|
Reducing the speed limit to 60 mph will have almost zero effect on emissions or pollution - HGVs, buses and towing vehicles won't change their speed so no change in output - despite these being a major contributor - so it only affects cars, vans and motorbikes but only off-peak as they can't manage 60 mph during peak congestion - so this measure will just have a marginal effect at times when pollution is low, relatively.
Why is incompetence and lack of joined up thinking a prerequisite for government, of all shades ?
|
|
Its only a relatively short stretch of the M1 near Sheffield at the moment. But it does catch you out, with relatively light signing. Maybe its more a cash generation exercise.
As RT says, its unlikely to make a significant impact on pollution levels.
|
Its only a relatively short stretch of the M1 near Sheffield at the moment. But it does catch you out, with relatively light signing. Maybe its more a cash generation exercise.
As RT says, its unlikely to make a significant impact on pollution levels.
The large matrix boards plus repeaters above each lane for about 10 miles aren’t enough?
|
|
If it's for pollution reasons, then EV's can still do 70 then? (I'm not being serious BTW)
|
If it's for pollution reasons, then EV's can still do 70 then? (I'm not being serious BTW)
In a sense.
It's about localised pollution from NOX and particulates rather than the global effect of CO2
|
If it's for pollution reasons, then EV's can still do 70 then? (I'm not being serious BTW)
In a sense.
It's about localised pollution from NOX and particulates rather than the global effect of CO2
"In their practices and clinics, pulmonary physicians see [deaths caused by cigarette smoke] on a daily basis; however, deaths caused by particulate matter and NOx, even after careful investigation, never," write the pulmonary physicians in their counterposition.
So it is "very likely" that the scientific data leading to these estimates "contains a systematic error." Apparently, they have been "interpreted extremely one-sidedly" and "always with the objective that particulate matter and NOx must be harmful," they write.
www.dw.com/en/nitrogen-oxide-is-it-really-that-dan...6
|
If it's for pollution reasons, then EV's can still do 70 then? (I'm not being serious BTW)
In a sense.
It's about localised pollution from NOX and particulates rather than the global effect of CO2
"In their practices and clinics, pulmonary physicians see [deaths caused by cigarette smoke] on a daily basis; however, deaths caused by particulate matter and NOx, even after careful investigation, never," write the pulmonary physicians in their counterposition.
So it is "very likely" that the scientific data leading to these estimates "contains a systematic error." Apparently, they have been "interpreted extremely one-sidedly" and "always with the objective that particulate matter and NOx must be harmful," they write.
www.dw.com/en/nitrogen-oxide-is-it-really-that-dan...6
Lots of words in that article, but really there doesn’t seem to be anything of substance.
They (correctly, I suppose) mention the difficulty of epidemiological studies into the effects of airborne pollutants, and say that limits must necessarily be based largely on the toxicology of the pollutants. Then they sort of resolutely forget to discuss that toxicology.
Do they perhaps think particulates are good for you?
This bit seems particularly specious
"In their practices and clinics, pulmonary physicians see [deaths caused by cigarette smoke] on a daily basis; however, deaths caused by particulate matter and NOx, even after careful investigation, never,"
Oh yeh? How exactly would they “see” deaths caused by particulate matter?
If someone smokes 40 a day its likely to be known. Its NOT likely to be known what their other particulate exposure was.
Edited by edlithgow on 21/07/2021 at 08:24
|
If it's for pollution reasons, then EV's can still do 70 then? (I'm not being serious BTW)
In a sense.
It's about localised pollution from NOX and particulates rather than the global effect of CO2
"In their practices and clinics, pulmonary physicians see [deaths caused by cigarette smoke] on a daily basis; however, deaths caused by particulate matter and NOx, even after careful investigation, never," write the pulmonary physicians in their counterposition.
So it is "very likely" that the scientific data leading to these estimates "contains a systematic error." Apparently, they have been "interpreted extremely one-sidedly" and "always with the objective that particulate matter and NOx must be harmful," they write.
www.dw.com/en/nitrogen-oxide-is-it-really-that-dan...6
Lots of words in that article, but really there doesn’t seem to be anything of substance.
They (correctly, I suppose) mention the difficulty of epidemiological studies into the effects of airborne pollutants, and say that limits must necessarily be based largely on the toxicology of the pollutants. Then they sort of resolutely forget to discuss that toxicology.
Do they perhaps think particulates are good for you?
This bit seems particularly specious
"In their practices and clinics, pulmonary physicians see [deaths caused by cigarette smoke] on a daily basis; however, deaths caused by particulate matter and NOx, even after careful investigation, never,"
Oh yeh? How exactly would they “see” deaths caused by particulate matter?
If someone smokes 40 a day its likely to be known. Its NOT likely to be known what their other particulate exposure was.
The medical profession is over-zealous in it's analysis of health condition causes, specifically into a single cause - I gave up smoking nearly 40 years ago but when I was recently diagnosed with COPD that was immediately put down as the cause despite several other possible causes, eg use of chemotherapy drugs for which lung function reduction is a known side-effect, exposure to industrial chemicals and exposure to roadside pollution as I was driving 50,000 miles/year in my early career - so I'm now a statistic to support the theory that smoking causes COPD despite the complete lack of investigation or analysis.
So I'm very sceptical about these sort of statistics - if it's not a proper clinical trial, it's not admissable in my book.
|
- so I'm now a statistic to support the theory that smoking causes COPD despite the complete lack of investigation or analysis.
COPD undoubtedly existed long before smoking was invented if people, especially those with asthma, survived respiratory infections and lived long enough, but the theory is long since proven that smoking is a major contributor to the causation of COPD. The larger the number of 'pack-years' (one pack-year =20 a day for 1 year = 10 a day for 2 years), the greater the contribution.
|
|
"In their practices and clinics, pulmonary physicians see [deaths caused by cigarette smoke] on a daily basis; however, deaths caused by particulate matter and NOx, even after careful investigation, never," write the pulmonary physicians in their counterposition.
Neither are said to be noxious or carcinogenic poisons on the scale of cigarette smoke. Particulates though can bury themselves on the lungs.
The primary issue though is their risk to children and people with pre-existing respiratory conditions such as asthma:
www.judiciary.uk/publications/ella-kissi-debrah/
My son, who has relatively mild asthma, suffers a lot with wheeziness etc if he's in London.
|
"In their practices and clinics, pulmonary physicians see [deaths caused by cigarette smoke] on a daily basis; however, deaths caused by particulate matter and NOx, even after careful investigation, never," write the pulmonary physicians in their counterposition.
Neither are said to be noxious or carcinogenic poisons on the scale of cigarette smoke. Particulates though can bury themselves on the lungs.
The primary issue though is their risk to children and people with pre-existing respiratory conditions such as asthma:
www.judiciary.uk/publications/ella-kissi-debrah/
My son, who has relatively mild asthma, suffers a lot with wheeziness etc if he's in London.
I agree - the main reason likely being that cigartette smoke is more potent and obvious, whereas NOx and particulates from vehicles are essentially invisible and breathed in over a much longer period.
As a fellow asthma sufferer (though mild, like your son), I can certainly vouch for it being worse when I've been working in London compared to further out in the sticks (I think that the lower temperatures helped), especially as most of my London workplaces were dotted around one of the worst areas for road level pollution - Kings X / Farringdon / Euston Road.
Even on the train home at KX it was bad (worse after having to run to catch a train if I was running late) after having to dash along Euston Rd, Farringdon St, etc. It didn't help once on the train if there was an HST 'warming up' next door to my train...that horrible taste in the mouth/throat from the diesel fumes too.
Very noticable that when I'm on holiday in the West Country (admitedly I got out of the busy holiday season, avoiding the traffic and presumably more pollution), my asthma practically disappears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its only a relatively short stretch of the M1 near Sheffield at the moment. But it does catch you out, with relatively light signing. Maybe its more a cash generation exercise.
As RT says, its unlikely to make a significant impact on pollution levels.
If you miss the bright LED lighting gantries then I think it's time you took a visit to Specasvers!
|
|
|
|
Why is incompetence and lack of joined up thinking a prerequisite for government, of all shades ?
Because, in comparison to senior responsible careers in other fields, the lack of esteem and poor pay endured by UK representative legislators means that very few (apart from one or two honourable exceptions) of the brightest and best youngsters consider it as a long term career. This seems to apply locally as well as nationally.
|
|
|
|
Highways are looking at trialling 60mph zones on urban areas of the motorway system with a view to reducing pollution and improving the health of people affected by gases being emitted by cars and HGVs Here in Wales there are already 2 areas of the M4 subjected too average speed cameras set at 50mph. How much this reduces pollution is any ones guess but from my observation it causes more bunching and braking of traffic especially as they hit the zones. These zones once started will be with us forever. They are particularly frustrating at night when the motorway is quiet.
That's weird because 50 limits normally suffer less bunching.
I think he means that redcuing the limit in one area means that bunching/traffic jams occure behind it as the traffic slows down earlier and and eailer - it really depends on the level of traffic generally. You're right, but only when it's applied equally during heavy traffic, which likely does help reduce pollution due to vehicles running at higher efficiency.
Without having blanket reductions practically everywhere (which would not do business any good due to vastly increased travel times and the cost of road hauliage [extra man hours more than offsetting the reduction in fuel]), this sort of policy doesn't work because it is reactive and not proactive.
I still believe that far better driving training on motorways/dual carriageways (which rarely happens when novices learn or just after passing) so people drive more sensibly on such roads, including leaving more space in front, merging in turn, not switching lanes all the time in congested traffic, being considerate to other road users, including those trying to join/leave the motorway, and people planning their journeys so they always leave in good time.
Too many people always run late (poor time management, including of their bosses setting unrealistic targets for work progress) and then hurry, which often causes them to make many of the errors I describe, including driving too fast for the conditions.
|
|
On a busy motorway, the 60 mph limit will mean that more of the traffic is travelling at or around 60 mph, which means it should flow better, with less of the Mexican wave effect, whereby a car braking suddenly from 70 to 50 mph has a ripple effect that leads to a stationary tailback 5 minutes later, by which time the original braking car is a few miles down the road.
|
|
There are few if any cars which do a better mpg at 70mph than 60mph - aerodynamics mean that more energy (= fuel = pollutants) is required to push a vehicle at the higher speed.
Conclusion - cars travelling slower emit less pollution.
Consequential impacts on traffic flow, sudden braking etc etc are a different matter.
|
|
|
|
|
