How to Reduce CO2? Lower speed limits and fit Speed Limiters on cars

[Roadkill]

The fanaticism I refer to lies in refusing to acknowledge that cars are useful (and for many people an absolute necessity), refusing to acknowledge any benefits from them and in wanting to make life as difficult for motorists as possible. In some cases it's overlaid with a heavy dose of patronising self-righteousness as well.

 

[cybertect]

Well you start by pointing out that the argument has gone off topic then produce a series of documents that prove nothing other than using traffic calming leads to increasing and decreasing speeds rather than driving at a constant speed and is going to increase tail-pipe emissions. This we know!

I'm glad we have that out of the way.

You seem to have ignored the part of my post where I mentioned TRL findings that driving at a constant 20 mph is going to increase emissions by up to 40% compared to a constant 30 mph.

Moreover, speed limiters are rather dumb devices. As the name suggests, the place a maximum on the speed of a vehicle. If, for the purposes of your argument, that's set a 55 mph, then they're not really going to have any effect at 30, 20 or 15 mph, are they?

In fact all urban driving have very high per km emissions, and the highest emissions are in the first two miles while the engine is not warm, so tackling these trips and converting to cycling will have the greatest impact. These short journeys represent over 50% of all car trips.

50% of all journeys are short journeys? Presumably the vast majority in urban areas subject to a 30 mph limit?

[does some maths]

Reduce from 30 mph to a 20 mph limit. Let's be generous and assume no additional traffic calming to enforce this and use the lower level of increase.

With no change in behaviour, a 40% increase in emissions of 50% of journeys = 20% increase in overall emissions.

Using TfL data, to get back to where you started, for urban journeys, you'll have to induce a modal transfer of

- 29% shift of journeys to zero emissions modes of transport (everyone gets on their bicycles or walks) or doesn't travel at all.

or

- 40% to light rail, such as the London Underground (very efficient at 55g CO2/passenger km). Planning and implementation of schemes like these is measured in decades. BTW. I was talking to LT's architects dept about Crossrail when I did my degree dissertation on public transport design in 1988. We might just have it in place by the time the Olympics roll into London in 2012.

or

- 70% of journeys to bus, which emits 17% less CO2 than the average car (this allowing for bus CO2 emissions to remain the same as passenger loadings rise, even though their actual efficiency drops because of the lower speed limits)

OK, so these are some very rough figures, but for every 1% increase in emissions as a result of the measures, you'd have to persuade 0.75% of journeys to move to zero-emissions transport, 1% to move to light rail, or nearly 2% to bus, just to keep things where they were when you started with a zero reduction in CO2.

Does this seem likely or even feasible?

 

[co-op]

This sort of smug, holier-than-thou drivel is precisely why no-one listens to anti-car fanatics in the first place.

It's difficult to have a debate with you because the first response is always this kind of fact/argument-free rant. If you want some real drivel I suggest there are a few other posters on this thread you might want to re-read. It's just meaningless and pointless. Try making some points.

As Giles says, there's no such thing as a 'carhead', or whatever pseudo-medical term you want to apply to it; just people who own and use cars as a means of transport and, sometimes, enjoyment, and who quite understandably often don't take kindly to the kind of smug, patronising, frankly dishonest crap being spoken of them by the likes of you.

For example; you use the word "dishonest". Perhaps you could show how I have been dishonest - a "reason" for using the word. If you can't produce anything to back it up (and I don't see how you can, but I'm all ears) then the epithet is just hot air. Meaningless and pointless. Why should I bother take any notice of this rubbish?

As for smug and patronising etc; yep maybe a little guilty. There's a reason though (there's that word again). It's because you steam in with cheap and argument-free abuse full of hot wind but there's nothing there for me to engage with. I could either do the same back - a clear waste of time. Or I can try and lure you to the table of adult discussion with the carrot of (relatively) polite replies and the stick of condesension.

If you don't like it, it's probably because you know there's some truth in my suggestion that your replies are a bit juvenile (by contrast the "dishonest" jibe by you at me misses by a mile because it's got no substance that I can see).

 

[co-op]

The fanaticism I refer to lies in refusing to acknowledge that cars are useful (and for many people an absolute necessity), refusing to acknowledge any benefits from them.....

Who has been making either of these points? Just curious, perhaps you are referring to another thread or something?

 

[Roadkill]

Who has been making either of these points? Just curious, perhaps you are referring to another thread or something?

The latter mainly, although any admission from either you or roryer that cars are anything other than creations of the devil has been pretty grudging...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

You thought you had a "right" to kill anyone who (presumably legally) tried to fit your car with a guvnor = basically that's an utterly bonkers response. It suggests to me you shouldn't have a licence to drive. It also suggests to me you'd be happier if you packed it in.

it suggest to me you are a bit po faced who isn't capable of the level of descernment to see a tounge in cheek response.

i mean have you never said to anyone jokingly do that and i'll kill you... it doesn't mean your going to murder people who disagree with you does it...

the pedantry on this site due to the obvious xmas wind down and people not having any real work to do borne out of bordom at work is really fucking tiedious...

 

[co-op]

it suggest to me you are a bit po faced who isn't capable of the level of descernment to see a tounge in cheek response.

i mean have you never said to anyone jokingly do that and i'll kill you... it doesn't mean your going to murder people who disagree with you does it...

the pedantry on this site due to the obvious xmas wind down and people not having any real work to do borne out of bordom at work is really fucking tiedious...

And I mean what I said. [bold added by co-op] That is something that I just would not put up with.

Giles..

Petrolheads 0 : 2 Rest of the World

Garfield Le Chat O.G (2)

 

[co-op]

The latter mainly, although any admission from either you or roryer that cars are anything other than creations of the devil has been pretty grudging...

But they can't be the work of the devil surely?

http://www.whatwouldjesusdrive.org/

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Petrolheads 0 : 2 Rest of the World

Garfield Le Chat O.G (2)

eh?

perhaps you need to clam down dearie... eh...

 

[Giles]

When I talk about carheads, I'm talking about people who are so emotionally attached to their cars that they are incapable of rational discussion regarding them, lurch straight to extreme and angry responses to questioning about their relationship with cars and generally go weird when the subject comes up. Most people who use cars are attacked by some of these symptoms at least occasionally, but some seem to be almost permanently presenting them.



You thought you had a "right" to kill anyone who (presumably legally) tried to fit your car with a guvnor = basically that's an utterly bonkers response. It suggests to me you shouldn't have a licence to drive. It also suggests to me you'd be happier if you packed it in.

What I said about that stands: If someone tries to damage my property without my express permission, I would have to physically prevent them from doing so. If they carried on, they might die. I have the right to do this under my own code.

 

[co-op]

What I said about that stands: If someone tries to damage my property without my express permission, I would have to physically prevent them from doing so. If they carried on, they might die. I have the right to do this under my own code.

No, no you've got that all wrong, check GarfieldLeChat's post above - when you said you'd kill someone it was all tongue-in-cheek and I'm a humourless po-faced wierdo for not getting the gag.

Honestly! It's almost like the two of you are just talking out yer arses!

 

[snadge]

I run around in a pretty frugal diesel audi, I made a decision years ago to reduce my carbon footprint and it's making absolutely no difference to the bigger picture.

For every person that decides to reduce their CF, there are three that increase theirs and I'm not talking about getting more fuel efficient cars, look at big business who think it's a hoot to leave all the lights on in their offices all the time.

The OP's suggestion would have the opposite effect, to fit speed limiters would increase CO2 levels, the roads are pretty chocka as it is, every vehicle limited to 50 mph would create chaos.

I have made a conscious decision over the last week or so, I'm selling my diesel and buying an Audi RS4, 4.2L V8 gas guzzling rocket ship, I can afford the increase in my fuel bill and I fully intend to enjoy it until fuel reaches the £2 a litre mark, then go back to my frugal ways.

 

[Sunray]

Err, how much would a limiter cost to make and how much CO2 would be spent making them, transporting them to all the garages and fitting them to 30+ Million cars?

The unfortunate problem with this is that there are 30 Million car drivers out there which makes them the most powerful single issue political body in the country.

 

[Cobbles]

The unfortunate problem with this is that there are 30 Million car drivers out there which makes them the most powerful single issue political body in the country.

Amen to that.

Add to that the unpopularity in the Treasury of anything that might act to decrease fuel consumption and therefore reduce the amount of duty available for the Government to waste.

I'm surprised that they haven't brought in a 150MPH speed limit for motorways with a minimum of 75 to generate increased revenues. That nice Mrs Merkel recently pointed out that traffic jams produce at least as much CO2 as vehicles travelling at high speeds when resisting urges to introduce a blanket 130KPH limit (nothing to do with safety as Autobahns are safer than US 55MPH restricted freeways).

 

[roryer]

It is interesting that 20 to 30 kph is the speed that we are biologically made for as our maximum. It is the speed that sprinters reach and of course over thousands of years our hand eye co-ordination has adapted to that speed so we see so much more at or below that speed. Birds can see at much faster speeds and have adapted their skills and observation accordingly.

We can’t do much at high speed other than stay straight, so we have awful accidents all the time due to 'human error' and somehow get surprised by it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes it does.

Well, they're shown that cars idling on a clogged expressway produce more pollutants than if those cars were heading to their destinations at 60 mph.

 

[roryer]

Well, they're shown that cars idling on a clogged expressway produce more pollutants than if those cars were heading to their destinations at 60 mph.

Yes agreed, but just to clarify my position is that slower enforcable speed limits will reduce CO2 emissions.

Travelling in urban areas at 60mph is not realistic however, even in a very low density cities such as Phoenix Arizona or LA, with a huge network of urban expressways, congestion remains a serious problem.

Long distance travel on intercity motorways at a constant 55mph is however realistic and the most energy effcient, and therefore should be enforced.

It is also been shown that people have a maximum travel time allowance. This has gone up slightly over the last couple of decades but in the majority of cases improvements in speeds merely increase the distance people travel.

We must not aim to increase mobility, but instead aim to increase accessibility to goods and services, by reducing urban speeds we will be encouraging cycling and walking, this in turn will encourage local shopping which will help reverse the trend of out of town developments.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

We must not aim to increase mobility, but instead aim to increase accessibility to goods and services, by reducing urban speeds we will be encouraging cycling and walking, this in turn will encourage local shopping which will help reverse the trend of out of town developments.

Perhaps in your country. Ours is too big. Both the US and Canada attempted 55 mph speed limits during the energy crisis of the seventies. It didn't work.

 

[Dr. Furface]

Perhaps in your country. Ours is too big. Both the US and Canada attempted 55 mph speed limits during the energy crisis of the seventies. It didn't work.

So what is the speed limit in the US? - I thought it was 55

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So what is the speed limit in the US? - I thought it was 55

Depends. In some states, it's 'Drive At A Reasonable Rate of Speed'.

I believe Oregon is still 55.

United States
For more details on this topic, see Speed limits in the United States.
American speed limit signs usually read "SPEED LIMIT XX", such as "SPEED LIMIT 50" for 50 mph (80 km/h). A minimum speed sign reads "MINIMUM SPEED XX", such as "MINIMUM SPEED 45" for 45 mph (70 km/h). Speed limits on United States roads are usually:

25–30 mph (40–48 km/h) on residential streets
35–45 mph (56–72 km/h) on urban arterial roads
50–65 mph (80–105 km/h) on major highways inside cities
45–70 mph (72–105 km/h) on rural two-lane roads
55–70 mph (88–112 km/h) on rural expressways
65–80 mph (105–129 km/h) on rural Interstate highways
Speed policy is determined by each state; many state laws include reasonable and prudent clauses that give law enforcement officials authority to ticket motorists for speeding even though they were traveling below the speed limit when certain conditions are present.


[edit] Canada
Since 1977, Canadian speed limits have been in km/h - they were previously in mph. A sign reads "MAXIMUM XX", such as "MAXIMUM 80" for 80 km/h. A minimum speed sign reads "XX MINIMUM", such as "60 MINIMUM" for 60 km/h. Typical speed limits are:

30–50 km/h (20–30 mph) within school and playground zones
40–50 km/h (25–30 mph) on residential streets within cities and towns
60–70 km/h (35–45 mph) on major arterial roads in urban and suburban areas
70–90 km/h (50–55 mph) on highways outside cities and towns and urban expressways
90–110 km/h (55–70 mph) on freeways and rural expressways

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#United_States