Speed Limit On Sheffield Parkway Set To Be Cut?

[francypants]

Seems to me that men who think they have to drive at the speed limit all the time in big cars have something to prove.   Small appendages come to mind.................

[ANGELFIRE1]

Just now, PRESLEY said:

Free flow at 70 then more severe accdents. 

Taking that attitude why not limit the speed to 15 mph. Low speed = no severe accidents.

 

Angel1.

[Crissie]

30 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

I had one for three years, Mitzi Outlander PHEV and can only agree with your post.

 

Angel1.

What about the fossil fuel used to generate electricity used to charge our electric cars up. There is no such thing as a free dinner.

 

Angel1. 

I don't dispute that there are no free dinners.  My point was that MY car returns better fuel efficiency figures at 65 mph than it does at 70.  That's not necessarily the case for some other cars, and I wouldn't try to persuade anyone else to drive their car faster or slower, just because that's best for me.  Each to their own.

[WalkleyIan]

Road resistance, engine friction etc are all generally linear in proportion with speed increase and are relatively low components of the force a car has to overcome once it's up and rolling. An average person can push a 1-tonne car at walking speed on the flat then keep it moving.

 

Air resistance is the largest force you have to counter. This goes up in proportion to speed squared. Small change in speed is a bigger change in air resistance, and what you've got to put in the keep the thing moving. So jumping from 40 to 70 has a big effect on air resistance and fuel consumption.

 

I suspect the small amount of time saved going down the parkway at 70  then still having to queue at the end anyway will in no way compensate for the increase in fuel consumption and associated pollution

Edited July 19, 2019 by WalkleyIan

[PRESLEY]

42 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Taking that attitude why not limit the speed to 15 mph. Low speed = no severe accidents.

 

Angel1.

Dont talk daft. 

[ANGELFIRE1]

1 minute ago, PRESLEY said:

Dont talk daft. 

" Taking that attitude why not limit the speed to 15 mph. Low speed = no severe accidents. "

 

The above MUST be factual.  Which bit of it is daft?. Just because it does not conform to your idea's does not make it wrong or indeed "daft".

 

Angel1.

 

[tinfoilhat]

1 hour ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

I have not read all the posts, so apologies if this may be repeating something already posted. Re reducing speeds to reduce exhaust emissions, it comes down to this. Does slowing traffic to 40/50 thereby increasing the time taken between point a and point b reduce emissions more than letting traffic flow at 70 and reduce the time taken between a and b thus reducing time taken to emit emissions. My money is on free flowing 70mph.

 

Angel1.

 

It is literally impossible for traffic to flow at 70mph and you of all people know why. 

 

Thats why its is used to regulate traffic on busy motorways. Every vehicle on a motorway can do 50, so when an hgv moves into lane 3 nobody (should be) stamping on their breaks creating phantom jams so everything moves, albeit at 50 and not 70.  Mythbusters did an experiment on it and it was quite enlightening how the whole phantom jam thing works.

[Cyclone]

2 hours ago, makapaka said:

1. Isn’t in doubt.

 

2. 50mph is a sensible speed that isn’t going to significantly slow people down but is safer than 70mph.

 

Continually arguing that this means we should drive at 30mph / 10mph etc is a daft argument. 

 

you seem to be under the impression that a logical argument to justify greater speeds is that by applying reductions to make them safer must continue until you reach 0mph - nonsense.

 

3. It is relevant - because it means the same speed limit is applicable throughout the stretch which would be a sensible approach.

 

Just explain what your issue is with reduced environmental impact and slower speeds on the roads?

 

or just admit you don’t want it to happen because you like to drive fast and don’t really care about the above - that’s fine - your entitled to your view.

1. Is most definitely in doubt, unless you can prove that the balance of motor traffic is more efficient at 50 than any other speed.

2. So this is an entirely arbitrary number picked out of the air by you with no logical justification.  Being unable to understand that this is arbitrary is your problem, not mine.

3. No, still irrelevant.

 

The issues with slower speeds has been thoroughly explained to you.  It's slower, you get to your destination more slowly.  You've failed to provide a single reason to justify a reduction in speed, and even more so failed to justify why it should be 50 and not any other speed.

[willman]

2 hours ago, Padders said:

Seems to me that there are a lot of posters on this thread, whom seem to think they own the road.

I pay my road tax, insurance, clean and maintain my car to the highest standards.

I like to drive in a more sedate fashion than some on here.

I"m not an incompetent driver as some on here like to think.

I"m allowed on the road like anyone else, and always drive safely.

The problem is some on here have shown complete ignorance to the many thousands of drivers who drive in a sensible manner.

Learn some patience , and make allowances for people who don"t all drive cars with 8 gears.

Off topic slightly - but why should we have to make allowances?

I followed someone on the Parkway into Sheffield last night - 40 mph in the overtaking lane from Asda to Derek Dooley Way,obviously they were in the lane 'cos they wanted to go onto DD Way,as did i but i was trying to overtake.

But that is dangerous driving and completely against the rules of the Highway Code.

Why should i be patient for rule breakers.

Similarly I followed one of these "look at me" flat bed 4x4 things, third lane of m1 from Jn 28 to Jn 30 on Wednesday afternoon, i passed him on the inside at 70 mph,he didn't have a care in the world about anyone else.

 

(Like you i pay road tax,drive safely,i have to inspect my car monthly and submit a report, i have to undertake driving assessments for my job and insurance)

[Padders]

49 minutes ago, willman said:

Off topic slightly - but why should we have to make allowances?

I followed someone on the Parkway into Sheffield last night - 40 mph in the overtaking lane from Asda to Derek Dooley Way,obviously they were in the lane 'cos they wanted to go onto DD Way,as did i but i was trying to overtake.

But that is dangerous driving and completely against the rules of the Highway Code.

Why should i be patient for rule breakers.

Similarly I followed one of these "look at me" flat bed 4x4 things, third lane of m1 from Jn 28 to Jn 30 on Wednesday afternoon, i passed him on the inside at 70 mph,he didn't have a care in the world about anyone else.

 

(Like you i pay road tax,drive safely,i have to inspect my car monthly and submit a report, i have to undertake driving assessments for my job and insurance)

Bite the bullet and keep calm, impatience can be deadly as can tiredness.. lots of drivers out there that have"nt got a clue, maybe someone who has just passed their test.. nobody is perfect including you and me, sorry but when your driving (sometimes at 70mph.) a ton and half of metal around you simply have to take the good with the bad.