Speed cameras on 20 MPH roads

[newvanandman 10]

I'd be very interested to see that claim substantiated!

 

It takes approximately half the energy to accelerate a car to 20mph than it takes to 30mph. Couple this with a reduction in aerodynamic drag - again approximately half and there will be significant fuel savings from obeying the law.

 

rubbish!!

at 20 mph cars will bunch and this causes constant braking and accelerating also lack of momentem.in reallity few will drive at the speed limit as few know there speedos are set fast by law which would result in 15 mph or below i for one would be looking for away round this stupied unnessercary obsticle with on somedays 800 miles to complete and im not the only one.so wouldnt it be safer to have reasonable speed limits rather than increased risks of much more serious accidents like heads ons?

[newvanandman 10]

So that you don't kill people?

 

Because the law says so?

 

Because slower traffic generally causes less jams (counter-intuitive but true regardless) - and therefore you're likely to get around QUICKER?

 

How many other reasons would you like?

 

i take it you dont have a car!You obviously have no experience of the real world!!

[ken1 10]

I'd be very interested to see that claim substantiated!

 

It takes approximately half the energy to accelerate a car to 20mph than it takes to 30mph. Couple this with a reduction in aerodynamic drag - again approximately half and there will be significant fuel savings from obeying the law.

 

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

[swordfish1 10]

Well it is ok in reality if no-one enforces the 20 mph limit. My question is relevant because 40 mph is a common speed on my street, which is a 20 limit.

 

Got your own speed gun then, or was it a survey?

[ken1 10]

rubbish!!

at 20 mph cars will bunch and this causes constant braking and accelerating also lack of momentem.in reallity few will drive at the speed limit as few know there speedos are set fast by law which would result in 15 mph or below i for one would be looking for away round this stupied unnessercary obsticle with on somedays 800 miles to complete and im not the only one.so wouldnt it be safer to have reasonable speed limits rather than increased risks of much more serious accidents like heads ons?

 

you'll just have to do more 40+ hour days.

[Berberis 10]

What this report is saying is that the current definition of excessive speed is wrong and needs changing to reduce child road accidents by 67%.

 

And as someone else pointed out, if you don't want the government to profit from this then obey the law.

 

 

Hey i'm all for it around schools at times where the children may be at risk, who wouldnt, but a blanket change is just stupid.

[ken1 10]

only stupid kids will run out in front of fast cars anyway, surely speeding helps natural selection

[Berberis 10]

I'd be very interested to see that claim substantiated!

 

It takes approximately half the energy to accelerate a car to 20mph than it takes to 30mph. Couple this with a reduction in aerodynamic drag - again approximately half and there will be significant fuel savings from obeying the law.

 

Im talking about driving at 20mph compared to 30mph, not acceleration etc

[Berberis 10]

You are aware of the law aren't you?

 

Which one are you talking about? Im refering to Jay walking which is in common use in many countries, where as in the UK it is legal to cross a road anywhere except on motorways.

[FlowerdUp89 10]

Can't they settle for 30 mph? t's suits us all - No probs really.

[newvanandman 10]

Can't they settle for 30 mph? t's suits us all - No probs really.

 

The point is the more conjestion they cause the louder they can shout for us paying more!!

[barnsleybroker 10]

Can't they settle for 30 mph? t's suits us all - No probs really.

 

Maybe they reason that people who find it acceptable to do 40 in a 20 zone will do 50 in a 30 zone? Just a thought.