Jump to content

Speed Limit On Sheffield Parkway Set To Be Cut?

Recommended Posts

You make a good point, I can't actually select 8th gear until about 60-65, I'll check exactly the next time I'm on the parkway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Resident said:

Can I just say I have a sneaking suspicion that myself and Padders are in the same profession. 

 

At which point I'd like to point out that I qualified in May for this profession and within 2 weeks was given a safety award. 

It wasn't hard to achieve. 

If you went 12 months without a blameworthy accident, you qualified for the annual dinner and dance + a little badge with your total years safe driving on it.  I took early retirement in 2004 after 41yrs. Just seen Cyclones post where he states about driving in 8th gear, Oh my word now I get it,  8TH gear, never knew you had more than 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Resident said:

I'd like to point out that my car, like many modern vehicles, are actually more efficient at 70 that they are at 50.

 

At 50mph in my car I'm still in 5th, at around 2200rpm & the turbo spooling bearing in mind it's diesel. 

At 70mph (well around 63)I'm able to engage 6th gear. This drops rpm to around 1300 and as it's not needed, the turbo shuts off. 

 

Less fuel + greater speed = greater efficiency + less emissions 

 

So these environmental arguments are baseless.  

Conversely, at 65 mph on the Parkway my Hybrid car operates in full electric mode.  At 70 mph the petrol engine then also cuts in to assist.

 

So to use your equation:

No fuel + 92% speed = far greater efficiency + no exhaust emissions, especially not Diesel NOx & DPM.

It's not 'one size fits all'.

 

So your environmental argument is also baseless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

So the only argument you've presented there is that some of the parkway is already 50 and that 3 is foolish.  So basically, no argument at all.

No - i've presented an argument that;

 

1. It is better for the environment.

2. It is safer to travel at lower speeds.

3. Journey times won't be significantly impacted.

3. Part of the Parkway is already designated 50mph. Extending remaining part of the Parkway will have limited impact on journey times but will achieve 1 and 2.

 

So what is the issue you have with that again?

 

Ha - I've also just noticed you've edited and completely re-written your previous post so it looks like I haven't replied - you need to get out more.

 

 

7 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Well then you are completely selfish.    What you deem "a better environment" is impacting others. 

 

Do you ever stop to think that some of us would like to get to our destinations promptly, using the roads to their full safe and legally deemed limits and driving with the competence and confidence as we were trained to do and measured upon within our driving licence tests.

 

Just because people like yourself cannot seem to handle such limits and laughingly deem them unsafe does not give you the right to prevent nor preach others who are driving at speeds which are perfectly legal as assessed by professionals with a damn sight more knowledge and experience than you have.  

 

 

I believe the legally deemed limits could be reduced - that's the whole argument - you obviously haven't understood it.

Edited by makapaka
Comedy edit by other poster :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep ignoring points as if they'll conveniently disappear.

 

1. Appears to be in doubt.

2. We know that 50 is safer.  40 is safer still, 30 is safer still, so by what logic have you selected 50?  I contend that there is no logic or basis for this selection, there is no argument that 70 is too dangerous.

3. That part of the parkway has a 50 limit is irrelevant, and that journey times will only change slightly is irrelevant.

19 minutes ago, Crissie said:

Conversely, at 65 mph on the Parkway my Hybrid car operates in full electric mode.  At 70 mph the petrol engine then also cuts in to assist.

 

So to use your equation:

No fuel + 92% speed = far greater efficiency + no exhaust emissions, especially not Diesel NOx & DPM.

It's not 'one size fits all'.

 

So your environmental argument is also baseless.

You realise that "no fuel" is incorrect.  Unless you think the electricity to run the car comes from magic fairies or something.  Presumably your car cannot drive for more than 20 or 30 miles without using the engine, so had you just arrived from the motorway, at 65 mph, having come from Nottingham, your engine would run either way, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

You keep ignoring points as if they'll conveniently disappear.

 

1. Appears to be in doubt.

2. We know that 50 is safer.  40 is safer still, 30 is safer still, so by what logic have you selected 50?  I contend that there is no logic or basis for this selection, there is no argument that 70 is too dangerous.

3. That part of the parkway has a 50 limit is irrelevant, and that journey times will only change slightly is irrelevant.

You realise that "no fuel" is incorrect.  Unless you think the electricity to run the car comes from magic fairies or something.  Presumably your car cannot drive for more than 20 or 30 miles without using the engine, so had you just arrived from the motorway, at 65 mph, having come from Nottingham, your engine would run either way, right?

Haha, you really are very funny Cyclone - it never occurred to me that there could be magic fairies (I think they're faeries really) in my car, I always thought the electricity came from regenerative braking and a generator driven by the petrol engine when required - not necessary on the Parkway so I don't add to the localised pollution there.

The point here, that I think you missed, is that unlike Resident's oil-burner, my car runs more efficiently at 65 mph than 70 mph - nothing to do with range either.

I don't come from Nottingham, don't know how you managed to creep that one in.

Would you prefer it if I drove at 70 mph instead of 65?  It would save me around 8 valuable seconds on the 70 mph stretch of the Parkway, and the only cost is a bit of extra pollution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

You make a good point, I can't actually select 8th gear until about 60-65, I'll check exactly the next time I'm on the parkway.

Yet if I end doing 50 on single carriage way roads in the van, I use less than doing 65/70 on the motorway. I was doing the former last night and was amazed how long it took in terms of miles and time before the fuel gauge moved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Crissie said:

Haha, you really are very funny Cyclone - it never occurred to me that there could be magic fairies (I think they're faeries really) in my car, I always thought the electricity came from regenerative braking and a generator driven by the petrol engine when required - not necessary on the Parkway so I don't add to the localised pollution there.

The point here, that I think you missed, is that unlike Resident's oil-burner, my car runs more efficiently at 65 mph than 70 mph - nothing to do with range either.

I don't come from Nottingham, don't know how you managed to creep that one in.

Would you prefer it if I drove at 70 mph instead of 65?  It would save me around 8 valuable seconds on the 70 mph stretch of the Parkway, and the only cost is a bit of extra pollution.

Does it run more efficiently?  The fact that it can run on electric only at that point (for a very limited range) doesn't make an argument that it is more efficient.

I selected nottingham as being far enough that you couldn't do it on electric only, but not so far as to be ridiculous like, say, Portsmouth.

65 is mildly inconvenient to other drivers on the motorway who have to pass you, but it's not unreasonably slow, so I have no complain with you choosing to drive at that speed.  I don't think you've established that it would create any more pollution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Does it run more efficiently?  The fact that it can run on electric only at that point (for a very limited range) doesn't make an argument that it is more efficient.

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You keep ignoring points as if they'll conveniently disappear.

 

1. Appears to be in doubt.

2. We know that 50 is safer.  40 is safer still, 30 is safer still, so by what logic have you selected 50?  I contend that there is no logic or basis for this selection, there is no argument that 70 is too dangerous.

3. That part of the parkway has a 50 limit is irrelevant, and that journey times will only change slightly is irrelevant.

You realise that "no fuel" is incorrect.  Unless you think the electricity to run the car comes from magic fairies or something.  Presumably your car cannot drive for more than 20 or 30 miles without using the engine, so had you just arrived from the motorway, at 65 mph, having come from Nottingham, your engine would run either way, right?

1. Isn’t in doubt.

 

2. 50mph is a sensible speed that isn’t going to significantly slow people down but is safer than 70mph.

 

Continually arguing that this means we should drive at 30mph / 10mph etc is a daft argument. 

 

you seem to be under the impression that a logical argument to justify greater speeds is that by applying reductions to make them safer must continue until you reach 0mph - nonsense.

 

3. It is relevant - because it means the same speed limit is applicable throughout the stretch which would be a sensible approach.

 

Just explain what your issue is with reduced environmental impact and slower speeds on the roads?

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes 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.

 

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..

 

 

 

Edited by DnAuK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes 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..

 

 

 

Yes because banning the people using their cars countrywide will be much more straightforward than changing the 4mile stretch of the parkway speed limit by 20mph.

 

Very sensible.

Edited by makapaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.