Speed Limit On Sheffield Parkway Set To Be Cut?

[alchresearch 214]

23 minutes ago, makapaka said:

or just admit you don’t want it to happen because you like to drive fast and don’t really care about the above - that’s fine - your entitled to your view.

Or maybe you're the one with the issue because you seem to think that 70 is too "fast".  It might be for you, so stay on the 30 mph roads.

[Padders 2,863]

Seems to me that there are a lot of posters on this thread, whom seem to think they own the road.

I pay my road tax, insurance, clean and maintain my car to the highest standards.

I like to drive in a more sedate fashion than some on here.

I"m not an incompetent driver as some on here like to think.

I"m allowed on the road like anyone else, and always drive safely.

The problem is some on here have shown complete ignorance to the many thousands of drivers who drive in a sensible manner.

Learn some patience , and make allowances for people who don"t all drive cars with 8 gears.

[Guest makapaka]

7 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

Or maybe you're the one with the issue because you seem to think that 70 is too "fast".  It might be for you, so stay on the 30 mph roads.

Another sensible response.........

 

I have to drive on 30mph roads because you don't agree that the parkway should be all 50mph.

 

That doesn't make sense.

[kidley 48]

a well one long queue to London by 2022

 

 https://www.confused.com/on-the-road/safety/speed-limiters-mandatory-on-new-cars

[redbig 10]

1 hour ago, DnAuK said:

Like Cyclone I don't particularly care what speed you drive on the Parkway, as long as it's not slow enough to hold up other traffic. What I do object to is being told that a certain speed is too fast when it has long been perfectly acceptable. Your 65 for example would be illegal if this rule came into effect.

 

A fundamental point that many are ,missing here is that these speed limits were set back in a day when cars were far less efficient and capable. What may have been mildly dangerous in the 1970s to drive at is an absolute breeze these days with traction control and assisted braking. In fact most modern cars wil stop in far less time than the old fashioned 'braking distance' says they will. So the safety aspect of reducing speed limits these days is largely bogus.

 

Equally, cars are much kinder on the environment than they used to be. Mine (like Cyclone's) has an 8 speed box and is more efficient driving on the Parkway at 70MPH than it would be through town at 40MPH (which would be my preferred route if the 50MPH limit of the Parkway comes into force). Indeed it has an Eco Pro mode which i engage on the motorway which saves me fuel and emissions. It only starts to become ineffective at 80MPH (according to the manufcturers own details) and will actually tell you to reduce your speed to below that level. I presume that is becuase it is  German car and we all know you can drive faster on some roads in Germany - hence how I know.

 

Maybe what they should really do is ban the older 4-speed cars that are less safe, use more fuel and cause more damage to the environment doing 50 MPH than mine will at 70? Just a thought..

 

 

 

70mph is too fast on the parkway, 50-60 is about right. 

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

On 06/07/2019 at 12:29, Planner1 said:

You'd be wrong there. EV's lose a significant amount of range in colder weather.

 

Read this: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cold-weather-saps-electric-car-batteries-2019-02-07

I had one for three years, Mitzi Outlander PHEV and can only agree with your post.

 

Angel1.

1 hour ago, Crissie said:

The fact that I'm not burning any fossil fuel at that speed and over that part of the journey is a reasonable measure of efficiency - I  don't really know any other metric that could easily be applied.  My car doesn't suddenly become a gas-guzzling monster when the petrol generator kicks in, so even over longer journeys I'll consume less petrol at 65 than at 70, and costs me around 4 seconds for every mile.  Your posh 8-speed car (is it a Diesel engine?) might well give different results, I don't mind.  Whether you believe me or not, I'm happy with my assessment.

 

What about the fossil fuel used to generate electricity used to charge our electric cars up. There is no such thing as a free dinner.

 

Angel1.

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

I have not read all the posts, so apologies if this may be repeating something already posted. Re reducing speeds to reduce exhaust emissions, it comes down to this. Does slowing traffic to 40/50 thereby increasing the time taken between point a and point b reduce emissions more than letting traffic flow at 70 and reduce the time taken between a and b thus reducing time taken to emit emissions. My money is on free flowing 70mph.

 

Angel1.

 

[PRESLEY 1,228]

3 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

I have not read all the posts, so apologies if this may be repeating something already posted. Re reducing speeds to reduce exhaust emissions, it comes down to this. Does slowing traffic to 40/50 thereby increasing the time taken between point a and point b reduce emissions more than letting traffic flow at 70 and reduce the time taken between a and b thus reducing time taken to emit emissions. My money is on free flowing 70mph.

 

Angel1.

 

Free flow at 70 then more severe accdents. 

[francypants 441]

Seems to me that men who think they have to drive at the speed limit all the time in big cars have something to prove.   Small appendages come to mind.................

[ANGELFIRE1 10]

Just now, PRESLEY said:

Free flow at 70 then more severe accdents. 

Taking that attitude why not limit the speed to 15 mph. Low speed = no severe accidents.

 

Angel1.

[Crissie 18]

30 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

I had one for three years, Mitzi Outlander PHEV and can only agree with your post.

 

Angel1.

What about the fossil fuel used to generate electricity used to charge our electric cars up. There is no such thing as a free dinner.

 

Angel1. 

I don't dispute that there are no free dinners.  My point was that MY car returns better fuel efficiency figures at 65 mph than it does at 70.  That's not necessarily the case for some other cars, and I wouldn't try to persuade anyone else to drive their car faster or slower, just because that's best for me.  Each to their own.

[WalkleyIan 10]

Road resistance, engine friction etc are all generally linear in proportion with speed increase and are relatively low components of the force a car has to overcome once it's up and rolling. An average person can push a 1-tonne car at walking speed on the flat then keep it moving.

 

Air resistance is the largest force you have to counter. This goes up in proportion to speed squared. Small change in speed is a bigger change in air resistance, and what you've got to put in the keep the thing moving. So jumping from 40 to 70 has a big effect on air resistance and fuel consumption.

 

I suspect the small amount of time saved going down the parkway at 70  then still having to queue at the end anyway will in no way compensate for the increase in fuel consumption and associated pollution

Edited July 19, 2019 by WalkleyIan