M1 Speed Limit In Sheffield

[DT Ralge 10]

7 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

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

So, you are agreeing with me perhaps that motorway driving is potentially where driver attention levels drop. 
Back into the anti-smart motorway sentiments expressed here,  I’m no fan of them.  What I’d like to have drivers realise is that you can’t just function on autopilot and point your vehicle down the road on these, anymore than you can do that on your regular dual-carriageways. 

Edited September 13, 2020 by DT Ralge

[spider1 11]

13 minutes ago, DT Ralge said:

So, you are agreeing with me perhaps that motorway driving is potentially where driver attention levels drop. 
Back into the anti-smart motorway sentiments expressed here,  I’m no fan of them.  What I’d like to have drivers realise is that you can’t just function on autopilot and point your vehicle down the road on these, no more than you can do that on your regular dual-carriageways. 

Dont get on about smart motorways as this is just another extention even the police say they are rubbish and cause accidents . The 60 mph another way to collect money from us fast speeders 

Edited September 13, 2020 by spider1

[DT Ralge 10]

33 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

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.

We don’t need to know that percentage saving.   
All we need to know is that we have consumed less fuel and given out less emissions if we cover a set distance at 60 rather than at 70 (if it’s not downhill with a following wind etc).  What else gets us to 70  rather than 60?

More time on that stretch of motorway, yes, BECAUSE we’ve not pressed the accelerator as much.  
In addition, why  is disproportionately more fuel consumed in top gear at even marginally higher speeds?  The answer is increasing air resistance and that’s massive in my Ducato relative to my Ibiza so the reduction in emissions across the board (small hatchback to Sprinter) from  a 10mph speed reduction is not to be sniffed at for those living in Tinsley, for example. 
 

and it ain’t a theme just in the UK 

https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/speed-limits-on-motorways-clearly-cut-down-co2

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by DT Ralge

[Guest busdriver1]

4 minutes ago, DT Ralge said:

So, you are agreeing with me perhaps that motorway driving is potentially where driver attention levels drop. 
Back into the anti-smart motorway sentiments expressed here,  I’m no fan of them.  What I’d like to have drivers realise is that you can’t just function on autopilot and point your vehicle down the road on these, anymore than you can do that on your regular dual-carriageways. 

There can be no doubt at all that the majority of accidents on all roads are caused by poor concentration. I am not a fan of smart motorways for many obvious reasons but accidents happen everywhere for the reasons you quote. Yes, a speed reduction at busy times means a shorter braking distance is required so in theory more capacity can be gained however there are prices to pay and the reduction of speed on a motorway can cause  bunching and sudden braking by people not paying sufficient attention.

2 minutes ago, DT Ralge said:

We don’t need to know that percentage saving.   
All we need to know is that we have consumed less fuel and given out less emissions if we cover a set distance at 60 rather than at 70 (if it’s not downhill with a following wind etc).  What else gets us to 70  rather than 60?

The proposal is to target a particular stretch of road only so the figures are very relevant as the acceleration would have taken place outside that area.

[DT Ralge 10]

22 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

There can be no doubt at all that the majority of accidents on all roads are caused by poor concentration. I am not a fan of smart motorways for many obvious reasons but accidents happen everywhere for the reasons you quote. Yes, a speed reduction at busy times means a shorter braking distance is required so in theory more capacity can be gained however there are prices to pay and the reduction of speed on a motorway can cause  bunching and sudden braking by people not paying sufficient attention.

The proposal is to target a particular stretch of road only so the figures are very relevant as the acceleration would have taken place outside that area.

Poor, unintelligent drivers won’t go away, I’m afraid.  My training inputs and efforts are astonishingly puny in this.

The authorities are moving to a more authoritarian approach with a planned permanent (?) imposition of a lower speed limit.   I haven’t read anything that suggests they may loosen their control of speed at quiet times (that would be a better bet for me).

 

Driver compliance levels tend to be lower in the face of a lack of information and of rank disinformation from sections of the motoring lobby.  They don’t engage in too many public information campaigns these days and I hope to inform, film in any gaps and re-balance the discussion.

Targeting J33-34 comes from a very uncomfortable truth, namely that the air quality around there is, well, very poor. 

[altus 540]

1 hour ago, busdriver1 said:

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.

At both those speeds almost all the effort is in overcoming air resistance, which is proportional to velocity squared. So travelling at 70 requires about 36% more effort than travelling at 60 does. It would be a very strange engine that could produce 36% more power output for a marginal increase in fuel consumption.

[DT Ralge 10]

2 hours ago, spider1 said:

Dont get on about smart motorways as this is just another extention even the police say they are rubbish and cause accidents . The 60 mph another way to collect money from us fast speeders 

Old , well-worn topic, that.  

 

Fact: a huge number of motorway speeders in this area are invited to attend a motorway speed awareness course.  These are run by TTC (in South Yorkshire) and AA-Drivetech (in Derbyshire).  Highways England who are proposing this reduction do not benefit in any way from the "revenue" generated.   TTC and AADT do by contrast and it keeps a few of my ex-colleagues quite busy but none of them have any say over speed enforcement on any roads.

 

SYP, you are right, expressed their concerns about smart m/w's so they have little interest in the "revenue" generated by speed enforcement on them.  In truth, they take an unknown-to-me % of the course fees to cover their admin of the courses that is reasonably charged to cover everything from the regular tender process to run the courses to the daily oversight of course delivery by means of both out-of-town and unannounced mystery shoppers and by announced/uniformed even  sit-at-the-back attendance.

 

Edited September 13, 2020 by DT Ralge

[Rockers rule 673]

3 hours ago, spider1 said:

Dont get on about smart motorways as this is just another extention even the police say they are rubbish and cause accidents . The 60 mph another way to collect money from us fast speeders 

I'm with you Spider.

There is nothing smart about a motorway without a hard shoulder as has been proven. One death is one too many as is being put in danger during a breakdown. 'Speeder' (yer can't say that) I'm surprised you haven't been hung drawn and quartered by the thought police.

Everybody's been driving at 80mph (pre cameras and fines) for years and in my mind there's nothing wrong with that.

Modern cars are more than able to cope with speeds in excess of that. I'm not advocating speeds above 80, 80  should be the upper limit.

Forward thinking seams to be the main problem on Motorway now a days. Not being able to see an oncoming hazard is my usual bug bear. Why people get them selves stuck behind a lorry or despite being plenty of room in the second lane when a vehicle is joining the carriageway from a slip road refuse to move over. 

 

The lack of concentration at lower speeds makes me laugh I drive for a living and concentration should be something you don't have to think about.

Its a dangerous world out their in driving land no matter the speed.

 

Keep safe.

Drive accordingly

[nikki-red 308]

Can we try to stay on topic please.

 

Theres already a big thread about smart motorways here...

 

 

[Brooker11 10]

11 hours ago, DT Ralge said:

I wonder how drivers cope with the bulk of UK dual-carriageways (sharper bends, little vision ahead, no hard shoulder, lay-bys, crossing traffic, farm vehicles, cyclists (on some), extremely short exit and entry ramps ...).  A smart motorway should be no more dangerous than the A61, A38, A34, A1,,, if drivers "drove to the conditions", kept space for vision ahead and  built in escape routes into their driving plan.

Still, lots prefer an emotional, knee-jerk, "they're scary" and "the authorities are stupid" response.

The number of fatalities and incidents so far suggest you're wrong.

[DT Ralge 10]

16 hours ago, Brooker11 said:

The number of fatalities and incidents so far suggest you're wrong.

You may have the figures on deaths on motorways year by year, splitting:

- deaths on conventional and smart

- by mile or per thousand road users

- by time of day

- by contributory factors

I know I don't, as yet.

Without an in-depth analysis like this, we might well be being sucked into a media hype of blame HE.

I may be wrong, indeed, but I go back to my suggestion that "smart" (called this for reasons of installed technology) may be no more dangerous than other roads such as d/c's without hard shoulders because both offer repeated instances of blocked vision ahead for drivers.  Unless, of course, drivers are encouraged to understand and deal with the hazard as it is.  Until drivers realise this and drive "to the conditions" (limited vision), horrendous incidents will continue to occur on all road types. 

Edited September 14, 2020 by DT Ralge

[Brooker11 10]

8 hours ago, DT Ralge said:

You may have the figures on deaths on motorways year by year, splitting:

- deaths on conventional and smart

- by mile or per thousand road users

- by time of day

- by contributory factors

I know I don't, as yet.

Without an in-depth analysis like this, we might well be being sucked into a media hype of blame HE.

I may be wrong, indeed, but I go back to my suggestion that "smart" (called this for reasons of installed technology) may be no more dangerous than other roads such as d/c's without hard shoulders because both offer repeated instances of blocked vision ahead for drivers.  Unless, of course, drivers are encouraged to understand and deal with the hazard as it is.  Until drivers realise this and drive "to the conditions" (limited vision), horrendous incidents will continue to occur on all road types. 

I suggest you take this up with the families who have lost loved ones who have merely needed refuge after breaking down on a section of road that was a ludicrous idea and even worse in execution, I'm sure they'll be interested in your theories, the government also suspended the construction of any more until design changes were made, you obviously missed that meeting.