Motorway speed limits reduced. (1 Viewer)

[Gromett]

If all the traffic is going through these areas more slowly , won’t they be there longer so the effect on emissions will be approximately Zero ?

You get more MPG at 50 than at 60mph... Using less fuel = less emissions. That is the logic.

As far as congestion is concerned I know that on the M42 around Solihull/ NEC area which was always a car park before the smart motorway it made a considerable difference to journey times when they introduced the 50 limit smart thingy. Whether that was purely down to speed limits or combined with lots of cameras I’m not sure.

Yup. The smart motorway is about increasing capacity not about reducing speed or emission. The speed limit is about safety due to the lack of a hard shoulder.

 

[PeteH]

thats my feeling

That would appear to be logical?. But when did Logic ever figure?.

 

[Gromett]

And of course they will have factored in the effects of lockdown? Which will naturally have taken the overall statistic down. How very convenient?. The only true result would have been comparisons of years where traffic volumes where the same lockdown will have artificially skewed the current year. And traffic is still not back to pre lockdown levels. Making any assessment fraudulent.

It doesn't work like that. It is not about skewing the figures it is about correcting variability to ensure the the result is correct.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Coolcats]

Buy an electric vehicle and go as fast as you wish as there will be no pollution at the point of use. ( I’m not saying pollution may not be generated elsewhere either in production of the vehicle or the energy it stores).

 

[Coolcats]

It doesn't work like that. It is not about skewing the figures it is about correcting variability to ensure the the result is correct.

Isn’t that what VW and other manufactures did with diesel gate ?

 

[Clipgate]

This is an experiment thus the outcome will drive future developments, however it only addressees part of a much larger vehicle pollution challenge, brake dust tyre partials also pollute. We are without doubt destroying our own environment, what to do I have little idea, but one thing I do know is do nothing and we must live with the consequence, take dramatic action and live with the financial and social consequences. Road transport and it's pollution is only a very small part of societies challenges, mental health issues and many others driven by our greed and consumption of natural resources are waiting to bit us all.
In my view we have it in our own hands as individuals to find solutions to our behaviours, governments are relatively powerless the sooner we all grasp the nettle the better.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Ivory55]

Just a thought I was told if a car labours in to higher gear it could create more pollution. I wonder how many people with a manual car and cruise control will just leave in a higher gear and not change down for an incline etc. Leaving the car not in it’s optimum engine speed.

 

[Coolcats]

This is an experiment thus the outcome will drive future developments, however it only addressees part of a much larger vehicle pollution challenge, brake dust tyre partials also pollute. We are without doubt destroying our own environment, what to do I have little idea, but one thing I do know is do nothing and we must live with the consequence, take dramatic action and live with the financial and social consequences. Road transport and it's pollution is only a very small part of societies challenges, mental health issues and many others driven by our greed and consumption of natural resources are waiting to bit us all.
In my view we have it in our own hands as individuals to find solutions to our behaviours, governments are relatively powerless the sooner we all grasp the nettle the better.

James lovelock has said it’s too late, party while you can! (He has been right on many aspects of the Enviroment)

On the other hand if we want to save the planet. Stop having children, reduce the population, become Vegetarian and become a True consumer by only using what you have brought until it cannot be used anymore.

 

[Ivory55]

James lovelock has said it’s too late, party while you can! (He has been right on many aspects of the Enviroment)

On the other hand if we want to save the planet. Stop having children, reduce the population, become Vegetarian and become a True consumer by only using what you have brought until it cannot be used anymore.

Sounds like my car buying history, haha.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

Isn’t that what VW and other manufactures did with diesel gate ?

No. They deliberately wrote software that detected when the test was being run and altered the engine parameters. That is putting your finger on the scale.

For this experiment to be "cheated", everyone driving would need cheat.


This experiment can be perfectly valid by doing some basic maths.

Let's say during 2019 the average levels of NOx was 100 and that the average vehicle number was 50 per hour. Then we could safely say that each vehicle was responsible for 2 units of NOx.
In 2020 lets say the average NOx level fell to 70 and the average vehicle throughput was 40 per hour (80% of last year)... Then we could say that each vehicle was responsible for 1.75 units of NOx.

 

[Gromett]

however it only addressees part of a much larger vehicle pollution challenge, brake dust tyre partials also pollute

There is no doubt there is some pollution caused by these. However, they are localised whereas CO2 and NOx can spread a very long and cause global problems.

Worth Noting EV's solve the brake dust component as they use regenerative braking mainly not friction braking.

 

[Sandancers]

No. They deliberately wrote software that detected when the test was being run and altered the engine parameters. That is putting your finger on the scale.

For this experiment to be "cheated", everyone driving would need cheat.


This experiment can be perfectly valid by doing some basic maths.

Let's say during 2019 the average levels of NOx was 100 and that the average vehicle number was 50 per hour. Then we could safely say that each vehicle was responsible for 2 units of NOx.
In 2020 lets say the average NOx level fell to 70 and the average vehicle throughput was 40 per hour (80% of last year)... Then we could say that each vehicle was responsible for 1.75 units of NOx.

Problem is, after Iraq2 where Tony Blair categorically TOLD us that Saddam had WMD, then dieselgate and numerous other situations where the people have been lied to, it will take me some convincing to believe that the outcome of the trial will be anything except what the Politicians want it to be.

The results will be read in a number of ways to suit the agenda.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

Problem is, after Iraq2 where Tony Blair categorically TOLD us that Saddam had WMD, then dieselgate and numerous other situations where the people have been lied to, it will take me some convincing to believe that the outcome of the trial will be anything except what the Politicians want it to be.

The results will be read in a number of ways to suit the agenda.

Again with the false equivalence. Blair was a political lie. Dieselgate was a profit driven company cheating a test. The experiment regarding NOx vs speed is science.

Here is a little story for you.
Aristotle came up with one of the earliest theories of gravity. Amongst all his findings he theorised that heavy objects will fall faster than lighter objects. Cannon ball vs feather argument.
It seemed logical and that theory stood for many centuries. This was what was taught in schools at the time. Aristotle was one of the finest minds of his time and respect for him continues to this day.

Galileo Galilei in the 16th Century theorised that all objects would fall at the same speed irrespective of weight. This contradicted what literally every one believed at the time and was counter intuitive to everyone back then.
Being a good scientist he devised an experiment where he dropped two objects from the leaning tower of Pisa and tested his theory.

Experiment is the ONLY way to confirm a theory... It is the way science works. Without science we can only guess and that is no way to work.

Blair and dieselgate has no bearing on the science.

Once the results are in and the scientist publish, if the government then says let's reduce the speed limit across the entire motorway network to 50mph that is not the fault of the scientists or the science. Nor does it make the experiment invalid. The science will simply show that NOx is either reduced by a certain amount on this stretch of road when the speed limit is dropped by 10mph. It makes no claims about 50mph nor does it make any claims about entire network. This would be a Blair style of taking facts not in evidence.

If the government were then to mandate that all speedometers had to display 60mph when in fact the cars were doing 70mph that would be cheating like the Dieselgate scenario. Again this would not be the fault of the scientists or the science.

Your argument and others on here appears to be. We don't trust the government therefore we shouldn't run experiments to find out the truth?

 

[Sandancers]

Again with the false equivalence. Blair was a political lie. Dieselgate was a profit driven company cheating a test. The experiment regarding NOx vs speed is science.

Here is a little story for you.
Aristotle came up with one of the earliest theories of gravity. Amongst all his findings he theorised that heavy objects will fall faster than lighter objects. Cannon ball vs feather argument.
It seemed logical and that theory stood for many centuries. This was what was taught in schools at the time. Aristotle was one of the finest minds of his time and respect for him continues to this day.

Galileo Galilei in the 16th Century theorised that all objects would fall at the same speed irrespective of weight. This contradicted what literally every one believed at the time and was counter intuitive to everyone back then.
Being a good scientist he devised an experiment where he dropped two objects from the leaning tower of Pisa and tested his theory.

Experiment is the ONLY way to confirm a theory... It is the way science works. Without science we can only guess and that is no way to work.

Blair and dieselgate has no bearing on the science.

Once the results are in and the scientist publish, if the government then says let's reduce the speed limit across the entire motorway network to 50mph that is not the fault of the scientists or the science. Nor does it make the experiment invalid. The science will simply show that NOx is either reduced by a certain amount on this stretch of road when the speed limit is dropped by 10mph. It makes no claims about 50mph nor does it make any claims about entire network. This would be a Blair style of taking facts not in evidence.

If the government were then to mandate that all speedometers had to display 60mph when in fact the cars were doing 70mph that would be cheating like the Dieselgate scenario. Again this would not be the fault of the scientists or the science.

Your argument and others on here appears to be. We don't trust the government therefore we shouldn't run experiments to find out the truth?

Let me give a different example, from December 2018.

The reduced drink-drive limit in Scotland has had no impact on cutting road accidents, a new study has found.

The Scottish Government cut the legal blood alcohol limit for motorists from 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood to 50 in December 2014.

It argued the change would help save lives and make the country’s roads safer.

But Jim Lewsey, professor of medical statistics at Glasgow University’s Institute of Health and Wellbeing, said the “unequivocal” results of the research were this “simply did not have the intended effect of reducing RTAs”.

The “most plausible” explanation for this “surprising” finding was the lower limit in Scotland was not backed up with sufficient police enforcement or media campaigning, he added.

The research, which was carried out alongside NHS Health Scotland, the University of Stirling and the University of East Anglia, looked at police data on road traffic accidents in not just Scotland but also England and Wales – where the drink-drive limit has remained at 80 millilgrammes of alcohol.

This was combined with market research data showing alcohol consumption rates – with the researchers believing the design of the study allowed them to isolate the impact of the policy change.

Prof Lewsey said: “Our findings are surprising, given what we know from previous international evidence, which generally supports a reduction of RTAs following the same lowering of a blood alcohol concentration limit.

“However, the results of our high-quality study are unequivocal – they indicate that the reduction in Scotland’s drink-drive limit in December 2014 simply did not have the intended effect of reducing RTAs.”

When the lower drink driving limit was introduced, then-Scottish justice secretary Michael Matheson said he believed the change would “not only reduce accidents but also reduce fatalities on Scottish roads and in that way make Scottish roads safer”.


This illustrates the point I am trying to make, the science can say one thing but the Politicians will present the results to support the agenda they want to push.

In the example above, you could say that the experiment has failed, so put the drink drive limit back to what it was. Didn't happen, instead the professor said "it would have happened IF only xyz had happened".

I'm not decrying science. I have been involved with loads of such stuff myself, but I also know how wanting to "please the bosses", or "let's find the acceptable solution" can alter the results one way or another.

 

[Gromett]

Let me give a different example, from December 2018.

The reduced drink-drive limit in Scotland has had no impact on cutting road accidents, a new study has found.

The Scottish Government cut the legal blood alcohol limit for motorists from 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood to 50 in December 2014.

It argued the change would help save lives and make the country’s roads safer.

But Jim Lewsey, professor of medical statistics at Glasgow University’s Institute of Health and Wellbeing, said the “unequivocal” results of the research were this “simply did not have the intended effect of reducing RTAs”.

The “most plausible” explanation for this “surprising” finding was the lower limit in Scotland was not backed up with sufficient police enforcement or media campaigning, he added.

The research, which was carried out alongside NHS Health Scotland, the University of Stirling and the University of East Anglia, looked at police data on road traffic accidents in not just Scotland but also England and Wales – where the drink-drive limit has remained at 80 millilgrammes of alcohol.

This was combined with market research data showing alcohol consumption rates – with the researchers believing the design of the study allowed them to isolate the impact of the policy change.

Prof Lewsey said: “Our findings are surprising, given what we know from previous international evidence, which generally supports a reduction of RTAs following the same lowering of a blood alcohol concentration limit.

“However, the results of our high-quality study are unequivocal – they indicate that the reduction in Scotland’s drink-drive limit in December 2014 simply did not have the intended effect of reducing RTAs.”

When the lower drink driving limit was introduced, then-Scottish justice secretary Michael Matheson said he believed the change would “not only reduce accidents but also reduce fatalities on Scottish roads and in that way make Scottish roads safer”.


This illustrates the point I am trying to make, the science can say one thing but the Politicians will present the results to support the agenda they want to push.

In the example above, you could say that the experiment has failed, so put the drink drive limit back to what it was. Didn't happen, instead the professor said "it would have happened IF only xyz had happened".

There was a theory that reducing the blood alcohol limit would reduce RTC's. They went and did it without running a trial/experiment.

That is not what is happening here. They are running a limited experiment to find out IF the reduction in speed results in NOx.

If the government were to unilaterally reduce the speed limit across the network without an experiment to find out if it does in fact reduce NOx you may have had a point.

I'm not decrying science. I have been involved with loads of such stuff myself, but I also know how wanting to "please the bosses", or "let's find the acceptable solution" can alter the results one way or another.

No, it cannot alter the results of a well run experiment. It can affect how the results are interpreted or presented. It cannot affect the results of a well run experiment. If it is not a well run experiment then peer review will criticise the experiments structure. If the results are used to try and push and agenda they don't support then others can argue the facts.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Sandancers]

There was a theory that reducing the blood alcohol limit would reduce RTC's. They went and did it without running a trial/experiment.

That is not what is happening here. They are running a limited experiment to find out IF the reduction in speed results in NOx.

If the government were to unilaterally reduce the speed limit across the network without an experiment to find out if it does in fact reduce NOx you may have had a point.


No, it cannot alter the results of a well run experiment. It can affect how the results are interpreted or presented. It cannot affect the results of a well run experiment. If it is not a well run experiment then peer review will criticise the experiments structure. If the results are used to try and push and agenda they don't support then others can argue the facts.

Well, think we'll not agree on this then.

How about we'll wait till the results of the slow down zone tests come out ? ?

I will predict now that they show that it was very successful in reducing Nox emissions, that slow down zones will be rolled out into other parts of the Country.
Mucho money has been made from speeding fines.
And probably there will be a move to allow EV / Hybrid cars to exceed 60mph in the zones, with again possibly, a lane reserved solely for them.

And no scientist will dispute the results as he / she would then be branded a climate change denier.

 

[Gromett]

Well, think we'll not agree on this then.

How about we'll wait till the results of the slow down zone tests come out ? ?

Erm, it appears we do agree with each other on this. That is what I have been saying all along. Do the experiment and see what the results are.

I will predict now that they show that it was very successful in reducing Nox emissions, that slow down zones will be rolled out into other parts of the Country.
Mucho money has been made from speeding fines.

I am not making any predictions because I don't know. However, If I was forced to guess, I would say that in 1 or 2 of the tests a statistically significant reduction was seen, but not in the others. I suspect it will be a mixed bag due to confounders.

And probably there will be a move to allow EV / Hybrid cars to exceed 60mph in the zones, with again possibly, a lane reserved solely for them.

I would have no problems with that. It has been proven that cars consume more fuel at 70 than at 60 and therefore emit more CO2. Allowing EV's to drive quicker would be a good incentive to get people to move across to them. I think it is way too early for this though as there are not enough cheap EV's so it would be a rich persons speeding charter currently. Any politician worth his salt will know this argument and will not push for it unless they are a flaming idiot.

And no scientist will dispute the results as he / she would then be branded a climate change denier.

Scientists may or may not dispute this. If they are a good scientist and see a problem with the methodology then they will dispute it. If the experiment is well run then there will be nothing to dispute.
I am not going to judge it until the methodology is released.


ALL I have been saying all along is an experiment is the ONLY way to discover if something is true or not. I think this is a good idea to test out.

 

[Yorick]

Reducing the speed limit will increase the number of accidents. That's a fact

Imagine you need to do 100 miles.

At 100 MPH you'll only be on the road for one hour.

At 50 MPH you'll be on the road 2 hours.

So instantly doubling the time you can have a crash

Stay home. Stay safe

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

Reducing the speed limit will increase the number of accidents. That's a fact

Imagine you need to do 100 miles.

At 100 MPH you'll only be on the road for one hour.

At 50 MPH you'll be on the road 2 hours.

So instantly doubling the time you can have a crash

Stay home. Stay safe

You owe me a keyboard, I just snorted coffee all over it. Thanks

 

[petercomplete]

The controling government AGAIN.Not happy with covid so they now move on to controling our pleasures

 

[Ivory55]

I reckon phased entry on to all motorways will become normal as well

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[2x2camper]

The controling government AGAIN.Not happy with covid so they now move on to controling our pleasures

Whats pleasurable about being poisoned by exhaust fumes?

 

[scally]

Science doesn't care about your feelings

Here is the thing. They think it will reduce NOx, You feel it won't. Let's settle the argument by running an experiment and see who's "Guess" is the right one and take it from there...

I would have thought mathematics would be a pointer rather than guess.
By the way, the words feel and think used in that context usually mean the same thing.

 

[scally]

There is no doubt there is some pollution caused by these. However, they are localised whereas CO2 and NOx can spread a very long and cause global problems.

Worth Noting EV's solve the brake dust component as they use regenerative braking mainly not friction braking.

I was taught to do that, via the gearbox using the brakes as a last thing.(except for emergency before one of you picks up on it )

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

I would have thought mathematics would be a pointer rather than guess.
By the way, the words feel and think used in that context usually mean the same thing.

You didn't watch the video did you? It was only 60 seconds and if you had watched it you would understand the context of my comment

 

[Gromett]

I was taught to do that, via the gearbox using the brakes as a last thing.(except for emergency before one of you picks up on it )

There is a HUGE difference between engine braking in an ICE and regenerative breaking in an EV.

Engine braking in an ICE can slow you down a little. Regenerative braking can provide 90%+ of ALL your braking needs. Some people actually complain that regen braking is too harsh which is why they have settings on EV's so you can reduce it's effect.

 

[scally]

There is a HUGE difference between engine braking in an ICE and regenerative breaking in an EV.

Engine braking in an ICE can slow you down a little. Regenerative braking can provide 90%+ of ALL your braking needs. Some people actually complain that regen braking is too harsh which is why they have settings on EV's so you can reduce it's effect.

I'm not gonna argue about EVs cos never had one but using gears you can get to walking pace quite quickly if that's the way you were taught.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[scally]

You didn't watch the video did you? It was only 60 seconds and if you had watched it you would understand the context of my comment

twas my comment I was thinking about, you know the one you seemed to question. It dont matter though its only words

 

[Coolcats]

No. They deliberately wrote software that detected when the test was being run and altered the engine parameters. That is putting your finger on the scale.

For this experiment to be "cheated", everyone driving would need cheat.


This experiment can be perfectly valid by doing some basic maths.

Let's say during 2019 the average levels of NOx was 100 and that the average vehicle number was 50 per hour. Then we could safely say that each vehicle was responsible for 2 units of NOx.
In 2020 lets say the average NOx level fell to 70 and the average vehicle throughput was 40 per hour (80% of last year)... Then we could say that each vehicle was responsible for 1.75 units of NOx.

We will have to disagree Gromett my comment was tongue in cheek, however correcting variability is manipulating data, otherwise the data would expose the variability

 

[Coolcats]

There is a HUGE difference between engine braking in an ICE and regenerative breaking in an EV.

Engine braking in an ICE can slow you down a little. Regenerative braking can provide 90%+ of ALL your braking needs. Some people actually complain that regen braking is too harsh which is why they have settings on EV's so you can reduce it's effect.

Engine braking is also dependant on the weight of a flywheel, if you take my track/ road car for instance it has a lightweight flywheel. If you just come off the throttle it can cause the back of the car to step out. The rate of deceleration is more akin to braking. On a modern car the brake lights would come on. If you were following me on the road you would swear my brake lights were not working. That type of deceleration on an EV would cause the brake lights to come on.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}