Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Nov 09, 2026 11:41

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:31 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
David Millward wrote:
By David Millward, Transport Editor Published: 6:44AM GMT 25 Jan 2010

Average speed cameras could be installed on all the country's motorways to cut carbon emissions under proposals drawn up by the Government's environmental advisers.
According to the Commission, Department for Transport figures have shown that the 70mph speed limit is being ignored by 52 per cent of motorists.
In a report published today, the Sustainable Development Commission has called on ministers to bring in the cameras to ensure that motorists stick to the 70 mph limit.
This alone would achieve a reduction of of 1.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, the Commission says.
According to the Commission, Department for Transport figures have shown that the 70mph speed limit is being ignored by 52 per cent of motorists.
Average speed cameras, measure a car's speed over a prolonged distance, rather than at a fixed point.
They are seen as being more effective than conventional cameras because they prevent motorists jamming on the brakes as soon as they see a device and then accelerating as soon as they have passed.
Their introduction both on motorways and in urban areas, the Commission says, would encourage smoother more environmentally-friendly driving.
Ministers say that where average speed cameras have been introduced in place of fixed cameras, both accidents and the number of speeding fines have fallen.
Normally used at road works, there are now also 10 permanent sets of average speed cameras on Britain's motorways.
Government approval is imminent for a new generation of average speed cameras which can measure how fast a car is going on a network of streets.
These will be installed in urban residential areas where a 20 mph limit is in force.

The Commission's call for more average speed cameras comes within days of Boris Johnson, London's Tory mayor, announcing that he plans to introduce them on a 7.5 mile stretch of the A13 in east London - even though the party's official policy is to choke off funding for the devices.
The idea of installing "time over distance" cameras on all motorways was condemned by Claire Armstrong, who runs the campaign group, Safespeed.

"For any organisation to call for any car behaviours to be altered in favour of unproven carbon emissions shows what a total shambles Road Safety has reached in this Country. The arguments are unproven," she said. "Are we to now be expected to offset road safety, against someone's misunderstood concept of Global Weather Patterns ? If so this would be a travesty."
Other recommendations in the Commission's report include a call for all cars to be fitted with speed limiters to cut carbon emissions.
The Commission has called on ministers to set a timetable for the introduction of the technology which could make it impossible for cars to break the speed limit.
Additionally, it believes that "Intelligent Speed Adaptation" should be fitted on Government cars, including the ministerial motor pool.
This would avoid a repetition of an incident in 2000 when the official car carrying Jack Straw, then Home Secretary, was caught travelling at 103 mph.

The Commission, which accepts that putting the devices in all cars could take several decades, could result in savings of 25 million tonnes of carbon as well as improving safety.
Its proposals are contained in a report called "Smarter Moves: How Information Communications Technology can promote Sustainable Mobility".
Other recommendations from the Commission include promoting the teaching of "eco-driving" techniques - in which motorists learn how to use their car in a fuel-efficient manner.
It has also called on the Department for Transport to encourage the growth of car clubs, where motorists share a vehicle rather than owning one outright.
The Commission also believes car use could be reduced by better public transport which would make motoring less attractive, especially with the introduction of pay as you drive road charging and tighter parking controls.

Other proposals are aimed at using technology to reduce the need to travel altogether, such as the promotion of video conferencing and making it easier for people to work from home rather than commute.
“While information technology alone won’t provide all the answers, it could go a long way towards making travel in the UK safer, more pleasant and more sustainable," said Stewart Davies, Business Commissioner at the Sustainable Development Commission.
“Already, eco-driving technology can help motorists spend less at the pumps and reduce their emissions; better information can make using public transport easier, and videoconferencing technology can help business travellers avoid some journeys altogether.
"It can help provide a better work-life balance, ensure we have more time with our families and as well as more productive working time. Increased, reliable internet connections on public transport could transform journeys into time well spent in a moving office, or for leisure travel – a cinema."

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 12:59 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Forget emissions. I'm for more concerned about the inevitable rise of fatigue accidents (less stimulation, for longer duration journeys).

Fatigue already accounts for about 25% of all fatal motorway accidents (“Road Safety Research Report No. 52, Sleep-Related Crashes on Sections of Different Road Types in the UK (1995–2001)” ), so forcing drivers to go even slower (which is an inherent outcome of this proposal) will make this factor worse, especially during the small hours where speeds are freeflow and the potential for fatigue is greatest.

What’s the CO2 footprint of a fatality and subsequent queues of stationary cars? :roll:

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 13:07 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
And if this was brought in, people would just turn the cruise on and switch their brain off. They would be much less engaged in the driving process and I would expect to see a significant increase in rear-end collisions.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 13:55 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
Agreed.
The CO2 argument is unproven and to impose such methods onto road users is nothing to do with Road Safety. Why are we being the guinea-pigs for governments trial & Error policies. They haven't proved the Speed Kills arguments so what, now they are trying the Carbon one - what next ? Lack of Oil ?
It is a shambles. They are not fit for purpose.
Considering we are carbon based, are we [not] now to believe carbon is bad ?
edited

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 14:24 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Well, if i'm to take a CRUMB of consolation from all this, at least there's a touch of honesty creeping in! At long last we're being spared the bullsh1t about safety and they're admitting it's to do with CO2! As PR opportunities go, that's pretty good:

"Government admits it's all about CO2 after all"!

Anyway, here's what we do.

If it's all about CO2, then let's make it fair. Clearly the Range Rover Sport or the Bentley Arnage trucking down the motorway at 70 are going to be puking out rather more than the Mondeo diesel doing 80 or the Golf Bluemotion doing (er, well, whatever it is they can do)!

soooo....

We couple the average speed cameras to ANPR and we let everyone go as fast as they like WITHOUT exceeding an arbitrary CO2 emissions figure. We require all car manufactueres to produce CO2 emissions figures for their cars at a constant 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100MPH. Lo and behold, we then cut CO2 emissions, reduce dependency on oil, reduce congestion (small cars / more bikes), AND automatically incentivise fuel-efficient and alternative fuel cars like never before!

Rich people will still be able to get away with emitting more pollution by just paying more. They can keep their luxury if they want (just drive slower) or they can go a bit more "spartan" if they want to go faster, or they can splash out on alternative technologies that the rest of us can't afford, OR they can just drive at whatever speed they want and pay the fines (after all, there won't be any "points" here because it's no longer about "safety")! :wink: Poor people or people who really need 4x4s or MPVs for large families won't be disproportionately hit with high fuel prices, the government still gets to milk the motorist (but proportionally the better-heeled ones)...

Utopia or what???! :lol:

Hell, at times I think I should be transport Secretary! :roll:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 14:42 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
... or we could just put a tax on fuel. The thirstier your car the more you pay.

... or we could have graduated VED. The higher your emissions the larger the tax.

Oh, wait a minute...

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 18:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
It may be even simpler.
You program the ecu to only allow emissions to a set level. Anything above that is not allowed.
Which would probably mean that large-engined vehicles would be able to do about 50mph, and smart cars about 100mph.
We then alter the lanes on m/ways to high-emission vehicles on the inside, medium in the middle, and low on the outer lane.
Or worse, or more ridiculous !

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 19:00 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I could see the market for aftermarket "chips" booming like never before!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 19:04 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
malcolmw wrote:
... or we could just put a tax on fuel. The thirstier your car the more you pay.

... or we could have graduated VED. The higher your emissions the larger the tax.

Oh, wait a minute...


Indeed, but the graduated VED would have to be something astronomical to make a real difference to the overall cost of running a big car (because they're already so greedy with the fuel tax). Besides, having a big car that I only use for a small number of miles on sunny days each year would be acutely painful but not particularly beneficial to the planet if I stopped using it. Whacking it on fuel puts inflation up because all the haulage companies add it to the cost of the goods we buy.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 19:15 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Mole,

Under your system, how fast would 32 tonne artics be able to go?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 20:25 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2004 03:58
Posts: 267
Location: west yorks
What annoys me more is that we just grumble about these things and No-one is prepared to say enough is enough, and actually do something about this car hating government !

_________________
nigel_bytes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 22:25 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 20:54
Posts: 225
Location: West Midlands
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
David Millward wrote:
According to the Commission, Department for Transport figures have shown that the 70mph speed limit is being ignored by 52 per cent of motorists.


...and remind me about the 85th percentile?

Once this stupid "carbons" panic/money-go-round is finally dead and buried, can we expect motorway speed limits to be increased to an appropriate level?

mb


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 01:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
No, because the next panic is already being arranged.
Forget CO2 that's so old-hat.
Now we have Nitrogen oxides, ozone, black soot and methane.
CO2 doesn't impress anymore.

Do me a calculation relating to fuel and commercial companies.
Take the pump price.
Claim-back the VAT.
The remaining cost is operating expenses.
Remove the operating expenses from profit.
What you have remaining is what they pay.
Public transport pays 69p/ltr for diesel.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:02 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
malcolmw wrote:
Mole,

Under your system, how fast would 32 tonne artics be able to go?


I think the technology is advanced enough now to let a 40 tonner do 100kph (62MPH) on a typical motorway these days in reasonable safety. My guess is that these things are so huge and fuel costs are so high, that operators might well not decide to run much faster than they currently do on economic grounds. on the otehr hand, for those that wanted to invest in low carbon technologies, they could at least have the choice of shorter journey times and either high fuel / CO2 costs or cutting edge technology or they could go for older technology and just run the trucks slower. I think it could improve traffic flow if HGVs didn't all run at the same speed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 23:23 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Agreed.
The CO2 argument is unproven and to impose such methods onto road users is nothing to do with Road Safety. Why are we being the guinea-pigs for governments trial & Error policies. They haven't proved the Speed Kills arguments so what, now they are trying the Carbon one - what next ? Lack of Oil ?
It is a shambles. They are not fit for purpose.
Considering we are carbon based, are we [not] now to believe carbon is bad ?


Alright ,it could be considered conspiracy theory /way off the beam -but just supposing that UKRoads LTD didn't fancy being screwed by Galileo INC - what's the next best way of implementing a way of tracking all UK vehicles without the need for satelite tracking -YEP -ANPR technology .
I join the M6 at J3 -drive x miles south and get off at Jz - that's X miles at the rate /mile for that time of day -sent to the RKs address .No pay -no problem -ANPR marker on car =impounded .


Fantasy - so was ANPR/Speed cams in the 80's .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 00:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
And the larger majority of video surveillance devices can be used for anpr purposes.
So maybe now you can see why the interest in specs....which already is an anpr system....

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 00:26 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
jomukuk wrote:
And the larger majority of video surveillance devices can be used for anpr purposes.
So maybe now you can see why the interest in specs....which already is an anpr system....

Do I take it that someone else thinks likewise ?

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 20:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
Another take on this story : Here
Quote:
British commission pushes standard speed camera utilization on roads
Posted on: Thursday January 28th, 2010 by Emma Young

The UK Sustainable Development Commission recently made public a report proposing the utilization of standard speed cameras for continuous trailing of motorist trips across the country. The advisory commission said that extensive use of standard speed cameras was necessary to lessen the emission of carbon dioxide produced by vehicles; a factor some says contributes to global warming.

The commission also recommended that the UK government to take urgent action to persuade the public in using mass transit and dispirit car owners on using their vehicles in general. Speed cameras were chosen as an easy alternative to attain this goal.

The enforcement of speed limit has also contributed in a cost-effective way in dropping carbon dioxide emissions with approximate reduction of 1.4 million tons on 70 MPH speed limit. Last 2009, the Home Office granted standard speed cameras to implement speed limits in inner-city areas. The cameras were networked simultaneously which can be mounted on entry and exit points in an area with fixed speed limits set on it.

The report also suggested for a fix timetable for the inauguration of Intelligent Speed Adaptation technology which utilizes global positioning satellites to set control over the driver on the vehicle’s speed, making it impossible for the vehicle to exceed the given speed limit. An infrastructure called information communications technology (ICT) could also be utilized for congestion pricing, tolling of every trip, and charging insurance fee depending on miles acquired. The commission emphasizes that this systems will need significant financial investment for it to be attainable.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 21:08 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Quote:
The enforcement of speed limit has also contributed in a cost-effective way in dropping carbon dioxide emissions with approximate reduction of 1.4 million tons on 70 MPH speed limit.

Some perspective:

UK net CO2 emission (for 2006) was 555 millon tonnes [Defra]
1.4/555 = 0.25%
I won't be losing sleep. Actually I'm sure many more will be gaining it - when behind the wheel...

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 22:45 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Mole wrote:
I could see the market for aftermarket "chips" booming like never before!

Was tempted to say something about temperature change( and chips not liking it) ,but won't -can't do the Brum accent :D (could be included with climatechange ).

Another interesting point -someone mentioned varying co2 levels .Now if I got something like the VW bluemotion in diesel or a Seat 1.4tdi - both are zero rated .What's to stop me having an uprated chip -eg the Seat would go from about 70bhp to 100 with ( i should imagine) little effort -and either having it switched or replace with origonal come MOT time ?Still classed as zero tax on the V5-and that's allthat matters -DVLA don't need to know of mods-only yer insurance .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.019s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]