interesting comment on the news just now

[scooby_simon]

Commenting on carbon emmissions....

"And one more thing to reduce emmissions, get these poeple (cut to shot of the motorway) to keep to the speed limit."

[garcon magnifique]

It makes a difference.

When I can I tend to cruise around 70mph on the motorway these days, and the biggest reason for that is to improve my average mpg ... which in turn means lower emissions.

[Mook]

It's got feck all to do with the speed you're driving - it's more to do with the way you drive. Smooth it out and you'll get better mpg at 85 than Jo Bloggs will at 70 driving like most people do.

[scooby_simon]

I do not dis-agree that driving speeds effect carbon emmissions, and in particular the stop-go element.

My interest was more that someone is positioning speeding as an environmentally bad thing.

Might it be cynical to wonder if the govt has lost the "speed kills" arguement on speeding and is now looking for another angle?

[Rustynuts]

It's got feck all to do with the speed you're driving - it's more to do with the way you drive. Smooth it out and you'll get better mpg at 85 than Jo Bloggs will at 70 driving like most people do.

Unless you're going to retrain everyone (not an option) then individually, driving styles are going to be the same at 85mph as 70mph. Except that driving at 70mph will be more economical than at 85mph.

So try it yourself. No change in driving style, but stop accelerating when you hit 70mph instead of accelerating up to 85mph, and you will see an improvement in fuel economy.

Comparing a smooth driver at 85mph to a hooligan driver at 70mph isn't reasonable for the purpose of generating valid statistics, because if you compare a smooth driver at 70mph against a hooligan at 85mph then the difference will be even greater, albeit in the opposite direction.

[mark88]

Was this on the same news program that said in order to meet these new targets all our bills will rise?

There's a surprise.

Bored to tears with all this emissions bollocks. It's fecking freezing outside, everyone should drive more to create some warming I reckon. :-/

This issue is never ever going to go away is it.

[CarMad]

This issue is never ever going to go away is it.

I doubt it no, but then if it is going to be a big problem and virtually everyone says its going to now, but to what extend is the question.

I guess we could wait until London floods and then think about changing hey.

As above the difference of cruising at 70 to 85 can mean 6mpg higher fuel consumption. The general rule of thumb is you use 4mpg more for each 10mph over 60mph that you go because of the drag.

Not that I think about it that much.

[Mook]

So try it yourself. No change in driving style, but stop accelerating when you hit 70mph instead of accelerating up to 85mph, and you will see an improvement in fuel economy.

Comparing a smooth driver at 85mph to a hooligan driver at 70mph isn't reasonable for the purpose of generating valid statistics, because if you compare a smooth driver at 70mph against a hooligan at 85mph then the difference will be even greater, albeit in the opposite direction.

Completely agree with everything you're saying. My point is that I would rather drive at 85mph than 70 and I'm happy that I can afford the difference in mpg so it doesn't worry me.

That might sound irresponsible to some, but people seem to get the whole issue of cars' contributions to global warming out of proportion.

Say you get 35mpg at 70 and 33mpg at 85. So that's an increase in mpg of 2/35 or 5.7% if you drive at the faster speed.

Passenger cars contribute a total of 3% to global warming as a whole. So, if everyone stopped speeding on motorways, there would be a saving of 5.7% of 3%, so that would be a reduction to 2.8% of the global contribution of passenger cars.

OK, so not too bad so far, but unless the massive issues of congestion are sorted out, I would argue that congestion, caused in the UK by the appalling road infrastructure contributes MORE to global warming than people driving faster than the speed limit.

Perhaps whichever politician or campaigner who made the comment should think about sorting out the road infrastructure which we contribute such a stupid amount of money towards through taxes before they start telling people to stop speeding.

[Rustynuts]

Completely agree with everything you're saying. My point is that I would rather drive at 85mph than 70 and I'm happy that I can afford the difference in mpg so it doesn't worry me.

That might sound irresponsible to some, but people seem to get the whole issue of cars' contributions to global warming out of proportion.

Say you get 35mpg at 70 and 33mpg at 85. So that's an increase in mpg of 2/35 or 5.7% if you drive at the faster speed.

Passenger cars contribute a total of 3% to global warming as a whole. So, if everyone stopped speeding on motorways, there would be a saving of 5.7% of 3%, so that would be a reduction to 2.8% of the global contribution of passenger cars.

OK, so not too bad so far, but unless the massive issues of congestion are sorted out, I would argue that congestion, caused in the UK by the appalling road infrastructure contributes MORE to global warming than people driving faster than the speed limit.

Perhaps whichever politician or campaigner who made the comment should think about sorting out the road infrastructure which we contribute such a stupid amount of money towards through taxes before they start telling people to stop speeding.

I think you'll find that the difference is way more than 2mpg.

[Mook]

Probably, but you get the idea

[alera]

Lets be honest if you like big fast cars you are a bit shafted moving forward. I will tell my kids about the cars I used to drive round in and they will look at me like I am mad.

I am just glad I have had my fun, its looking pretty depressing moving forward.

Hybrids and electric 5 - 10 years down the line. I dont like it but its going to happen.

[Tipex]

But....

If your driving at 85mph for a total journey of 85 miles, when you reach your destination and turn your engine off, the bloke doing 70mph is still pumping out pollutions until he arrives at the same destination some time later.

So that would reduce the difference in total pollution for that journey even further!

I think.

[sidicks]

I did a (sort of) scientific experiment on the way back to Tunbridge Wells from visiting my sister in Cardiff a while ago. It was late at night, so minimal traffic, and my car appeared to be significantly more fuel efficient when I set the cruise control to 85mph rather than 75mph (measured over a reasonable distance, on similar roads).

I wonder if engines have a certain ‘sweet spot’ where they run more efficiently??

Any other explanation?

Sidicks

[Soapsuds]

If everyone travelled at 70mph though, there would be massive congestion, causing further pollution..... just think back to the last time you hit a queue of snail traffic when everyone is driving past a Traffic Police vehicle on the M'Way at 70 mph on the nail (or sometimes even a Traffic Womble for those who never know the difference).

[Mook]

But....

If your driving at 85mph for a total journey of 85 miles, when you reach your destination and turn your engine off, the bloke doing 70mph is still pumping out pollutions until he arrives at the same destination some time later.

So that would reduce the difference in total pollution for that journey even further!

I think.

Absolutely. See page 724, paragraph 17 in "The taxi driver's guide to every definitive fact that never was"

[Mook]

Lets be honest if you like big fast cars you are a bit shafted moving forward.

Yes, big engines will die out, but, based on the way stuff is (slowly) progressing at the minute, with Porsche, for example bringing out the massively more efficient and less polluting Carrera or the turbo/supercharged VW 1.4 engined cars that put out the same power and torque as the old 1.8 engines, you can still go fast if not faster.

[badgera]

It is just me or do the eco's never bring up a sensible answer that take into account everyones needs, rather than just taxing/charging the solution. Take for example the Ocado model - You order food online, it is then despatched (where covered) direct from a computer controlled warehouse. Thus the food only gets delivered to the warehouse and then directly to you. Less journeys, less lorries and less waste. Actually easier and greener. That's the type of solution we need.

[Mook]

Right - let's get badgera delivered to work each day on an Ocado truck

[badgera]

Or how about the government helping small/medium sized firms get more flexible and let people work from home where they can.

I get the point, sometimes you have to drive to work and there's no alternative to it. Public transport doesn't help, it just moves the problem. Just think of the difference it would make if a large proportion of those commuters only had to go into work 3 days a week.

It's the difference between artificially making domestic fuel really expensive, vs making it easy and cheap to insulate (or designing better homes if we ever start building any) so less energy is used.

Forcing people to stop doing things should be the last resort not the first, there's plenty of clever solutions to be applied first, if only the government could be bothered.

[Mook]

Or how about the government helping small/medium sized firms get more flexible and let people work from home where they can.

Problem is that it only works in certain circumstances. What help would small businesses need? Internet connectivity and a phone? Most people have this, so they could just reclaim any costs incurred for business use.

Sometimes it's just not practical to have people working from home.

[badgera]

Problem is that it only works in certain circumstances. What help would small businesses need? Internet connectivity and a phone? Most people have this, so they could just reclaim any costs incurred for business use.

Sometimes it's just not practical to have people working from home.

Sometimes it isn't but a surprising amount of time it is. It's not the answer to everything I just don't like the lack of creative solutions.

[Mook]

Why should a govt (forget about the party) need to subsidise people working from home?

[Tipex]

Absolutely. See page 724, paragraph 17 in "The taxi driver's guide to every definitive fact that never was"

Ahh, I'm only up to page 508, you know, the section on nuclear fusion, I really should devote more time to reading the book, Ive been in the job 9 years now!

Or how about the government helping small/medium sized firms get more flexible and let people work from home where they can.

I'd love to work from home, think of all the money I'd save on diesel! I don't think my customers would be too impressed though, and all that exercise getting in and out of the car would be lost too:rolleyes:

[alera]

Its been anounced that they are going to change the law so if you do "well over" the speed limit you get double the points penalty on your license. Problem is they are classing well over the limit on the motorway at 80mph plus. Most people do over 80mph on the motorway traffic allowing.

This government has to be stopped. They wont be happy until we are all living in a new communist utopia.