Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

M1 Speed Limit In Sheffield

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

So making vehicles stay in the area longer will reduce emissions? 

A better way to think about it is that, ideally, we would like:

- maximum, safe utilisation of the available space on a motorway.  Because at lower speeds we need less space between vehicles for safe outcomes, 60 works better than 70

- this increased level of safety is increased because we are all encouraged to keep moving at a steadier pace without acceleration and braking patterns of behaviour;  there is far less motivation for anyone to pass, leading again to lower likelihood of and need for braking.  This steadier flow means fewer brake lights shows, proven to cause tailbacks 2 miles further back.

- fewer bumps, fewer brake lights, moving en-bloc traffic leads to lower emissions

- in top gear at 60 or 70, 70 clearly uses more fuel and is worse for emissions. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DT Ralge said:

Disagree as a Safed/EST trainer.  Both my vehicles (1.0-litre petrol Ibiza and 2.3 litre diesel Ducato) are quite happy in top gear at speeds below 60 mph.   I can't say that I always drive like that, preferring engine responsiveness but 60mph in top gear is eminently possible - your reasoning, therefore, falls at the first hurdle.

No it doesnt the slower you go the longer you are on it so common sence says its all stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, DT Ralge said:

A better way to think about it is that, ideally, we would like:

- maximum, safe utilisation of the available space on a motorway.  Because at lower speeds we need less space between vehicles for safe outcomes, 60 works better than 70

- this increased level of safety is increased because we are all encouraged to keep moving at a steadier pace without acceleration and braking patterns of behaviour;  there is far less motivation for anyone to pass, leading again to lower likelihood of and need for braking.  This steadier flow means fewer brake lights shows, proven to cause tailbacks 2 miles further back.

- fewer bumps, fewer brake lights, moving en-bloc traffic leads to lower emissions

- in top gear at 60 or 70, 70 clearly uses more fuel and is worse for emissions. 

 

Rubbish more cars more accidents the best way to run in to the back of some one is drive to close 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, spider1 said:

No it doesnt the slower you go the longer you are on it so common sence says its all stupid

Using commonsense, ask yourself what makes you cover any given distance on a road (in this case the stretch of the M1 J33-34) more quickly?

Pedal power, fresh air?

What are the consequences of putting that extra oomph through the car to achieve the higher transit speed?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DT Ralge said:

Using commonsense, ask yourself what makes you cover any given distance on a road (in this case the stretch of the M1 J33-34) more quickly?

Pedal power, fresh air?

What are the consequences of putting that extra oomph through the car to achieve the higher transit speed?
 

Youve never drove in a 50 zone then horrible . When people cut there speed they cut there concentration  thats why there are more accidents below 30 mph than above natter natter natter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spider1 said:

Rubbish more cars more accidents the best way to run in to the back of some one is drive to close 

Hitting someone comes as a result of a number of factors, I agree.  And having a full motorway may be one of them. 
Speed differential and lane changing are more major two contributory factors to crashes, though, involving drivers running out of space (definition of a crash).


I’ve tried to explain the rationale behind encouraging all drivers to keep at 60-ish, where drivers are discouraged from acceleration followed by braking (itself a waste of fuel and unnecessary emissions) and from lane-changing and overtaking.   There’s far less point in doing it if we are all at 60.  
There are clearly those that will never allow themselves to understand this - they are probably the same drivers we see accelerating towards a red light.  Are you one of them, truthfully?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, DT Ralge said:

A better way to think about it is that, ideally, we would like:

- maximum, safe utilisation of the available space on a motorway.  Because at lower speeds we need less space between vehicles for safe outcomes, 60 works better than 70

- this increased level of safety is increased because we are all encouraged to keep moving at a steadier pace without acceleration and braking patterns of behaviour;  there is far less motivation for anyone to pass, leading again to lower likelihood of and need for braking.  This steadier flow means fewer brake lights shows, proven to cause tailbacks 2 miles further back.

- fewer bumps, fewer brake lights, moving en-bloc traffic leads to lower emissions

- in top gear at 60 or 70, 70 clearly uses more fuel and is worse for emissions. 

 

That is not debateable, and if this was being introduced for safety would be sound reasoning for introducing it, especially at busy times. However as this is being introduced under the guise of an anti pollution measure it fails on several levels. It claims to be tackling the levels on a particular stretch of road and as such outside the rush hour will cause vehicles to be on that stretch for longer. The claim that vehicles produce less emissions at 60 than 70 is vaguely valid. How much higher are those levels? I would wager that this would actually cause a net INCREASE in Emissions in that area overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spider1 said:

Youve never drove in a 50 zone then horrible . When people cut there speed they cut there concentration  thats why there are more accidents below 30 mph than above natter natter natter

Eh?  Of course I have.  
You are correct about 75% of crashes happening in urban 30,40 areas.   
But you clearly have a research paper at hand that suggests we all concentrate less in urban areas than we do elsewhere as a result of the lower speeds we travel at. 
So it’s got nothing to do with the high hazard level, the vast number of vehicle and  road user interactions around the large number of junctions ... and God knows what else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DT Ralge said:

Hitting someone comes as a result of a number of factors, I agree.  And having a full motorway may be one of them. 
Speed differential and lane changing are more major two contributory factors to crashes, though, involving drivers running out of space (definition of a crash).


I’ve tried to explain the rationale behind encouraging all drivers to keep at 60-ish, where drivers are discouraged from acceleration followed by braking (itself a waste of fuel and unnecessary emissions) and from lane-changing and overtaking.   There’s far less point in doing it if we are all at 60.  
There are clearly those that will never allow themselves to understand this - they are probably the same drivers we see accelerating towards a red light.  Are you one of them, truthfully?
 

No i dont accelerate towards lights and i dont see 70 mph as exccesively fast but my wife does so i tell her drive in the slow lane like you should and not push it down everbodys throat 

Edited by spider1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DT Ralge said:

Eh?  Of course I have.  
You are correct about 75% of crashes happening in urban 30,40 areas.   
But you clearly have a research paper at hand that suggests we all concentrate less in urban areas than we do elsewhere as a result of the lower speeds we travel at. 
So it’s got nothing to do with the high hazard level, the vast number of vehicle and  road user interactions around the large number of junctions ... and God knows what else. 

It is a simple fact that motorway driving is safer because quite simply everyone is going the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

That is not debateable, and if this was being introduced for safety would be sound reasoning for introducing it, especially at busy times. However as this is being introduced under the guise of an anti pollution measure it fails on several levels. It claims to be tackling the levels on a particular stretch of road and as such outside the rush hour will cause vehicles to be on that stretch for longer. The claim that vehicles produce less emissions at 60 than 70 is vaguely valid. How much higher are those levels? I would wager that this would actually cause a net INCREASE in Emissions in that area overall.

Not sure a valid point is vaguely valid.  Is that a bit like being vaguely pregnant?

1 minute ago, spider1 said:

No i dont accelerate towards lights and i dont see 70 mph as exccesively fast but my wife does so i tell her drive in the slow lane like you should and not push it donn everbodys throat 

I’m not pushing anything down anyone’s throat.  Just trying to add in some info’ to make this discussion intelligent and balanced.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DT Ralge said:

Not sure a valid point is vaguely valid.  Is that a bit like being vaguely pregnant?

No it is simple really. How much more does a vehicle emit at 70 than at 60? If there is as I suspect only a marginal increase it could actually result in a vehicle staying on that stretch of road longer produces more pollution on that stretch of road.

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.