In a bid to try to reduce dangerous air pollution, the Welsh Government has released plans to lower the speed limit of five different stretches of road to a maximum of 50mph, two of which are on the busy M4 motorway. This would be the first parts of any motorway in Britain with a fixed speed limit lower than 70 mph.
They hope that this move will reduce nitrogen dioxide levels on roads that currently exceed legal emissions limits and expect that lowering the speed limit will have almost immediate results on the amount of air pollution in these locations.
Clean Air Fund
The plans to reduce speed limits are part of the Welsh Government’s £20 million Clean Air Fund which seeks to lower the amount of air pollution in Wales and show the country as being a leader in innovative and effective clean air solutions.
This comes from the Welsh Environment Minister, Hannah Blythyn, who stated on the 24th April that one of her key priorities is to reduce air pollution and that she is confident that the proposals they have in place will help them to achieve this goal and create cleaner air for both local communities and the environment.
In a recent study by the World Health Organisation, Port Talbot in Wales came top as having the worst air pollution in the UK. However, air quality in Wales has improved overall compared to previous decades, and Blythyn is hopeful that by taking further action to reduce air pollution from all possible angles, the Government can lower the risks that both the public and the environment are currently facing.
The Welsh Government admitted that they failed to suggest suitable ideas for reducing air pollution in the past, and this is why it has been pushed into the spotlight now.
The fund will run until 2021 and will also help to support local authorities to comply with nitrogen dioxide limits, plus a website will be launched which allows people to look at the air quality levels in their area in real-time.
This website will also feature data on current and forecasted air pollution levels, plus historical information and related health advice too. In addition to this, schools will be able to access educational games, tools and materials which they can use to teach children about air pollution, the dangers that it can bring, and they can help to reduce it.
Clean Air Zones have also been proposed which will be areas of the road which are out of bounds for older, more polluting cars, or charges them for entering these zones. Ministers are currently looking into whether these zones should be made mandatory for local authorities or if they should be voluntary, whereas in England Birmingham, Derby, Leeds, Nottingham and Southampton authorities have all been told that the need Clean Air Zones in place by 2019.
Will reducing the speed limit work?
It is proposed that the sections of road which will have their speed limit reduced are the M4 between 41 and 42 Port Talbot, the M4 at Newport, the A494 at Deeside, the A483 at Wrexham, and the A470 between Upper Boat and Pontypridd. This change will take place in June this year.
The Welsh Government believe that by reducing the speed of traffic on these stretches of road they could cut dangerous emissions by up to 18%, but not everyone feels that this will be the case.
For example, RAC’s Head of Roads Policy, Nicholas Lyes, is sceptical about the new speed limits although he supports the Clean Air Zones which have been suggested. He believes that because these roads often experience traffic jams that lowering the speed limit to 50mph is unlikely to make a difference as although it could help with the flow of traffic, jams are still likely to occur and these are one of the causes of pollution.
This means that nitrogen dioxide levels wouldn’t necessarily fall, and Lyes suggests that the Welsh Government take a look at the capacity of these roads to get a clearer understanding of what could be done differently.
How might this affect you?
If you use one of these five stretches of road, then you are likely to see the change in speed limit to 50mph by the end of June. It may improve the flow of traffic if you are used to sitting in jams during your journey, but it will also mean that your trip will take longer to complete.
These new 50mph speed limits will be mandatory so you must stick to them like you would any other speed limit while you are travelling on one of these roads. Be aware that its likely that when these measures come in, they will be supported by a range of mobile and fixed camera placements to ensure that people are adhering to the new 50 mph speed limits.
In some cases, the cameras may be difficult to spot, as a new generation of HADECS cameras being rolled out on smart motorways are cleverly obscured in various ways to catch drivers out when they enter these new speed restricted zones.
Do you think that lowering the speed limit will have a big impact on air pollution in Wales? Do you use one of the roads that will be affected? Let us know in the comments below.
50mph speed limit stretches cause traffic congestion as it backs up toward the limit. It then results in gear changes and throttle changes as drivers brake and accelerate to adjust. This creates far more pollution and emissions than constant throttle driving at 70mph through the same stretch.
Totally Agree. I hate the variable speed limits on motorways as well, but they say that’s why to make the journy safer. If I have to break hard because the car in front of me breaks hard, it’s not very safe. Also as you said more gear change more pollution. I don’t know how clever you have to be to find out this… With reduced speed limits they will get more traffic jams which means more pollution and you spend more time in the same journey as you drive slower, so it equals more or the same pollution…
I think variable speed limits on motorways are fine especially when near sliproads.
Ah but you missed the memo where congestion means they can apply charging, basically writing their own cheques
There are plenty of motorways with fixed speed limits. The M621 has a 50 for much of its length. The A58(m) leeds inner ring road is 40
Well that’s no good when your car is more fuel efficient at 65-70 mph, which many modern cars are. We’re not in the ’60s any more, though the UK government doesn’t seem to have got that memo
Will have to drive on lower Gear which means no change to the pollution.
You mean the Welsh Assembly, this is not the British government
It’s not the Welsh Assembly (which is the equivalent of the UK Parliament). It;s the Welsh Government which is the equivalent of the woodentops in England
The speed limit in port Talbot has always been 50mph so won’t make a difference although the pollution doesn’t come from the motorway it comes from the massive steel works, this has been proven and the residents get a reduced council tax because of it
Yes I’m sure I saw something on the TV recently that said the blame lay with the steel industry.
Very true the sulphur emission is very high compare with NOx, PM emissions at Port Talbot. Welsh government better look at data in order to solve problems effectively. Variable speed limits are in place in Newport for a very long time causing ridiculously slow traffic even at the wee hours 8pm. Cars ran at 40 max most of the time .
These speed limits have been in place for a number of years already, through a fixed limit at Port Talbot & variable, (most of the time) which is generally 50 mph at Newport.
Why make it appear to be a new news item?
Wales has a motorway?
Of course Wales has a motorway , it’s called the M4 Which goes from just past Swansea to London
As you alluded to in your article the problem is capacity not speed. If the various UK governments had invested in additional road capacity and better road surfaces the pollution levels would fall. In France my average MPG increases by a minimum of 10%, therefore my pollution levels fall and they have faster speed limits but have continued to develop their road system over the last 30 years whereas we have totally failed to do anything.
My MPG also increases in France at the same speed & loading, this is due to their different finish of road surface having less friction – downside longer stopping distances!!
The problem is the industrial emissions from Port Talbot works.
Cruising 90mph in France 🇫🇷 gives me same mpg what 60mph in the UK 🇬🇧
I drove through France two years ago in my Mercedes diesel, averaging 70+ MPG. I struggle to get half that driving around at home.
I agree . I am always amazed at the improved mpg when on long journeys in Europe . But lets face it is easier just to give the police a chance to increase revenue which maybe ok if it went into improving our roads. The so called Smart motorways seem to do nothing other than bunch up the traffic ,increase the number of speeding fines reducing traffic to slow polluting speed levels and immediately the Smart motorway finishes and the motorway goes back to normal motorists find their own speed and the congestion dissipates. .
With regards to Wales -Its another good reason not to go there.
Not sure it will reduce omissions, when I get to a 50ml an hour section on the motorways I drop from 6th gear to 5th gear, hence revs increase as does petrol consumption.
it will reduce emissions. The extra fuel/emissions is due to wind resistance when you go at higher speeds. I remember reading that there is a 25% fuel penalty for doing 80 instead of 70, which sounds a lot, but its all down to wind resistance at these sorts of speeds, and it highlights what a big difference wind resistance makes.
At 75mph I get around 50mpg drop down to 50 mph I get 40 or less!! Wind resistance or not lower speeds do not lower emissions, as someone who travels up to leeds from Dorset quite a few times a year I can tell you if I set of at 4am I use ten pounds less in fuel than if I set off at 6am because I get held up by signs telling me to do 40mph to keep traffic flowing forcing me into fourth gear and stuck in a traffic jam caused by signs that tell people to slow to forty…..stealth tax on drivers is what it is much the same as the smart motorways were meant to gain revenue no other reason. The welsh govt nor English govt do not give a shit about emissions it’s all about money money money
How is the government intending to dabble with the eind resistance. The resistance will always be there.
those tests were done in the 1960s and 70s and haven’t been updated since. in the intervening time we have had HUGE aerodynamic efficiency improvements, engine efficiency improvements and we have gone from 3/4 speed manual gearboxes and 3 speed autos being the norm to 6 speed manuals being common and anything from 6-10 speed autos becoming increasingly normal.
“….omissions”?
The first motorway with a speed limit lower than 70mph? I’m afraid not, the M11 has had a 50mph limit st it’s southern end for as long as I can remember
Good point, Tony Ferrari. And the M60 when it bends sharply near M60 junction 25. And no doubt many other little bits.
“In 1974, the US Congress imposed a nationwide 55 mph (89 km/h) speed limit – it was estimated that a speed of 55 mph used 17% less fuel per mile than a speed of 75 mph.” [BBC News website]. Leaner fuel use, less pollution. Lowering the speed limit, leaner fuel use.
However, lower speed limits are never popular with the vocal and outspoken motorist minority, who inevitably wish to do as they please without impunity, regardless of the consequences to other people or the environment.
Peter, take a look at average fuel consumption figures for US compared to say Europe . It’s a complete nonsense that 55mph speed limit leads to lower fuel consumption.
You do that through fuel and vehicle taxes that incite more fuel efficient vehicles.
Robert, Don’t forget that the US gallon is a great deal less than a UK gallon. Miles per gallon aren’t comparable…
When I drive from my home in the NE to my family in Norfolk, I always pass through a compulsory 50 mph limit which noticeably reduces my fuel consumption. I’d drive at these lower speeds more of the time if it didn’t make me a nuisance to other road users
The US gallon is only 8lb but ours is 10lb so you must multiply there mpg by 10/8
Sorry I tested my car from Neath to Chepstow at 50mph and got 83mpg as opposed to 62mpg at 70mph. Strangely I always use more fuel returning at either speed!
My 1983 Audi Avant, the one that changed car design the world over, did 38mpg at 70mph on a motorway whereas its predecessor only did 24mph so streamlining makes a huge difference. Weight is a constant to be added at all speeds but wind resistance does have more affect the higher the speed.
Vehicle engine efficiency is highest at the maximum torque point and highest vacuum, my Audi had a vacuum gauge. Petrol engines have a poor torque curve meaning only one high point, i.e. one speed to drive at, whereas Diesels have a very flat one giving high efficiency over a wide range
You cannot possibly use data from 1974 to justify your point. Engine, tyre, fuel etc technologies have advanced exponentially since then.
Who said motorists are a minority – have you counted us?
I think the first two words are enough to ignore this post “in 1974”
But that was in the US, where they already had decent multilane motorways where traffic could flow easily. It’s seldom like that here, especially in the crowded South and around industrial areas.
those cars were as aerodynamic as a house, weighed as much as one and on top of the huge engines, often had 3 speed auto boxes at best, or a 3, possibly 4 speed manual. and this was back when you could drop 10-15% of your fuel economy by choosing an auto over a manual!!!! also those cars had a less efficient method to meter the fuel added to the engine, known as a carburettor. today auto boxes are in some cases BETTER on fuel than the manuals (thanks to using clutches rather than torque converters) with anything from 6 to 10 forward speeds. manuals have progressed from 3 to 6 speed in a LOT of cases so the equivalent fuel consumption on a modern aerodynamic car, compared to the house ends they had in America at the time, has improved IMMENSELY. my own car, 6 speed Mondeo Diesel (with a DPF) will return 60mpg at anywhere between around 65 (indicated, not TRUE speed as ALL car speedo’s are inaccurate, unlike HGV tachograph speedometers) and 75mph (the sweet spot seems to be around that area) HOWEVER if I drop the speed to 50, I have to downshift on any inclines on a motorway OR let the engine work harder and fuel economy suffers even MORE. if I ramp up the speed, then yes economy starts to suffer. but as for speed, I get better MPH at 65-75 than I do at 50mph
As far as I am aware the M275 has always had a maximum speed limit of 60mph, so the Welsh proposal for parts of the M4 is not the first
So this will be another way for the welsh goverment to make money cos you can bet your bottom dollar there will be speed cameras and police with hand held speed guns along these motorways/roads giving tickets out if climate change is going to change the whole world needs to do it not the few
That is like dusting down the Empire State Building with a feather!
Lovely image!
Surely modern vehicles achieve economy by using high gear ratios to reduce revolutions and emissions. Is it not possible that keeping below 50mph will mean using a lower gear, higher revs and more pollution…
no, because wind resistance is a bigger factor than other physics at these speeds. You lower wind resistance at 50, and use less fuel
Aerodynamics have little effect below 100 mph.
tell that to a landing 747!
That’s just not true, Phil.
the figures quoting that are very old, and because it fits the governments whole ideal of cars being made to go slower, supposedly in the name of emissions, when in reality they want a utopia where owning a car is back to being a rich persons thing only and a dream to the rest of us! taxing fuel does nothing as we still have to get to work, it just pushes up the cost of getting there so we have less to spend in the now dying (because of it, in my opinion) high streets. fuel consumption and, therefore emissions, are directly related to the load placed on the engine vs the throttle position (and therefore the amount of fuel thrown into the engine) hence theoretically, a car going downhill at 100mph running at 10,000rpm but no throttle opening is cleaner than a car going uphill at 50mph at 1500 rpm with the throttle flat out open! so getting higher geared modern cars to sit at lower engine speeds is counter productive. yes aerodynamics do have SOME effect, but its like the people who ride around with a window open over 30mph rather than switch on the air conditioning. that uses so little fuel nowadays it doesn’t even register on my fuel computer in my car. opening a window DOES add drag though.
Actually my 8 speed auto does its best MPG at circa 65 mph. as it locks in to 8th gear. something in the region of 6mpg more. I assure you that aerodynamic is not a term generally applied to a land rover. Unsurprising since this equates roughly to the 100 Kph used for euro testing.
If the Welsh government is serious about air quality, why does it not ban the sale of coal. There are coal merchants who deliver the stuff as well as many filling stations. There is surely no more offensive and toxic emission than that from a coal fire. Other than in hot weather, many welsh towns and villages often stink of coal smoke.
i cant see how gona help if most cars gona be electric, just gona be more fines ie taxes for people who need get around quicker ..waste of time . just gona anoy people
Gona?
Anoy?
This is as much about raising revenue as anything. If the Welsh Government was to in way try to deny this, why are the enforcement cameras strategically placed where they cannot be seen. Install Average Speed Cameras which are totally visible.
By Law as far as I know All fixed speed cameras have to Visible with signs
Not anymore Peter, it’s all about raising as much money as possible in this day and age.
The M4 cameras are still bright yellow, but they are small and mounted on side gantries. And there are warning signs, so drivers have no real excuse if they are fined.
Never has been the law, Police can legally hide with their equipment. The requirement for visibility only applied to Safety Camera Partnerships.
When speed cameras were first introduced, they tended to be hidden. Then councils started putting up warning signs and painting cameras yellow. Whether that was due to a change in the law or a change in industry-standard practice is not very important because the effect is the same either way.
At least (at present) the sections with 50 limit are fairly small. Now imagine driving all the way from Newport to Swansea at 50, as you have to do for *many* miles on the M1 where they are doing isolated road works somewhere in the 20 mile section. Thank goodness for cruise control or speed limiters to prevent you creeping back up to what still feels like a safe speed.
Will a car doing 50, possibly in a lower gear, emit less pollutants than one doing 70?
One of the problems with very strictly policed limits is that everyone ends up doing exactly 50.0 mph so no-one moves relative to anyone else, which makes it harder to find a gap for the times when you *do* need to overtake a slower vehicle, because the gaps never move relative to you.
besides one volcano going off causes more air polution thans all vehicles and factories in world in a year ….
Yes, but there’s not a lot we can do about volcanoes, is there? So we have to act in areas we can influence.
That’s not to say reducing speed limits will work in this case.
Yes, but on average 7 volcanos goes off every year… and that is only volcano. What about the rest of pollution? Transportation was making ~14% of pollution in UK, but transportation is everything together city buses, trains, ships, planes, hgvs etc. Private vehicles made only 2.4% (2.1% diesel and 0.3% petrol). If government would really want to reduce pollution speed limits are the last place to look. Industrial pollution is still over 40%, farming and electricity produces more polution, even household heating produces 16% – more then transportation combined, but all the rest have strong lobbies, whereas drivers are soft target.
Surely the authorities are supposed to make speed cameras clearly visible?
If drivers can see them then will surely slow down, as required?
Has the Welsh government gone mad? This is probably a way of getting more revenue from motorists again
Of course it is.
They have been mad ever since they came to power.
A useless bunch of failures who would be pushed to get elected to a parish council outside the Principality!
Where do they get their facts from ,Just pulled out of the air because there’s nothing to support this except idiots who must show their being paid for doing something..Everyone knows that driving around in forth gear or less means the vehicle is not running efficiently thus causing more pollution..Take a look at Germany Marvellous road system I don’t see them moaning about polluting the air..Come on motorists start getting together and lobbying these ministerial do gooders put them out of work and get them to push a brush and clean the streets that would be more useful!
Why would you be in fourth at 50? My 1.6 petrol auto is in 6th at 40mph. Driving at 50 will defintely reduce pollution as you will have higher MPG. You say this is pulled out of the air but have you tried driving at 65, 60, 55, 50 for a long stretch? You will get better mpg incrementally at each of those speeds. Ever wondered why MPG figures are at an average speed of 56mph?
Why not have a man (or woman) carrying a red flag walking ahead of the traffic….?
Why not have a man (or woman) walking ahead of the traffic and carrying a red flag….?
As others have said, the stretch of M4 at Port Talbot is already a 50MPH zone and has been for many years. Every day there is a traffic jam on this section of road with cars, vans, lorries and buses churning out CO2. Most of the time I average 20MPH through that stretch. If you want to solve the problem, reduce the bottleneck not the speed limit.
Spot on!
The CO2 is not a pollutant; the problem is particulate and NOx emissions from diesels.
CO2 never was a pollutant: it ios essential for the survival of plant life. Reduce it drastically and we will have a barren planet, devoid of flora.
Other emissions are nowhere as potent as is officially claimed, but burst that myth and governments will lose their arguments for revenue collection.
Actually, too much CO2 is becoming a toxic problem for our planet. The issue is deforestation in south America and Africa.
The ocean absorbes most of the “man made” CO2 which is causing the acidity of our curical water to rise slightly. Even this slight amount has been proven as toxic, the great barrier reef for example is having coral life issues, which in turn creates issues for small fish, bigger fish starve, even bigger fish starve or find a new food source.
The fishing industry could collapse as an extreme example.
Or worse, fish learn how to walk again, and we have walking great white sharks coming to eat us!
The last part is for entertainment, but could happen if you keep buying a new smart product every year, purchase out of season food and drive your car everyday.
But it’s not practical for our modern lives! I get it.
Bob, I assume that when you say “man made CO2” you mean that created by anything that burns fossil fuels (cars, planes, etc)?
It is well documented – but NOT well publicised – that over 98% of atmospheric CO2 comes from people, when we exhale.
What would you have us do about that? How many people will you kill?
I have a little list…..
In 1018 there were something in the order of 0.2 billion people alive.
In 1718 there were something in the order of 0.6 billion people alive.
In 1818 there were something in the order of 1.1 billion people alive.
In 1918 there were something in the order of 1.8 billion people alive.
In 2018? 7.6 billion.
Learn to kill – or learn to enjoy CO2.
Bob, I assume that when you say “man made CO2” you mean that created by anything that burns fossil fuels (cars, planes, etc)?
It is well documented – but NOT well publicised – that over 98% of atmospheric CO2 comes from people, when we exhale.
What would you have us do about that? How many people will you kill?
I have a little list…..
Bob, I assume that when you say “man made CO2” you mean that created by anything that burns fossil fuels (cars, planes, etc)?
It is well documented – but NOT well publicised – that over 98% of atmospheric CO2 comes from people, when we exhale.
What would you have us do about that? How many people will you kill?
I have a little list…..
So lots of co2. People cars etc . Plant more trees co2 is what they breathe . Better public transport…..
Actually, you are so badly misinformed. CO2 is not toxic, it is vital for plant life and currently quite low. Deforestation, whilst not desirable if you like trees, is nothing new.
Professor Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of BioGeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, wrote this in 2003:
“At the end of the last ice age, only some 12-18000 years ago, the tropics were covered by seasonal savannah grasslands, cooler and much drier than now. There were no rain forests in the Malay Peninsula and much of Amazonia, and, despite the increasing human development of forested space, there are still more rain forests persisting than existed then.”
“Brazil: Ancient Amazon Actually Highly Urbanized” August 31st 2008
“The report in Friday’s edition of the journal Science, describes clusters of towns and smaller villages that were connected by complex road networks and were arranged around large central plazas. Researches also discovered signs of farming, wetland management and fish farms in the ancient settlements that are now almost completely covered by rainforest.”
http://en.mercopress.com/2008/08/31/brazil-ancient-amazon-actually-highly-urbanized
The oceans are not becoming “acidic”, neither are coral reefs being affected by such claims. They were formed during a period of considerably higher CO2 levels than we have today, which are quite paltry at 0.04% of the total atmosphere. “Bleaching” events are cyclical, temperature related and the corals recover.
So many false claims, of which the word “toxic” is the most toxic.
My wife’s 3 year old petrol car cost £6000 new, my 7 year old diesel cost £90,000 new. Unsurprisingly my car has several thousand pounds worth of fume cleaning technology such as Diesel Particulate Filters fitted, my wife’s does not. My diesel puts out cleaner air than it takes in in cities such as Bristol and scores lower than the petrol car on emission testing.
Perhaps we can deal in fact not fiction when discussing issues such as this!!
Personally, if I had those two vehicles, the high value vehicle trade in/sell then get a Jaguar IPace, the low value vehicle sell get a Nissan Leaf, The running cost will be approx 3p a mile were you other vehicles are costing 15 to 20p a mile, you maintenance costs will dramatically drop and charging points can be added for free. No noxious gas pumping into the air I’m sure you would be very pleased not to mention the amount of money you would be saving. ABC.
Always Be Connected. And of course KISS Keep it Simple Stupid, not that I’m saying you are but I’m sure you know what I mean
Kind regards Chris Moore
An electric car is fine if you have a short journey to do, how do you do 500 miles in an electric car in a day?
The Jaguar iPace will do 295 miles on a charge, and can be fast charged over lunch! At only around £60k it is a bargain luxury vehicle, faster than most sports cars and handles like an F-Type.
Yes if you have a 100kw charger, try charging at home it will probably take 10 hours
Until an electric vehicle can cover an absolute minimum of 450 miles on a single charge & can be charged fully in 5 minutes maximum, which is still longer than a petrol/diesel car can fill up at the pump, then electric cars will be just town runarounds & will never become mainstream.
Use a Tesla and stop at the Supercharger
What do you do when Tesla goes t**sup?
And how clean is the electricity. In the UK far from clean
Why do you do 500 miles in an electric vehicle in one day? Or any vehicle apart from an aircraft come to that.
Sorry David, I didn’t see your comment, but right, why etc.
You leave it at home and take the train. Much more relaxing and way safer than driving for that length of time in a single day.
And where do you think the electricity comes from, sunshine and wind
So power stations do not produce any emissions do they ! Electric vehicles are promted as clean but the batteries are full of toxic stuff and only last a few years as they can only be recharged so many times . So basically an electric car a few years old and requires a new battery pack currently about five grand is going to be totally worthless as new battery pack will cost more than car is worth. And going back to power stations Gas turbines which seem to be the power stations of choice at the moment still burn fossil fuel .Wind turbine s and solar power cannot be relied on as they don’t work if there is no wind or it is not light.
Bring back the horse.
Electric cars are only cheaper because our stupid government allows them free use of the roads (and a £4.5K gift when buying) whilst others pay around £1k to 2k pa in VED and fuel taxes. This is wrong and should be stopped immediately. Whilst EVs may move the pollution source so should rightly get a discount they should not be subsidised to this ridiculous extent with OUR money. They still block the roads and cause wear/ use of services, just like any other car.
Your car most likely has a defeat device, too…….?
My car has very little NOX due to AdBlu so instead of solving they will still have high levels. Vehicles driving 60 to 70 do not produce more its the jams.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. One of the gasses which are causing global warming and it is therefore a pollutant.
Carbon is natural, carbon burning is natural, it is the rate at which carbon is being burnt which is unnatural. Remove humankind and the Earth will settle back to equanimity.
Older diesels!
I can’t remember that last time I managed to achieve 50MPH in the current restricted areas on the M4. ThAgreed the speed dean;t need to be restricted anywhere else just sort out the problems with the traffic flow in the first place. The cameras hidden, Hmm, smacks of yet another cash raising scheme. Visible average speed cameras, but then they wouldn’t raise as much cash….
Anybody who claims HADECS cameras can not be spotted either needs to start paying attention when they drive or have their eyes tested
Along with loads of NOx. Clearly these muppets did a ‘desktop’ assessment without looking are the real life facts.
Not convinced.
Simple arithmetic tells you that a road can handle 30% less traffic at 50 than 70.
How does that help on what I understand are already overcrowded streaches of road?
I and many other drivers find it very very hard to to keep the brain stimulated enough to stay focused and alert driving at 50mph on a motoreay. This effect can lead directly to more accidents.
Much more effective to structure vehicle taxes to get old polluting vehicles off the road.
Absolutely not: the maximum loading of a single lane road is at 15 or 30mph, it surprised me with two speeds. I calculated this in 1956. The faster you go the less vehicles the road can hold which is why ‘at last’ they are restricting speed on managed motorways to prevent traffic jams. Only taken 50 years!
Having said that, almost all drivers travel dangerously too close which is why our roads manage the loading they do.
and how the world has changed in those 50 years! and did you also calculate (because the people that designed and built them did) that the design speed for the UK motorway network when it was originally being built was for 120mph?
great idea but not everyone can afford a newer car or have the job security or desire to finance or rent (pcp) one so have to make do with what they have. I read somewhere recently that it takes the equivalent to 9 years of driving a new car to make its production pollution become ‘carbon neutral’ relative to fixing up a 9 year old one and running it for another 9 years. yes the older engine may pollute more BUT the pollution needed to create it has already been ‘offset’ by having not made a new car for 9 years (it takes the equivalent pollution to build a new car as it does in an average mileage driver driving the same car for 9 years)
Quite right Peter, that’s why it’s cleaner & greener to run a 50/60 year old classic car than a new car.
On the contrary – capacity INCREASES at lower speeds because there is less distance between vehicles.
Not everyone can afford or want to buy a new car.
“In some cases, the cameras may be difficult to spot, as a new generation of HADECS cameras being rolled out on smart motorways are cleverly obscured in various ways to catch drivers out when they enter these new speed restricted zones.”
This makes me angry, as the only possible reason for such a covert technique is to collect revenue. If they were genuinely interested in safety and getting motorist=s to observe the limit, then they would make the greed cameras highly visible – which would have the desired effect.
Ron.
They don’t seem to take much notice of mandatory speed limit signs so why would visible speed cameras make a difference??
Because speed limit signs don’t record your speed. Cameras do, but of course hiding them can have only one outcome: motorists don’t spot them so bring in more revenue.
That has nothing to do with reducing accidents. Highly visible cameras reduce offending, so reduce accidents but also reduce revenue.
It is 100% revenue. The supposed point of speed cameras is to slow people down when approaching accident hotspots. There is no safety justification for having any speed cameras on an open motorway.
The cameras are visible – and bright yellow and with warning signs – they’re just not directly over the lane in which you drive now, because the tech has moved on. Look to the gantry over the hard shoulder. They are not obscured for those who look.
Also the other give away is the three small cameras mounted on one pole near the hard shoulder (similar to the individual smart motorway ones) right before you get to the gantry where the HADECS 3’s are mounted. The three are to record what the gantry sign said before you reached it so it can’t be contested that the sign said something different etc.
Drive along the M20 where the cameras are mounted on the gantries on the far side too which you are travelling and are obscured by metal work so cannot be seen and to make even more confusing they are not on all the gantries. So only way to stop getting a speeding fine is to drive within the speed limit.
They are very visible more so than the previous generation
No they are not, drive along the M20 and play “Spot The Speed Camera”
With some cars they would have to drive in a lower gear, thus creating more pollution.
60mph would have been better. Then average speed cameras.
This is just great – i’m not sure why the Welsh government didn’t think of this before. Maybe cut the speed limit to 30mph or 20mph or better still 5mph so air pollution is improved? Oh I know why, because this will bring the Welsh economy to a grinding halt! What next? Suggest that everyone gives up their car in exchange for a horse and cart??
The Welsh government need to think of better ways to deal with this issue.
And have every vehicle preceded by a man with a red flag, this will sort out unemployment as well.
Or walk. It is healthy and no pollution…
Your body also produces CO2
I do not think it will make any significant ditterence to the levels that the WELSH LABOUR GOVERNMENT SEEK I think they have been badly advised and need to go back to the drawing board and seek professional advice across the board and not have knee jerk reactions it seems now
I wouldn’t expect anything less from “the Welsh government” who would require use of ponies and mules if there was lobbying from the horse shoe union. “Not very bright” is a requirement to be elected to the Assembly .
I have been doing an analysis of “The bigger picture ” of the general slower speeds being forced on us by government , Councils and just slow drivers, in there thousands.
My car ha a nine speed auto gearbox .. Mercedes GLE. At 50mph my car does 1900 rpm in 7th gear. At 70mph is still does 1900 rpm, because it is in 9th gear.
Please note that I can not go up to 8 or 9th gear, even using the paddle changers. Because the revs are too low.
Driving 50 miles at 50 mph takes 17 mins longer than doing 70mph. I.e 25% longer.
Bearing in mind pollution in related to how long an engine is running and engine revs, using the above scenario 25% more pollution would be pumped into the atmosphere driving at 50 mph than 70 mph plus it would cost the driver 25% more in fuel, hence using more of the worlds resources.
So in many circumstances slowing down speed limits and slower driving can have a major negative effect.
Vic
Your statement that you use 25% more fuel is one of the reasons they’re doing it. You buy more fuel, they get more in tax.
You need more factors in your calculations. Just maintaining the same RPM doesn’t mean you get the same MPG!
Air resistance increases as you go faster, and becomes an increasingly more important factor. As the engine has to work harder, it increases the fuel/air mixture to overcome wind resistance. The increased workload means the engine gets hotter and less efficient too.
Also, if I drive 100 miles at 50mph, it takes me 2 hours and I may get 40mpg. At 100mph it will only take me an hour, true, but I invariably would get say 30mpg. That means on the stretch of road at 50mph I was on it longer, but used less fuel and hence polluted less, surely. Yet you’re implying that because of the TIME spent I pollute more?
Not strictly true. Engine effort is defined by RPM. Gearing allows you to travel faster using less effort. Imagine it simply using a push bike. In first gear you pedal your legs off to go maybe 2mph. Shift up a couple of gears and the same effort allows you to travel much faster for the same amount of effort or at the same speed using much less effort. True, drag squares with speed, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that at 70mph a car in 9th is having to produce 200bhp to maintain its 1500RPM compared to 150bhp at the same RPM in 7th.
An internal combustion engine develops its power by the exploding force of igniting compressed petrol and air. The more times it can do it per second, the more power it is producing and the more fuel it is using. Therefore it can be said that in theory, the car is not using any more petrol by running at 1500RPM in 9th than it is in 7th. But the gearing will allow you to be travelling faster in 9th for the same amount of effort.
This is obviously an oversimplification, because throttle position and air pressure have a huge factor to play as well. Forcing a larger amount or denser, cooler air in to the combustion chamber (ie: from an intercooled turbo) would mean that for a given power output, less petrol SHOULD be being used.
If lowering the speed limit to 50 makes your journey take longer, what does sitting in a jam do?
Yet another reason to reduce bureaucracy and cost and disband the Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament and the NI Assembly. We need the money to better fund infrastructure, not to create more inept self serving politicians in the UK.
The Politicians making these decision haven’t got a clue. By Reducing the speed limit each vehicle will naturally spend longer emitting exhaust gases travelling through the respective section of road. This will probably end up making the problem worst. If reducing speed limits was the answer then we would have a nationwide speed limit of 30 MPH or less. The average speed limit in London is 7.8MPH and the air quality is far worse than anywhere in Wales. This is a ridiculous decision.
Ever notice that the speed limits on empty roads seem to be 10-20mph higher in the more ‘upmarket’ areas where the politicians happen to live?
Before long the Welsh government will be giving grants to people to buy a Horse and Cart.
I often travel between Wrexham and Rugby and once I’ve completed the engine warmup period, the worst part of the journey (regarding economy) is negotiating the Shrewsbury roundabouts! Build roads that are fit for purpose, help motorists maintain a constant speed and pollution levels will fall without penalising the motorist!
Am I being cynical? With the increase in the less obvious speed cameras this sounds more about increasing speeding fine revenues than cleaner air. Wales seems to moving further down the anti-motorist path following the lead set by the chief constable of North Wales some years ago with the introduction of multi-variable speed limits over sections of many roads. I am sure the RAC has some serious points in their argument.
Would it not be the case that the “DWELL TIME” of traffic at this speed would actually increase the pollution
This would be the first parts of any motorway in Britain with a fixed speed limit lower than 70 mph.???? Have you never been on the M4 J4-1
It will serve to slow done escapees
Who within government would put their head above the parapet and admit to this hair-brained scheme.
It’s hare-brained, because hares are mad, though only part of the year!
It is most unlikely to achieve the claimed objective, but in all probability achieve the real one of raising yet more money for the Welsh government to squander.
Will mean even less people will bother to go to Wales
Good grief.
Typical!
Strange how for centuries man has worked tirelessly to travel ever faster. Come the 21st century and we are now travelling slower than we have in the previous five decades. Congestion, the best plan any council/government body has come up with – stick traffic lights up everywhere and slow the traffic down, causing more pollution!
There is no long term vision, no one thinks big and when they do, professional protesters drag it through the courts for years costing untold added millions!
And all the time, the air quality and congestion get ever worse.
Yes it would appear that a horse and carriage could travel through London faster than 7mph over a hundred years ago !
If thats the case, why don’t they introduce lane segregation for different levels of emissions? Limited to inside lane and 50mph for cars with high emissions, inside & middle lane and 70mph for medium level, all lanes and 80 mph for low/zero emission vehicles 🙂
Utter madness…driving is tiring and tedious enough already and if on long journeys who wants to be driving at 50mph on perfectly good motorways unless there is severe bad weather. I would seriously consider looking at other routes or changing holiday plans.
M275 already has fixed speed limit of 60mph for most, if not all of its length
Another way to In crease revenue with speeding fines
If nobody has pointed it out yet, most of the UK’s motorways are posted 50mph due to roadworks at any given point in time anyway (but especially on bank holiday weekends!). And you’d be lucky to get to 50 due to volume of traffic anyway unless it’s 3am on a Tuesday.