30 in York as I have in the past. I'd challenge anyone to find a stretch of 30mph limited road where you could maintain that setting for a mile between 8am and 7pm. I'm don't doubt that 30mph is more efficient than 20mph on a test track. The benefit would only be achieved in York if you did laps of the outer ring road at 3am. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

11:40pm Sun 6 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

See what I mean about wearing you down.

Never saw the article PM quotes from the AA so could not miss the comment and after falsely accusing me of missing something in an article I have not seen which he says quotes "Along shorter roads with junctions and roundabouts, limiting acceleration to up to 20 mph reduces fuel consumption" then goes back to contradict himself later by mentioning the test track from the actual article I read.

Don’t have cruise control on my car or come to that a car which can take speed humps at 20mph as PM says his can. Can think of a lot of gas guzzling 4 x 4s that can take humps at his speed though and have cruise control.
By the way have moved on now so if you respond to this I won’t be looking all the best.
See what I mean about wearing you down. Never saw the article PM quotes from the AA so could not miss the comment and after falsely accusing me of missing something in an article I have not seen which he says quotes "Along shorter roads with junctions and roundabouts, limiting acceleration to up to 20 mph reduces fuel consumption" then goes back to contradict himself later by mentioning the test track from the actual article I read. Don’t have cruise control on my car or come to that a car which can take speed humps at 20mph as PM says his can. Can think of a lot of gas guzzling 4 x 4s that can take humps at his speed though and have cruise control. By the way have moved on now so if you respond to this I won’t be looking all the best. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

12:21am Mon 7 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

Oh forgot to mention that some years ago when I did an advanced driving course with the police in Cheshire I was given a proper bulling for driving about in the wrong gear. I was driving in 4th at 30 because my little computer told me this was more fuel efficient. One very angry police officer told me that I should not drive in a gear inappropriate to the speed limit as it was too easy to go over the limit putting others in danger. Now in PMs draconian society where 20mph is forced upon us and rigorously applied with plenty of unmarked cameras with points and fines if you go over this limit - to get the fuel economy back and reduce pollution you are being encouraged to drive in an inappropriate gear for the speed limit so there could soon be less cars on the road as we could all be getting banned for inadvertently speeding.
Now I have finished.
Oh forgot to mention that some years ago when I did an advanced driving course with the police in Cheshire I was given a proper bulling for driving about in the wrong gear. I was driving in 4th at 30 because my little computer told me this was more fuel efficient. One very angry police officer told me that I should not drive in a gear inappropriate to the speed limit as it was too easy to go over the limit putting others in danger. Now in PMs draconian society where 20mph is forced upon us and rigorously applied with plenty of unmarked cameras with points and fines if you go over this limit - to get the fuel economy back and reduce pollution you are being encouraged to drive in an inappropriate gear for the speed limit so there could soon be less cars on the road as we could all be getting banned for inadvertently speeding. Now I have finished. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

7:44am Mon 7 Jan 13

Paul Meoff says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
Oh forgot to mention that some years ago when I did an advanced driving course with the police in Cheshire I was given a proper bulling for driving about in the wrong gear. I was driving in 4th at 30 because my little computer told me this was more fuel efficient. One very angry police officer told me that I should not drive in a gear inappropriate to the speed limit as it was too easy to go over the limit putting others in danger. Now in PMs draconian society where 20mph is forced upon us and rigorously applied with plenty of unmarked cameras with points and fines if you go over this limit - to get the fuel economy back and reduce pollution you are being encouraged to drive in an inappropriate gear for the speed limit so there could soon be less cars on the road as we could all be getting banned for inadvertently speeding.
Now I have finished.
Here is the AA article you quote which contains the reference to short stretches being more fuel efficient at 20mph. Maybe you just quoted some figures found in a secondary article that was trying to prove a point out of context. However, it would be unlikely that someone like yourself who undertakes quantitative scientific research into the subject would overlook the original literature references that back up your arguments.
http://www.theaa.com
/public_affairs/news
/20mph-roads-emissio
ns.html

References to getting bans for inadvertent speeding are interesting. Is speeding a crime that there is no control over? Is it committed by the motoring equivalent of kleptomanics, serial rapists and tourettes sufferers who cannot control their actions? If so, I'm sure you would agree that those incapable of controlling their speed were off the road.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Oh forgot to mention that some years ago when I did an advanced driving course with the police in Cheshire I was given a proper bulling for driving about in the wrong gear. I was driving in 4th at 30 because my little computer told me this was more fuel efficient. One very angry police officer told me that I should not drive in a gear inappropriate to the speed limit as it was too easy to go over the limit putting others in danger. Now in PMs draconian society where 20mph is forced upon us and rigorously applied with plenty of unmarked cameras with points and fines if you go over this limit - to get the fuel economy back and reduce pollution you are being encouraged to drive in an inappropriate gear for the speed limit so there could soon be less cars on the road as we could all be getting banned for inadvertently speeding. Now I have finished.[/p][/quote]Here is the AA article you quote which contains the reference to short stretches being more fuel efficient at 20mph. Maybe you just quoted some figures found in a secondary article that was trying to prove a point out of context. However, it would be unlikely that someone like yourself who undertakes quantitative scientific research into the subject would overlook the original literature references that back up your arguments. http://www.theaa.com /public_affairs/news /20mph-roads-emissio ns.html References to getting bans for inadvertent speeding are interesting. Is speeding a crime that there is no control over? Is it committed by the motoring equivalent of kleptomanics, serial rapists and tourettes sufferers who cannot control their actions? If so, I'm sure you would agree that those incapable of controlling their speed were off the road. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

9:04am Mon 7 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

Just kidding that I wouldn’t be watching as I thought that threatening to ignore you may bring out your worst side.

I certainly won’t be taking advice from someone who believes that Kleptomaniacs and Tourettes sufferers should be placed in the same bracket as serial rapists.

Thank you for the link to the original document which concludes.

“In the past the Green Party advocated 20 mph limits across the whole of London, perhaps without realising that this policy would backfire in terms of environmental emissions.
It is important to ascertain both the safety and environmental implications of 20 mph zones”.
Just kidding that I wouldn’t be watching as I thought that threatening to ignore you may bring out your worst side. I certainly won’t be taking advice from someone who believes that Kleptomaniacs and Tourettes sufferers should be placed in the same bracket as serial rapists. Thank you for the link to the original document which concludes. “In the past the Green Party advocated 20 mph limits across the whole of London, perhaps without realising that this policy would backfire in terms of environmental emissions. It is important to ascertain both the safety and environmental implications of 20 mph zones”. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Paul Meoff says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
Just kidding that I wouldn’t be watching as I thought that threatening to ignore you may bring out your worst side.

I certainly won’t be taking advice from someone who believes that Kleptomaniacs and Tourettes sufferers should be placed in the same bracket as serial rapists.

Thank you for the link to the original document which concludes.

“In the past the Green Party advocated 20 mph limits across the whole of London, perhaps without realising that this policy would backfire in terms of environmental emissions.
It is important to ascertain both the safety and environmental implications of 20 mph zones”.
You mean with your in depth scientific study into the subject with your little computer you omitted a thorough review of the literature sources you quoted. Tut tut. Maybe you aren't a real scientist after all.

Trust you will be sharing your research with the Green Party to save them the trouble of ascertaining the implications of 20mph limits. No point in them investigating a subject that has already been proven.

Out of interest, what control and calibration methods do you apply in your research?
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: Just kidding that I wouldn’t be watching as I thought that threatening to ignore you may bring out your worst side. I certainly won’t be taking advice from someone who believes that Kleptomaniacs and Tourettes sufferers should be placed in the same bracket as serial rapists. Thank you for the link to the original document which concludes. “In the past the Green Party advocated 20 mph limits across the whole of London, perhaps without realising that this policy would backfire in terms of environmental emissions. It is important to ascertain both the safety and environmental implications of 20 mph zones”.[/p][/quote]You mean with your in depth scientific study into the subject with your little computer you omitted a thorough review of the literature sources you quoted. Tut tut. Maybe you aren't a real scientist after all. Trust you will be sharing your research with the Green Party to save them the trouble of ascertaining the implications of 20mph limits. No point in them investigating a subject that has already been proven. Out of interest, what control and calibration methods do you apply in your research? Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Mon 7 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

Common Sense
Common Sense strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

10:38pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Paul Meoff says...

I thought there would be some revealing insights. How disappointing. Surely anyone who can measure fuel consumption accelerating at a steady 20 has a whole box of tricks to share. You could measure the speed of light with an egg timer. Split the atom with a chisel. Build a fusion generator in a kettle. Possibilities are limitless.
I thought there would be some revealing insights. How disappointing. Surely anyone who can measure fuel consumption accelerating at a steady 20 has a whole box of tricks to share. You could measure the speed of light with an egg timer. Split the atom with a chisel. Build a fusion generator in a kettle. Possibilities are limitless. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

10:48pm Mon 7 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

And all of this from someone who likens people with Turrets & Kleptomania to serial rapists.

Can you point out the part where I say I “can measure fuel consumption accelerating at a steady 20” or did you just make that up for effect. Cheers.
And all of this from someone who likens people with Turrets & Kleptomania to serial rapists. Can you point out the part where I say I “can measure fuel consumption accelerating at a steady 20” or did you just make that up for effect. Cheers. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

11:49pm Mon 7 Jan 13

yorkborn66 says...

I always thought a bigger engine would produce fewer emissions at 30 mph than a smaller engine, because it does not have to work so hard. All modern engines conform to strict regulations on emissions.
Not going into the science of the 20 mph and 30 mph debate.
I totally agree with the traffic light sequence been a total hash, it is great when the lights are not working at key junctions.
I am happy with and sometimes use the cycle lanes when I can. (on my cycle!)
More than happy to give way to cycles etc and normally get thumbs up in return.
I am not bothered about having to stick to 20mph or below when needed, but most of the time during the day you cannot really increase speed anyway.
We all with our various modes of preferred transport have to share the same network of roads, and I think the majority of uses do with regard to others, it’s the minority of all road users that cause the problem and the arguments.
The bus service is a joke it is a complete shambles. Sick to death of waiting for buses that don’t turn up, or another revision of timetables and routes.
Until we have a genuine service that people can depend on then more cars will remain on the road in peak times. (Chicken and the egg)
I love school holidays, roads allot quieter.
I always thought a bigger engine would produce fewer emissions at 30 mph than a smaller engine, because it does not have to work so hard. All modern engines conform to strict regulations on emissions. Not going into the science of the 20 mph and 30 mph debate. I totally agree with the traffic light sequence been a total hash, it is great when the lights are not working at key junctions. I am happy with and sometimes use the cycle lanes when I can. (on my cycle!) More than happy to give way to cycles etc and normally get thumbs up in return. I am not bothered about having to stick to 20mph or below when needed, but most of the time during the day you cannot really increase speed anyway. We all with our various modes of preferred transport have to share the same network of roads, and I think the majority of uses do with regard to others, it’s the minority of all road users that cause the problem and the arguments. The bus service is a joke it is a complete shambles. Sick to death of waiting for buses that don’t turn up, or another revision of timetables and routes. Until we have a genuine service that people can depend on then more cars will remain on the road in peak times. (Chicken and the egg) I love school holidays, roads allot quieter. yorkborn66
  • Score: 0

7:09am Tue 8 Jan 13

Paul Meoff says...

strangebuttrue? wrote:
And all of this from someone who likens people with Turrets & Kleptomania to serial rapists.

Can you point out the part where I say I “can measure fuel consumption accelerating at a steady 20” or did you just make that up for effect. Cheers.
strangebuttrue? says...
10:00am Sat 5 Jan 13
"This little computer tells me what I already knew and what this data appears to show - I use more fuel at 20 MPH than 30 MPH and in my case that includes acceleration under normal driving conditions in York".

Written from a lofty turret somewhere in Yorkshire.
[quote][p][bold]strangebuttrue?[/bold] wrote: And all of this from someone who likens people with Turrets & Kleptomania to serial rapists. Can you point out the part where I say I “can measure fuel consumption accelerating at a steady 20” or did you just make that up for effect. Cheers.[/p][/quote]strangebuttrue? says... 10:00am Sat 5 Jan 13 "This little computer tells me what I already knew and what this data appears to show - I use more fuel at 20 MPH than 30 MPH and in my case that includes acceleration under normal driving conditions in York". Written from a lofty turret somewhere in Yorkshire. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Tue 8 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

Thanks Paul

I can now see how I have confused you, it should say - This little computer tells me what I already knew and what this data appears to show. I use more fuel in a 20 MPH zone than a 30 MPH zone and in my case that includes accelerating to those speeds under normal driving conditions in York.

Sometimes don’t have much time to get it all correct as not much time left after being stuck doing 20mph or sitting needlessly at traffic lights whilst no one is moving or sitting in a massive queue caused by phasing at traffic lights being changed to only allow 6 cars through at a time or waiting behind a bus at a bus stop that has been built out into the middle of the road or moving off from traffic lights at the speed of a peddle cycle because the council have encouraged cyclist to spread out in force at the front of the queue or slowing down for speed humps because I don’t have a gas guzzling 4 x 4 with cruise control.
Thanks Paul I can now see how I have confused you, it should say - This little computer tells me what I already knew and what this data appears to show. I use more fuel in a 20 MPH zone than a 30 MPH zone and in my case that includes accelerating to those speeds under normal driving conditions in York. Sometimes don’t have much time to get it all correct as not much time left after being stuck doing 20mph or sitting needlessly at traffic lights whilst no one is moving or sitting in a massive queue caused by phasing at traffic lights being changed to only allow 6 cars through at a time or waiting behind a bus at a bus stop that has been built out into the middle of the road or moving off from traffic lights at the speed of a peddle cycle because the council have encouraged cyclist to spread out in force at the front of the queue or slowing down for speed humps because I don’t have a gas guzzling 4 x 4 with cruise control. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Tue 8 Jan 13

strangebuttrue? says...

Thanks Paul

I can now see how I have confused you, it should say - This little computer tells me what I already knew and what this data appears to show. I use more fuel in a 20 MPH zone than a 30 MPH zone and in my case that includes accelerating to those speeds under normal driving conditions in York.

Sometimes don’t have much time to get it all correct as not much time left after being stuck doing 20mph or sitting needlessly at traffic lights whilst no one is moving or sitting in a massive queue caused by phasing at traffic lights being changed to only allow 6 cars through at a time or waiting behind a bus at a bus stop that has been built out into the middle of the road or moving off from traffic lights at the speed of a peddle cycle because the council have encouraged cyclist to spread out in force at the front of the queue or slowing down for speed humps because I don’t have a gas guzzling 4 x 4 with cruise control.
Thanks Paul I can now see how I have confused you, it should say - This little computer tells me what I already knew and what this data appears to show. I use more fuel in a 20 MPH zone than a 30 MPH zone and in my case that includes accelerating to those speeds under normal driving conditions in York. Sometimes don’t have much time to get it all correct as not much time left after being stuck doing 20mph or sitting needlessly at traffic lights whilst no one is moving or sitting in a massive queue caused by phasing at traffic lights being changed to only allow 6 cars through at a time or waiting behind a bus at a bus stop that has been built out into the middle of the road or moving off from traffic lights at the speed of a peddle cycle because the council have encouraged cyclist to spread out in force at the front of the queue or slowing down for speed humps because I don’t have a gas guzzling 4 x 4 with cruise control. strangebuttrue?
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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