Help & FAQs    Search BCF    Members    Groups    Events Calendar
Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Motorway Speed Crackdown 'to Cut Emissions'

 Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

kb-zxr
Could Be A Chat Bot



Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 14:43 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Motorway Speed Crackdown 'to Cut Emissions' Reply with quote
They now have a new excuse to clamp down on speeding. Even more Rolling Eyes


Quote:
The Government is reportedly set to crack down on speeding motorway drivers in a bid to curb the country's greenhouse gases.

According to a report in The Guardian, officials have acknowledged that any move to force the millions of motorists who currently break the 70mph speed limit to slow down would be "politically sensitive".

But they say it would cut significant amounts of carbon dioxide pollution, as engine efficiency falls quickly beyond 70mph

The proposal is one of dozens of new measures outlined in a confidential government review of its policies to tackle climate change.

The review was ordered in September 2004 because ministers were struggling to meet their pledge to cut UK emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent by 2010, a commitment restated in this year's Labour election manifesto.

It was drawn up Environment Minister Elliot Morley, who is in charge of climate change at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

The idea is being discussed by the cabinet committee on energy and the environment, which is expected to publish a revised version early next year.

According to the newspaper, the review document says: "The Government needs to strengthen its domestic credibility on climate change.

"The revised programme must therefore set out a comprehensive and ambitious package of policies to deliver the manifesto commitment and achieve our domestic goals. We must not underestimate the scale of the challenge.

"We need to do about 75 per cent more in around half the time."

The review lists possible measures to eliminate an extra 11 to 14 million tonnes of carbon pollution each year, which is described as the Government's "carbon gap", including stricter enforcement of the 70mph speed limit.


Taken From AOL.

Anyone else smell bullshit, or is it stupidity?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

EuropeanNC30R...
Gay Hairdresser



Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 14:46 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
They'd probably save a lot more in pollution by ripping out the speed bumps they've installed everywhere.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rookie
World Chat Champion



Joined: 09 Feb 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 14:50 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
Another fairly poor excuse to sling a few more Gatsos up.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:02 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Re: Motorway Speed Crackdown 'to Cut Emissions' Reply with quote
Guardian wrote:
But they say it would cut significant amounts of carbon dioxide pollution, as engine efficiency falls quickly beyond 70mph


That is one very obvious lie. Engine efficiency does not drop with speed at all. An engine is at its most efficient at full throttle at the revs that give peak torque. The vehicle might not be at its most efficient at that speed due to aerodynamics, and the injection system might decide that you want hard acceleration so richen the mixture in those conditions, but that does not mean the engine will be inefficient, and that will all depend on the individual vehicle and its gearing.

Original Guardian article here:-

https://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1642044,00.html

Guardian wrote:
The review was ordered in September 2004 because ministers were struggling to meet their pledge to cut UK emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent by 2010, a commitment restated in this year's Labour election manifesto.


Use superglue to keep politicians mouths shut and we will easily meet their dodgy CO2 reduction targets.

Guardian wrote:
According to the newspaper, the review document says: "The Government needs to strengthen its domestic credibility on climate change.


Roughly translated that means we need to screw up our economy and standard of life so that we do not look hypocritical when we demand others do the same.

kb-zxr wrote:
Anyone else smell bullshit, or is it stupidity?


Combination of the 2. Perfect excuse to move taxation onto something else other than income. Come up with some scare story, use it as an excuse to raise taxes and then wind up the mob to get anyone who dares to complain. Easy tax, and you leave the high earners with lower tax so they donate more to your party finances.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

carlmalibu
Spanner Monkey



Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:14 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
from a purely safety point of view speeding on motorways is fairly silly.

why is 70 not enough?
____________________
Shine on, you crazy diamond
CB500, woop.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:22 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
carlmalibu wrote:
from a purely safety point of view speeding on motorways is fairly silly.


Why? They are the safest roads in the country, and were designed for a use at 140kmh (87mph). Forcing people to drive below their comfortable speed will increase danger.

Really cannot see a reason to make journies longer and make the roads more dangerous just to comply with some dodgy 70 limit.

carlmalibu wrote:
why is 70 not enough?


How about 60? Or 50? Why not gothe whole way and make it walking pace?

The roads are for transport. For getting from one place to another quickly. Why introduce rules which have no benefit but which dump on the primary purpose of roads.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

innominate
Brolly Dolly



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:24 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
They should concentrate on sticking more windmills & solar power up this would help (emmisions wise) far more than this idea.


Camera's to enforce - Not exactly simple devices, all require fairly high tech components, high tech components require lots of energy to make. Energy = pollution.

Guesstimating here, but camara's require a not insubstantial amount of power to operate 24/7, power creates pollution.


Most traffic is on the road at rushhour, its usually too crowded to do more than 70 then anyway. Speed already limited by the amount of people on the road.




Want people off the road?
Give us cost effective alternatives (Where avaliable)
Cheap trains etc (Still costs me nearly 2X as much to commute via train than it does on my 1300cc bike, even after the petty price rises)

Enforce office workers to work from home. (When possible)
No journey = no pollution & no speeding.



There are a lot more simple and easy methods to reduce pollution than the above.
____________________
I, as a responsible adult human being, will never concede the power to anyone to regulate my choice of what I put into my body, or where I go with my mind. From the skin inwards is my jurisdiction, is it not? I choose what may or may not cross that border. Here I am the customs agent. I am the coast-guard. I am the sole legal and spiritual government of this territory, and only the laws I choose to enact within myself are applicable.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

carlmalibu
Spanner Monkey



Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:27 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't have any evidence to back my arguments up, but I can only assume that those speed limits have been around for a fair amount of time and are still there for a reason.

Losing control of a car or a bike at 100 miles an hour is most likely to be fatal, I'd imagine. It is also safe to say that a number of people who drive at that speed drive erratically.

Also, if you are driving at 100, you are 30 miles an hour faster than a vehicle doing 70, relative speeds and such would mean that any sort of collision is going to have more extreme results than a collision of 2 vehicles going at the same speed, in the same direction.

Also, worth considering is that if the speed limit was changed it would only encourage people to drive over the new speed limit.

Would you not have a problem riding on a road where people were regularly going at, say, between 120 and 140mph?
____________________
Shine on, you crazy diamond
CB500, woop.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:30 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
innominate wrote:
They should concentrate on sticking more windmills & solar power up this would help (emmisions wise) far more than this idea.


Possibly, but check the efficieny of them. And wonder why the Danes (who we are buying most of them from) have pretty much given up on installing any more wind power installations.

innominate wrote:
Give us cost effective alternatives (Where avaliable)
Cheap trains etc (Still costs me nearly 2X as much to commute via train than it does on my 1300cc bike, even after the petty price rises)


Fully agree with working from home (except that means people keeping their homes lit and warm during the working day), but public transport is a lost cause. Not really any more efficient than than cars (think one Greenpeace press bod mentioned them being as efficient as a 55mpg single occupant diesel car, so about the same as a typically occupied 30mpg petrol car). Buses are pretty awful as well (and getting rapidly worse).

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

carlmalibu
Spanner Monkey



Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:33 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
innominate wrote:



Camera's to enforce - Not exactly simple devices, all require fairly high tech components, high tech components require lots of energy to make. Energy = pollution.

Guesstimating here, but camara's require a not insubstantial amount of power to operate 24/7, power creates pollution.



I'm inclined to disagree strongly here. Can you honestly say that keeping speed cameras running creates any noticeable pollution? Thats definately clutching at straws, I'd say.
____________________
Shine on, you crazy diamond
CB500, woop.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

kb-zxr
Could Be A Chat Bot



Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:34 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
carlmalibu wrote:
Would you not have a problem riding on a road where people were regularly going at, say, between 120 and 140mph?


Yeah I see your point, but no sensible person expects motorway speeds to be slow. If they do not feel comfortable stick to A-Roads. I think 90mph is a good safe alround speed. If people want to do 70mph around there, similar speed diffence to cyclists on the road in a 40mph zone
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

carlmalibu
Spanner Monkey



Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:37 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
similar relative difference, kb-zxr, but you also have to bear in mind actual speed too. At 100 you may only be going 30 relative to other drivers, but you're still doing 100 constant, and thats gonna hurt a lot more if anything goes wrong at that speed, than at 40
____________________
Shine on, you crazy diamond
CB500, woop.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:37 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
carlmalibu wrote:
I don't have any evidence to back my arguments up, but I can only assume that those speed limits have been around for a fair amount of time and are still there for a reason.


About 40 years.

carlmalibu wrote:
Losing control of a car or a bike at 100 miles an hour is most likely to be fatal, I'd imagine. It is also safe to say that a number of people who drive at that speed drive erratically.


If you hit something solid then fatal, but then the same applies at 70mph.

carlmalibu wrote:
Also, if you are driving at 100, you are 30 miles an hour faster than a vehicle doing 70, relative speeds and such would mean that any sort of collision is going to have more extreme results than a collision of 2 vehicles going at the same speed, in the same direction.


So why not get the other traffic to travel at 100mph? Just as logical. Reality is that it is not a problem with people used it it and driving to the conditions.

carlmalibu wrote:
Also, worth considering is that if the speed limit was changed it would only encourage people to drive over the new speed limit.


Not really. That has been discounted many times (if a limit is regarded as sensible then people will make an effort to keep to it, set the limit low and people make no attempt to keep to it, often going faster than they would if the limit was higher). However this has been given as the excuse in the past to not raise the limits.

carlmalibu wrote:
Would you not have a problem riding on a road where people were regularly going at, say, between 120 and 140mph?


No problem, and happens in Germany.

Montana in the USA removed its rural speed limit replacing it with a limit of "reasonable and prudent". The accident rate dropped. Someone took the state to court saying that having no specific limit was not constitutional, so they introduced a limit (75 from memory) and the accident rate went back up again.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Aikman666
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:39 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
Forgive me if im being stupid....but doesnt being over 70mph constantly mean that your creating less emissions over your entire journey. What they should be concentrating on is being stuck in traffic jams for agez, or acceleration and braking.

Ultimately, if they really want to cut emisions, they should make everyone drive motorbikes! The world would be such a happier place Laughing
____________________
Will work for petrol
My Design Blog
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

innominate
Brolly Dolly



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:39 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
carlmalibu wrote:
I'm inclined to disagree strongly here. Can you honestly say that keeping speed cameras running creates any noticeable pollution? Thats definately clutching at straws, I'd say.


I honestly don't know, hence the guestimation.





As for the wind turbines, they may not be too good at generating reliable power, but they are a good backup. Would give us some power at least in the case of catastrophic loss of other power sources, which is the main reason I like em. (+ they look cool)



One answer here is, electric vehicles with decent performance & Fusion power. All arguments & pollution sorted in two easy technologies...
____________________
I, as a responsible adult human being, will never concede the power to anyone to regulate my choice of what I put into my body, or where I go with my mind. From the skin inwards is my jurisdiction, is it not? I choose what may or may not cross that border. Here I am the customs agent. I am the coast-guard. I am the sole legal and spiritual government of this territory, and only the laws I choose to enact within myself are applicable.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

mattfuzzy
Scooby Slapper



Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:49 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
innominate wrote:
They should concentrate on sticking more windmills & solar power up this would help (emmisions wise) far more than this idea.

they are around my area,
theres a nice big hill around here called brent knowl, looks quite nice and theres fields around it and a semi-expensive posh B&B about a quater of the way up it... soon theres gonna be about 4 or 5 of them wind powered windmills all around it that are about twice mabe 3 times taller than your house! (this would be about half if not 3 quaters the height of brent knowl aswell)
so not only is the government screwing up the speed limits but i really dont wanna know what the hell this hills gonna look like (and mainly the big area of really posh houses around it) when their done with it, corse we also have a nuclear power station a few miles away...
guess the ******* are full of shite anyway and half of all speed limits wont ever happen because the cagers will kick up, not to mension john "20 jags" prescott. Middle Finger Twisted Evil Middle Finger
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:50 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aikman666 wrote:
Forgive me if im being stupid....but doesnt being over 70mph constantly mean that your creating less emissions over your entire journey. What they should be concentrating on is being stuck in traffic jams for agez, or acceleration and braking.


Braking, and being stuck in traffic jams do seriously screw up fuel consumption and emissions. However they are also seen as good ways to make traveling more unpleasant and so reduce peoples wish to travel (and hence the emissions from travelling).

Aikman666 wrote:
Ultimately, if they really want to cut emisions, they should make everyone drive motorbikes! The world would be such a happier place Laughing


Bikes are pretty awful at emissions (but catching up with cars) and pretty poor at fuel consumption. Add in use of things like tyres (doing well to get a set to last 10000 miles on a bike, doing badly to get a set to last twice that long on a car) and servicing and bikes look pretty bad.

innominate wrote:
As for the wind turbines, they may not be too good at generating reliable power, but they are a good backup. Would give us some power at least in the case of catastrophic loss of other power sources, which is the main reason I like em. (+ they look cool)


Hideously expensive to be used that way, and as they are not capable of reliably generating power they are also pretty useless as a back up, unless you can find a way of storing the power that they generate to be used when there is not enough wind.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

kb-zxr
Could Be A Chat Bot



Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:59 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
Also with the moving at 100mph thing mentioned earlier, hitting a car doing 70mph the energy impact is gonna be about 30mph worth. Today I could take the car out and clip a car coming the other way on a single carridegway. 120mph collision force if we are both doing 60mph, whilst still being within the limit.

Although a too high limit is not good, as quite a few cars struggle to reach the ton. I'd be thrashing the nuts off the car to keep it in th three figures lol
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

numark1
Scared of girls



Joined: 09 May 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 16:02 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
The easiest thing to do would be ban those fuck off 4x4's or large engine cars.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 16:11 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
T44TE M wrote:
The easiest thing to do would be ban those fuck off 4x4's or large engine cars.


Why? When full they are probably doing more mpg per passenger than your bike is with a pillion.

Getting people do campaign against larger engined cars is just divide and conquer tactics. You campaign against the 4x4, the 4x4 drivers campaign against the bikes and we all get shat on.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

instigator
Super Spammer



Joined: 19 Oct 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 16:26 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
T44TE M wrote:
The easiest thing to do would be ban those fuck off 4x4's or large engine cars.


For the sheer number of haulage lorries on our roads, what kind of emissions/mpg do they get? Out of curiosity?

As I believe that is what we should be reducing (and the number of taxi's in the city centre's).
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

minesweeper
Whoah there!



Joined: 03 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 16:37 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just a point but if the 70mph limit has been around for 40 years wouldnt it be designed for vehicles 40 years old?

Cars and motorcycles these days have 40 years of development behind them since these laws were introduced. In a 40 year old average car 70mph would have been stupidly scary, now with traction control and brakes that actuly work 70mph is stupidly low.

Matt
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 16:45 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
instigator wrote:
For the sheer number of haulage lorries on our roads, what kind of emissions/mpg do they get? Out of curiosity?


Found this on the fuel consumption:-

https://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/naei/annreport/annrep99/app1_29.html

Given in grammes of fuel per km. Not sure hwo this works out to mpg, but it shows a modern diesel car on the motorway using 35.1g/km of fuel against 319g/km for a modern articulated HGV. So 9 times more fuel used. Say 54mpg for the car so 6mpg for the HGV.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
PostPosted: 16:48 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
minesweeper wrote:
Just a point but if the 70mph limit has been around for 40 years wouldnt it be designed for vehicles 40 years old?


Yep, but the nut behind the wheel hasn't changed much.

minesweeper wrote:
Cars and motorcycles these days have 40 years of development behind them since these laws were introduced. In a 40 year old average car 70mph would have been stupidly scary, now with traction control and brakes that actuly work 70mph is stupidly low.


Many were not that bad, although the boring stuff was pretty awful. Check the performance of a half decent 60s sports car (say a Lotus Elan) and you might be surprised (weighing next to nothing helps a lot).

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Mrs Kickstart
Brolly Dolly



Joined: 06 Apr 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 16:49 - 14 Nov 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi,

We don't want windmills we need to run things on water
https://www.blacklightpower.com/

Not everyone thinks he is mad (I'm not clever enough to tell)

Regards
Charlotte
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 20 years, 98 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
 You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 
Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.10 Sec - Server Load: 0.29 - MySQL Queries: 14 - Page Size: 146.26 Kb