With reference to cycle lanes. etc - report well worth reading, c/o Warrington CC

[[email protected]]

Richard wrote:
> Pyromancer wrote:
>
> > in "exchange" for raising the general motorway speed limits
> > to 100 or 120mph.
>

> It would also reduce the road capacity by a factor of around four (since
> safe separation distance goes roughly as kinetic energy), thus
> increasing traffic jams.
>
Increasing speed doesn't reduce road capacity so long as traffic is
flowing.

Capacity is 1800 vehicles/hour/lane assuming a 2 second separation.

Of course, in practice, a) nobody leaves a 2 second gap and b) as
speeds increase the too short gap results in hard breaking which in
turn reduces traffic flow, eventually to 0 as everything comes to a
standstill

Tim.

 

[Richard]

[email protected] wrote:
> Richard wrote:
>
>>Pyromancer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>in "exchange" for raising the general motorway speed limits
>>>to 100 or 120mph.
>>
>
>>It would also reduce the road capacity by a factor of around four (since
>>safe separation distance goes roughly as kinetic energy), thus
>>increasing traffic jams.
>>
>
> Increasing speed doesn't reduce road capacity so long as traffic is
> flowing.
>
> Capacity is 1800 vehicles/hour/lane assuming a 2 second separation.

That 2 second separation isn't immutable, it's a function of the speed
of the vehicles.

It is indeed theoretically possible to have the traffic driving past at
150 mph with six inch separations. In practice, however...

R.

 

[Pyromancer]

Richard wrote:
> Pyromancer wrote:

> > in "exchange" for raising the general motorway speed limits
> > to 100 or 120mph.

> Which would result in far more accidents, as the closing speeds between
> chav-rep-racer-tossers doing the obligatory (speed limit + 30 mph) and
> an artic lumbering up the hill is going to double to be around 100 mph.

<snip>

> Daft idea, sorry.

As you snipped everything else I can only assume you completely missed
the point. If you're not willing to give people anything in return,
you can't expect to get anything. As you post here, I assume you're a
cyclist. Wouldn't you like to see every town with a properly enforced
20mph limit? Would it really be too high a price to pay to let people
drive legally at the speeds they already do drive at on motorways?

Is there endless carnage on the unrestricted autobahns in Germany?

Get off your high horse for a moment and think what could be gained.
All of life involves some risk. In an ideal world perhaps everyone
could go fast by train, but in the real world it takes compromise to
get things done. Most motorway traffic already does 90mph anyway. So
let them do it legally, and in return lets have a safe environment for
everyone in cities, towns and villages.

Is that *really* too much to ask?

 

[Richard]

Pyromancer wrote:
>>>in "exchange" for raising the general motorway speed limits
>>>to 100 or 120mph.
>
>
>>Which would result in far more accidents, as the closing speeds between
>>chav-rep-racer-tossers doing the obligatory (speed limit + 30 mph) and
>>an artic lumbering up the hill is going to double to be around 100 mph.
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>Daft idea, sorry.
>
>
> As you snipped everything else I can only assume you completely missed
> the point.

You can assume what you want.

I snipped everything else (being a reasonable call for lower enforced
speed limits in towns) because I didn't have any issue with it, but I
didn't feel it was the place for a facile 'me too'.

> If you're not willing to give people anything in return,
> you can't expect to get anything.

The carrot and stick argument can only be taken so far. Lower enforced
speed limits in towns are not, overall, any sort of 'stick', because far
more people will benefit from them, than will suffer the inconvenience
of not being allowed to blast past a school at 35 mph. The usual
suspects, however, make such a wailing palarver at any suggestion of
this, that people start thinking that they must be appeased with a
'carrot' elsewhere. That's a bit like drug dealers saying "Well, if
you don't want us dealing around schools, we won't, provided that you'll
let us open up a shop elsewhere." - I think society is heading towards
moral bankruptcy when it starts to play these games with its own welfare
and health and the welfare and health of its children.

> As you post here, I assume you're a
> cyclist. Wouldn't you like to see every town with a properly enforced
> 20mph limit?

Oh, indeed, and I have said so, and made other representations so, on
other occasions.

> Would it really be too high a price to pay to let people
> drive legally at the speeds they already do drive at on motorways?

Raising the limit to "100 mph or 120 mph" will increase the speeds they
do drive at, it won't simply be a rubber-stamping of the status quo. It
will have the downsides I mentioned which, overall, could easily do more
harm than the enforced 20 mph benefits in towns; quite apart from any
moral objection to appeasement in this case.

> Is there endless carnage on the unrestricted autobahns in Germany?

Last time I saw the statistics, I think the answer was 'yes'. That was
several years ago, so I am prepared to be open-minded.

> Get off your high horse for a moment and think what could be gained.
> All of life involves some risk. In an ideal world perhaps everyone
> could go fast by train, but in the real world it takes compromise to
> get things done. Most motorway traffic already does 90mph anyway. So
> let them do it legally, and in return lets have a safe environment for
> everyone in cities, towns and villages.

No - let's have motorway traffic reduced to an enforced 60 mph, with a
consequent increase in road capacity (as per the M25 variable speed
limit) and decrease in pollution of all sorts. Let's also have 20 mph
speed limits in built-up areas, and 30 mph speed limits down country
lanes. Let's have a public transport system that offers a viable and
sensible alternative to journeys by private car. And the way to
achieve all this, rather than any dubious horse-trading or sacrificing
of first-born, is *education*.

R.

 

[Clive George]

"Pyromancer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Most motorway traffic already does 90mph anyway.

IME this is not the case. If you try driving at 90mph on the motorway you'll
find you're one of the fastest vehicles on the road. 70mph is probably in
the lower 1/3 of the car traffic. Median car speed is probably about 75-80
on a fairly clear motorway.

And that's ignoring lorry and coach traffic - they're rather a lot slower,
and are already driving on their limiters. Since it's not unknown for lorry
traffic to be half or more of the traffic on a motorway, that means the
average speed is quite a lot lower than you claim.

cheers,
clive

 

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Richard
<[email protected]> gently breathed:

>No - let's have motorway traffic reduced to an enforced 60 mph, with a
>consequent increase in road capacity (as per the M25 variable speed
>limit) and decrease in pollution of all sorts. Let's also have 20 mph
>speed limits in built-up areas, and 30 mph speed limits down country
>lanes. Let's have a public transport system that offers a viable and
>sensible alternative to journeys by private car. And the way to
>achieve all this, rather than any dubious horse-trading or sacrificing
>of first-born, is *education*.

Ok, lets throw pragmatism and any chance of ever getting anywhere out
the window and go for the loopy-la-la-land option instead. Sorry if
that sounds rude but people who will not even think of striking a
compromise are part of the problem.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

 

[Richard]

Pyromancer wrote:
> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Richard
> <[email protected]> gently breathed:
>
>
>>No - let's have motorway traffic reduced to an enforced 60 mph, with a
>>consequent increase in road capacity (as per the M25 variable speed
>>limit) and decrease in pollution of all sorts. Let's also have 20 mph
>>speed limits in built-up areas, and 30 mph speed limits down country
>>lanes. Let's have a public transport system that offers a viable and
>>sensible alternative to journeys by private car. And the way to
>>achieve all this, rather than any dubious horse-trading or sacrificing
>>of first-born, is *education*.
>
>
> Ok, lets throw pragmatism and any chance of ever getting anywhere out
> the window and go for the loopy-la-la-land option instead. Sorry if
> that sounds rude but people who will not even think of striking a
> compromise are part of the problem.

You know, you're absolutely right. Instead of educating people to see
beyond the short term and look at the holistic approach, let's have ad
hominem attacks and appeasement policies that give with one hand and
take away with the other. It's worked so well historically, after
all; every great social advance of the past two centuries has been a
compromise where everyone walked away happy.

Sarcastic bastards are also part of the problem, by the way.

R.

 

[Mark Thompson]

>>No - let's have motorway traffic reduced to an enforced 60 mph, with a
>>consequent increase in road capacity (as per the M25 variable speed
>>limit) and decrease in pollution of all sorts. Let's also have 20 mph
>>speed limits in built-up areas, and 30 mph speed limits down country
>>lanes. Let's have a public transport system that offers a viable and
>>sensible alternative to journeys by private car. And the way to
>>achieve all this, rather than any dubious horse-trading or sacrificing
>>of first-born, is *education*.
>
> Ok, lets throw pragmatism and any chance of ever getting anywhere out
> the window and go for the loopy-la-la-land option instead. Sorry if
> that sounds rude but people who will not even think of striking a
> compromise are part of the problem.

No snipping so you can read the post again.

In return for a drop in speed limits we give the carrot of:

Increased road capacity (and less delays at peak times)
Less filth in the air
A big drop in KSIs & the savings to the tax payer that goes with it
Decent public transport (less cars in front of you)

Howzat?

 

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tom
<Don'[email protected]> gently breathed:
>Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Simon Geller wrote:

>> BTW, ISTR the fastest production car in the world is British, not
>> German (and the parent company is American). Jaguar XJ220, 220mph.

> McLaren F1 240.1 mph

Ok, I think I actually meant road legal production car. Not, TBH that
I'd ever want such a machine - I wouldn't trust myself at that kind of
speed, even if it was legal.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

 

[Pyromancer]

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Mark
Thompson <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com>
gently breathed:

>In return for a drop in speed limits we give the carrot of:

>Increased road capacity (and less delays at peak times)
>Less filth in the air
>A big drop in KSIs & the savings to the tax payer that goes with it
>Decent public transport (less cars in front of you)
>Howzat?

It's the last point that kills it. Decent public transport is very
expensive. No UK government of recent times has been willing to invest
the sort of money that is needed. Personally I don't believe any UK
government ever will.

We have a lifestyle that depends on personal mobility. People will not
willingly give that up. Eventually they will of course - but it'll be
one or more of war, famine, environmental catastrophe or the ensuing
collapse of civilisation that will do it.

I give the human race another 300 to 500 years max, before we
exterminate ourselves, one way or another. Most people are simply too
selfish and/or short-termist and/or uneducated to look at the big
picture.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. <http://www.sheepish.net>

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = <http://www.wytches.net> = The UK's Pagan ISP!
<http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk> <http://www.revival.stormshadow.com>

 

[Clive George]

"Pyromancer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Tom
> <Don'[email protected]> gently breathed:
>>Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Simon Geller wrote:
>
>>> BTW, ISTR the fastest production car in the world is British, not
>>> German (and the parent company is American). Jaguar XJ220, 220mph.
>
>> McLaren F1 240.1 mph
>
> Ok, I think I actually meant road legal production car. Not, TBH that
> I'd ever want such a machine - I wouldn't trust myself at that kind of
> speed, even if it was legal.

McLaren F1 is a road legal production car. It's even got as many seats as
that bike of Guy's which was mentioned recently

cheers,
clive

 

[Mark Thompson]

> It's the last point that kills it. Decent public transport is very
> expensive. No UK government of recent times has been willing to invest
> the sort of money that is needed. Personally I don't believe any UK
> government ever will.

The post was to point out that Richard _had_ proposed changes with a
compromise and was not in 'loopy-la-la-land'.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
Pyromancer ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Is there endless carnage on the unrestricted autobahns in Germany?

Yes, actually. Far higher KSI rates than we would consider acceptable on
British motorways.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'there are no solutions, only precipitates'

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Richard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Pyromancer wrote:

>> in "exchange" for raising the general motorway speed limits
>> to 100 or 120mph.

> Which would result in far more accidents, as the closing speeds between
> chav-rep-racer-tossers doing the obligatory (speed limit + 30 mph) and
> an artic lumbering up the hill is going to double to be around 100 mph.

> It would also reduce the road capacity by a factor of around four (since
> safe separation distance goes roughly as kinetic energy), thus
> increasing traffic jams.

You could allow higher speed limits without those disadvantages if you
introduced a law that overtaking with a larger speed differential than
(say) 30mph was illegal, and policed it well enough. It wouldn't be
hard to add spotting that kind of illegal overtaking to speed camera
technology.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Tom wrote:
>> Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Simon Geller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, ISTR the fastest production car in the world is British, not
>>> German (and the parent company is American). Jaguar XJ220, 220mph.
>>
>> McLaren F1 240.1 mph
>
> <anorak> The Bugatti Veyron is apparently good for 252 </anorak>

That's the one that can burn its way through a large tankfull of petrol
in 19 minutes, isn't it? And seeing they're all actually Volkswagens,
what's the difference (other than badge engineering) between the Bugatti
and the Bentley Hunaudieres? And seeing the running costs of either
exceed the GNP of many medium sized countries, does anyone (other than
the woolly numpty) really care?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'll have a proper rant later, when I get the time.

 

[Alan Braggins]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>in message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
>('[email protected]') wrote:
>
>>>> BTW, ISTR the fastest production car in the world is British, not
>>>> German (and the parent company is American). Jaguar XJ220, 220mph.
>>>
>>> McLaren F1 240.1 mph
>>
>> <anorak> The Bugatti Veyron is apparently good for 252 </anorak>
>
>That's the one that can burn its way through a large tankfull of petrol
>in 19 minutes, isn't it? And seeing they're all actually Volkswagens,
>what's the difference (other than badge engineering) between the Bugatti
>and the Bentley Hunaudieres?

Googling, about 40mph, and only one qualifying for the "production" bit.

 

[Mark Thompson]

> You could allow higher speed limits without those disadvantages if you
> introduced a law that overtaking with a larger speed differential than
> (say) 30mph was illegal, and policed it well enough. It wouldn't be
> hard to add spotting that kind of illegal overtaking to speed camera
> technology.

Be a right brstrd peering at the speedo of every car you're overtaking tho.
Also has the insurmountable problem of stuff doing 50mph limiting the rest
of the traffic to 80mph with the rest of the network bunging traffic
towards it at LOTS mph. Massive congestion.

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Mark Thompson <pleasegivegenerously@warmmail*_turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com> wrote:

>> You could allow higher speed limits without those disadvantages if you
>> introduced a law that overtaking with a larger speed differential than
>> (say) 30mph was illegal, and policed it well enough. It wouldn't be
>> hard to add spotting that kind of illegal overtaking to speed camera
>> technology.

> Be a right brstrd peering at the speedo of every car you're overtaking tho.

That would be an additional benefit I hadn't thought of: removing from
the roads those who can't tell if they're exceeding 30mph without
looking at the speedo.

> Also has the insurmountable problem of stuff doing 50mph limiting the rest
> of the traffic to 80mph with the rest of the network bunging traffic
> towards it at LOTS mph. Massive congestion.

Do the arithmetic on safe distances and traffic throughput at
different speeds.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, Mark Thompson <> wrote:
>
> Be a right brstrd peering at the speedo of every car you're
> overtaking tho.

I read something by a lancaster pilot who said that they held
formation when blacked-out by flying relative to the glow of the
instruments in the cockpit of the one ahead...

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Mark Thompson]

>> Also has the insurmountable problem of stuff doing 50mph limiting the
>> rest of the traffic to 80mph with the rest of the network bunging
>> traffic towards it at LOTS mph. Massive congestion.
>
> Do the arithmetic on safe distances and traffic throughput at
> different speeds.

I'm fairly sure that traffic doing 80mph with everything else doing 100-
120mph will so lead to a big blob of tailbacks when all that 100-120mph
stuff catches up with the 80mph stuff. We can add to that the problems of
a 50-70mph speed differential (ouch).

Isn't 50mph the optimum anyway?