Motorway speed limits reduced.

The M25 was widened to 5 lanes in some areas and this moved the queues from lanes 1 and 2 over to lanes 4 and 5 - also known as the BMW lane. Widening roads never works, they should be narrowed to make it worse and perhaps people would think twice about commuting.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
tribalbrit said:
Just another way of catching and fining drivers for speeding. IMO.
Click to expand...
Bang on the money!!!

if you don’t think this is the case, ask em why electric cars can’t still do 70mph??

BTW the M1 jct 33-34 is the gridlock known as Meadowhall, could that standing queuing traffic (on the surrounding roads) have something to do with the pollution there??
 
buttons said:
Surely it is diesel vehicles that are the big producers of NOx and SOx. It's the lorries and motorhomes doing the polluting. why punish the BMWs and Audi drivers for producing these green house gases .:rolleyes:
Set the limit of these major polluters to 40mph and leave the BMWs at 70/80 and pollution will drop like a stone.(y)
Click to expand...
:reel::reel::reel:
 
maison said:
The problem with the study is highlighted in red.

These stretches of motorway tend to be in areas where such driving, at times of highest pollution, is virtually impossible. Slowing for congestion then accelerating before having to slow down again is the norm. Such a driving style increases pollution.

I am not against any measures that improve our environment but expecting such an improvement, obtained from an unrealistic assumption of driving style, is not an impressive argument by the “experts”.
Click to expand...
The section you highlight is about fuel use reduction. That is not the reason for the test of the limits. Look at the bit on NOx emissions. I did quote it previously.

"There was also a reduction in nearly all pollutant emissions, and especially NOx and particulate matter (PM) for the diesel – NOx by more than 20%, PM by around 10%."
 
gus-lopez said:
Unless completely independent monitoring then you can guarantee that it will,"reduce pollution "
Click to expand...
It is a test to discover if it does reduce pollution. They are not going into this saying it does or it doesn't. This is a test to find out.
 
We'll all be doing the Conga with the trucks. :(
Still, it might slightly reduce the severity of injuries from pile-ups on the genius idea Smart motorways.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Last edited:
Tamste said:
Problem with pollution is that we still encourage "third world" countries to use fossil fuels for everything. They are cheap, so it keeps their costs down, and we then buy from them as the goods are cheaper.

Would be better in the long run if we applied an environmental tax on incoming goods wherever they are from based on the source countries green power status. This would help level up the cost base with UK industry. After all, China and India, two of the largest overseas suppliers are still building coal power plants, and they are not exactly third world. They both have active space programs, something we don't even have.

We aren't going to fix this on our own as it's a global issue, but every little helps, and thus I think this initiative is right..Di a trial, gather the data and look at the impact.
Click to expand...
Would that be a 3rd world country like Germany burning lots of coal for electric ?
 
Ivory55 said:
Would that be a 3rd world country like Germany burning lots of coal for electric ?
Click to expand...
The UK has sold it`s Energy security to Russia. Most of our Gas comes via a pipeline through Europe from Russia. So anytime we upset Putin he can put us all in the Cold and the Dark. Yet there are STILL at least a hundred years of coal under G-B. It`s not all about "pollution" It about having a secure broad energy policy. The major polluters are those we are paying to manufacture our "goods" on the cheap.
 
Gromett said:
The section you highlight is about fuel use reduction. That is not the reason for the test of the limits. Look at the bit on NOx emissions. I did quote it previously.

"There was also a reduction in nearly all pollutant emissions, and especially NOx and particulate matter (PM) for the diesel – NOx by more than 20%, PM by around 10%."
Click to expand...
Yes, having re-read your post I can see that but, unless I mis-read it.........

.........the comments re NOx emissions appear to be part of the same simulation.

I have made my comment re your post but have not read the link you provided so I may have missed something.
 
Sillious Sodus said:
The M25 was widened to 5 lanes in some areas and this moved the queues from lanes 1 and 2 over to lanes 4 and 5 - also known as the BMW lane. Widening roads never works, they should be narrowed to make it worse and perhaps people would think twice about commuting.
Click to expand...
Surely commuting is part and parcel of a thriving economy.
 
I struggle with the current speed limits. A303 today :unsure:

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
PeteH said:
The UK has sold it`s Energy security to Russia. Most of our Gas comes via a pipeline through Europe from Russia. So anytime we upset Putin he can put us all in the Cold and the Dark. Yet there are STILL at least a hundred years of coal under G-B. It`s not all about "pollution" It about having a secure broad energy policy. The major polluters are those we are paying to manufacture our "goods" on the cheap.
Click to expand...
Surely modern technology can find ways of utilising our coal reserves and removing/containing noxious emissions.

Nuclear fusion energy production produces waste products that last for generations.

“Green energy” is great where it can be relied upon but winds are capricious, not all areas have the topography to utilise hydro-electric power and the government has refused to back tidal lagoon power trials at Swansea.

Unless we can crack nuclear fusion we need to find a paddle for our creek in the near future.
 
Its going to need monitoring at the end of the reduction stretch when all those accelerator pedals get shoved to the floor , nox etc will go thru the roof need to factor that in .
 
I don’t think we will have to worry about speed limits soon. The way that the population is growing and they will all want a car we will be at a standstill anyway.
 
I should have said, on the plus side my better half had her first glimpse of Stonehenge which pleased her. It wasn't a blur as the traffic was queuing.
 
Ivory55 said:
I don’t think we will have to worry about speed limits soon. The way that the population is growing and they will all want a car we will be at a standstill anyway.
Click to expand...
The Chinese Government are currently assisting with a reduction of Overpopulation. Currently on their 3rd try. ;) in a Decade.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Sandancers said:
From BBC news;


The speed limit will be cut on parts of four motorways before October in a trial to reduce pollution, Highways England has said.

It will be reduced from 70mph to 60mph in areas that have seen higher than recommended levels of nitrogen dioxide.

The trial will take place on stretches of nearly five miles.

It will be on M6 junctions 6 to 7 by Witton, M1 junctions 33 to 34 by Rotherham, M602 junctions 1 to 3 by Eccles and M5 1 to 2 by Oldbury.

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) released from car exhausts is a serious air pollutant and indirectly contributes to the warming of the planet.

The impact of the new 60mph limit will be reviewed in a year's time

Ivan Le Fevre, head of environment at Highways England said: "Ultimately the air quality challenge will be solved 'at the tailpipe' by vehicle manufacturers and changes in vehicle use.

"Until this happens we will continue our extensive programme of pioneering research and solutions."

The Department for Transport said the trial was among a number of measures to improve air quality.

As part of a plan to bring down NO2 levels, the government aims to end the sale of all new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans before 2040.

It has been consulting on bringing this forward to 2035, or earlier if a faster transition appears feasible, as well as looking at including hybrids for the first time.

The consultation's outcome will be announced at a later date.


Now the above is probably not going to affect the majority of people driving Motorhomes, but imagine you've just bought an EV or Hybrid then get told you can't do more than 60 mph to reduce pollution !

Or maybe there is more to it then at first glance, perhaps there will be a way "found" to let non fossil fuel vehicles go faster, hence more people buy them and maybe imported EVs have a large tariff put on them ? Therefore Nissan or others have to build EVs in the UK to supply the demand ? Or maybe I am assigning to much intelligence to the Gov ?
Click to expand...



Wow, a first for me, I've just quoted myself !

Anyway, while in the shower I had a think. If the speed limit in these "slow down zones" is monitored by speed cameras, then it would surely be simple to instruct the software NOT to issue tickets to those driving EVs. It's then publicised that EVs can travel up to 70mph in the zones as they are not producing pollutants.
A guess here, at the end of a year these slow down zones are pronounced a great success and are to be rolled out in other places. Bet the fossil fuel drivers are watching EVs go past them with envy.

Increase in sales of EVs and as I said before, big tariffs on imported EVs so the UK car factories get a free run at turning out the cars required!

Multi facet wins for the Gov. and all in the name of reducing pollution................................what's not to like ?
 
maison said:
Yes, having re-read your post I can see that but, unless I mis-read it.........

.........the comments re NOx emissions appear to be part of the same simulation.

I have made my comment re your post but have not read the link you provided so I may have missed something.
Click to expand...

The reason for the speed limit experiment is purely about the NOx emissions. Monty don said reducing speed wouldn't reduce NOx emissions. I then linked the report that shows it may reduce NOx emissions based on simulation.

You then came in with it doesn't reduce fuel consumption which is what prompted my last reply. I love debates like this, but it is the one time when going off topic can be a little confusing as we start discussing multiple things like "smart motorways" which was to do with road capacity.

The simulations show that NOx emissions are reduced by reducing speed which makes sense. However, theory and simulations not always linked to real world results. A real world experiment to prove it seems like a common sense move to me. a 1 year test in a 5 mile length of motorway with high levels seems like the most practical and relevant test of the theory. The results of this 1 year test can then be used to develop future policy in this area.
 
Strange timing: with so many white-collar workers working from home and most meetings being held virtually due to Covid-19, surely pollution is at the lowest it's been for quite some time.
 
I have no data to back this up, but from observing the roads since lockdown, traffic seems to have reduced significantly from this time last year. If this drop in traffic continues, Nox and other pollutants will obviously be reduced anyway. Any attempt to drop the speed will not result in accurate data being gathered
 
All this talk of pollution reminds me of one of my Landrovers. The speedo stopped going up at fifty but I could judge the speed by the smoke. At sixty it smoked a bit at sixty five it put out a smoke screen like a battleship. That was a 2.25 petrol engine that used nearly as much coolant and oil as petrol. At ten to fifteen mpg I couldn’t afford to laying down smoke screens.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Join us or log in to post a reply.

To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun

Join MotorhomeFun

Join us, it quick and easy!

Join us

Log in

Already a member? Log in here.

Latest journal entries

Back
Top