National speed limit reduction proposed by greenies

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/295188/Route of all good .htm

"The most radical was presented by Dr Jillian Annable on behalf of the UK
Energy Research Council and the Slower Speeds Initiative. She said that by
enforcing the 70mph speed limit on every trunk road, carbon emissions from
vehicles will be cut by nearly one million tonnes a year.

Going further, by reducing the national speed limit to 60mph, emissions
would be cut by 1.88 million tonnes each year. These savings, which are
based on low projections of traffic growth, represent 15-29 per cent of the
total expected from the transport sector by 2010.

'I am confident I have the perfect policy,' she said. 'Of all measures to
manage the demand for travel by car, speed limits are simultaneously the
mildest, the most straightforward, the least intrusive and the most
egalitarian in their impacts.' She claimed the reductions in CO2 from speed
enforcement compare favourably to the 1.6 million tonnes expected from the
RTFO and, unlike the RTFO, the policy could be implemented quickly.

She pointed to other benefits. Longer journey times might reduce demand for
road travel and this would lead to even greater reductions in emissions.
Accident speeds would also fall, meaning over 300 deaths and serious
injuries would be prevented each year on motorways alone, rising to more
than 600 if the limit is lowered to 60mph. And she claimed lower top speeds
and safety benefits would give the market for lighter and less powerful
cars, increasing the carbon savings further."

Well that'd bugger up my 50 mile each way commute - but that's what they
want aint it.

 

Are they not basically doing this already?

IMHO this is bollocks. I have found in my recent cars that they are far
more efficient in fuel consumption when cruising in the 75 ~ 90 mph range as
I do than when travelling more slowly. Bikes OTOH, as has been discussed on
here before, I think are quite rubbish when it comes to mpg's.

I'm sure she is.

And the alternative is.......?

This mentality of speed = dangerous just has to be removed. Bad driving
causes accidents. Driving too quickly for certain situations maybe a factor
but still amounts to bad driving.

And where and when do they plan we work when we are unable to commute due to
being taxed off the road?

 

And I bet she wears flat shoes too.

 

I think it is the "enforcing" bit that is the point here, as in on many
dual carriage ways I can nget away with much more than 70 as there are no
cameras or plod.

They did not say "more efficient in fuel consumption", but talk about
reduced emissions, not the same thing.

And its bollocks that you get a better MPG at 75->90, try cruising at
50->60 on the Mway (very possible) and save some money. But I agree with
you on bike MPG.

Once more you have missread the text.
It is not saying speed is dangerous, just that the speed of an accident
will fall and thus reduce injuries. Not rocket science.

Work more local, move nearer work.

 

Your opinion is worthless without some measurements, and if you do measure it,
you will find that you are wrong.

 

No they aren't.
Drive 10 miles on the motorway at a constant 56 mph along with the lorries
and see what the fuel consumption is.

 

An assumption being made there is everyone travels at bang on 70 or
more.

As the petrol price rises I suspect more people will start to worry
about their consumption and drive accordingly (maybe I'm wrong).

Certainly in my car, which does 65mpg, at approx 65mph I tend to do
long distances at that speed because it makes quite a differnce in the
wallet.

 

The transparency of the green luddite agenda is shocking and it has ****
all to do with carbon emissions. In 4-5 years the globe could meet it's
emission targets by terminating the production of normal light sources
for high efficiency sources.
Rather than introducing speed limits and restrictions of use,
manufacturers could be instructed to meet >insert choice< mpg targets at
50, 60, 70 mph.
The bulk of arable farmland in the UK could be turned over to bio diesel
production providing a balance of carbon emission and reducing farm
subsidy/imports.
The huge fallow wastelands of Scotland and Wales could be re-forested,
rebuilding an enormous lost carbon sink.

These twats want to reduce us back to an agrarian economy like some 10th
century nirvana (that never existed), plain and simple.

 

I couldn't afford to live close enough to my work place to walk.

How does that work then?

 

sure you could - some very cheap places around Brick Lane and
Commercial Road.

 

I doubt that, tbh.

The point I'm trying to make is that I travel to work on a
(packed) train because it's more environmentally friendly,
convenient, cheaper and a whole lot easier than driving,
but I've just been tarred with the same brush by someone
who hasn't thought it through properly.

But then it was Bruce and this is UKRM, so I expected no less ;-)

 

I don't believe that the environmental argument plays any real part in
your commute choices, sorry. It's something we add in as a feel good
factor after the main event.

 

I agree with this bit.

Bio-diesel is a bit of a con: what are we going to eat?

 

M J Carley wrote

Soylent Green?

 

We over produce food in the EU, particularly dairy and cereals. I'm
quite happy to see us import simple crops from 3rd world neighbours to
assist their development, trashing our import barriers and subsidies as
we do it.

 

If "they" ever get their way then house prices will have to nosedive like a
Stuka to allow people to live near their jobs.

 

It's not a case of what we're going to eat, it's a case of why we're
bothering to produce biodiesel in the first place.

It takes more fuel to produce such crops than are saved by using them,
the industry only works in America with *huge* subsidies and it's net
effect on carbon emissions is to increase them.

But, apart from being an expensive, counterproductive waste of time
it's not a bad plan.

 

You're right, but this is UKRM so I'll argue to the death!

 

A bit like recycling then?

 

The argument is wrong anyway, the crops could be farmed non intensively
so there is no great carbon investment in input for the output. I'm sure
oil prices must already be at a level which makes it work. The effect on
our balance of payments would be good.