Netherlands reduces speed limit to 100 km/h in daytime

[underbank]

I agree that commuters travel greater distances to work than in previous eras, but I am not sure people are encouraged to.

Depends where they live. Out in the regions, there aren't that many employment opportunities compared with London/SE. There used to be decent employment opportunities in most small towns and even bigger villages, so people could find work close to home. Now with centralisation etc., regional branches of national firms have closed down - head offices are now nearly all in London, call centres are usually in areas of high unemployment due to incentives etc. That leaves people in towns and villages having to get themselves to their nearest city if they want any kind of decent job - that may be a 1-2 hour journey. Take Kendal, used to be the location of two major financial services firms (Provincial and Prudential) - now people living in or near Kendal have to travel to Manchester or Leeds for decent Financial Services jobs - that's quite a commute, especially with the state of public transport in the north west. We need to reverse the centralisation of it all away from London and the biggest cities and back to there being decent employment opportunities in the smaller cities and towns again, then you'll have the benefit of reduced commuting.

 

[bramling]

What is most encouraging is that the technology to police new lower speed limits is now proven and to the majority of drivers acceptable. Those who think that limits don't apply to them and who don't conform can then be removed from the driving gene pool.

A false sense of security in that this fails to resolve numerous other aspects of poor driving, for example poorly judged manoeuvres, poor concentration, distraction or poor hazard perception. My personal experience is that these factors represent more of a risk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is most encouraging is that the technology to police new lower speed limits is now proven and to the majority of drivers acceptable. Those who think that limits don't apply to them and who don't conform can then be removed from the driving gene pool.

I think there is more "buy-in" for average speed cameras than GATSOs, because if you accidentally drift over briefly you can slow down for a bit to sort out the average rather than a moment's distraction due to something happening on the road meaning you get a fine. Certainly I favour the former over the latter, and wish they'd upgrade Smart Motorways to average speed cameras to avoid the "accelerate-brake-accelerate" thing some people do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A false sense of security in that this fails to resolve numerous other aspects of poor driving, for example poorly judged manoeuvres, poor concentration, distraction or poor hazard perception. My personal experience is that these factors represent more of a risk.

Generally speaking, within limits (!), reducing speeds reduces the severity of collisions, whereas other factors reduce the likelihood of them (60 to 50 on single carriageways is an unusual one as it also significantly reduces likelihood, as a large number of single-carriageway accidents are caused by incorrectly-judged overtakes, and by making lorries do the same speed as cars the number of overtakes is reduced significantly). Particularly when you add environmental grounds (as per the thread), I think you are justified in looking at both at the same time, particularly as speed enforcement can pay for itself.

 

[HSTEd]

Depends where they live. Out in the regions, there aren't that many employment opportunities compared with London/SE. There used to be decent employment opportunities in most small towns and even bigger villages, so people could find work close to home. Now with centralisation etc., regional branches of national firms have closed down - head offices are now nearly all in London, call centres are usually in areas of high unemployment due to incentives etc. That leaves people in towns and villages having to get themselves to their nearest city if they want any kind of decent job - that may be a 1-2 hour journey. Take Kendal, used to be the location of two major financial services firms (Provincial and Prudential) - now people living in or near Kendal have to travel to Manchester or Leeds for decent Financial Services jobs - that's quite a commute, especially with the state of public transport in the north west. We need to reverse the centralisation of it all away from London and the biggest cities and back to there being decent employment opportunities in the smaller cities and towns again, then you'll have the benefit of reduced commuting.

I'm not sure it is actually possible to reverse the centralisation.
Until the late 19th Century, cities were only kept in check by the necessity of large agricultural workforces and the demographically negative nature of city living (due to poor sanitation).
Once these were removed, cities started exploding up until the postwar availability of very cheap oil permitted massive suburban sprawl.
London was weakened in that time by the Green Belt, but still survived.

Cities are just such huge economic engines, and have huge aggregation benefits.
And the decline of manufacturing means transport links for large goods is less important, so locating jobs in cities has few, if any, downsides.

A better option would likely be to stop artificially trying to force people to live in outlying towns by restraining the growth of cities, and allow them to develop naturally.

If there was an option living inside the M25 near a tube station, people would take that over an hour long commute, but they can't because the Green Belt prevents London from developing properly. It also forces inward-densification that drives people to move out to get any reasonable standard living.

Again if planning restrictions were eased people could live better in London because apartment buildings would get way way taller. Parker Morris could be met easily and at reasonable cost despite the high population densities.

 

[underbank]

A better option would likely be to stop artificially trying to force people to live in outlying towns by restraining the growth of cities, and allow them to develop naturally.

But can the cities cope with millions more residents? Who will buy the properties vacated by homeowners in the regions who want to move to the cities? What will happen with vast swathes of towns that became derelict?

 

[HSTEd]

But can the cities cope with millions more residents? Who will buy the properties vacated by homeowners in the regions who want to move to the cities? What will happen with vast swathes of towns that became derelict?

Given that the estimate is that the UK is short four million homes, London or other cities could get a hell of a lot bigger before derelict housing became a significant issue. Apparently there are about 3.3 million households in London.
The population is still growing after all.

My own personal preference would be to construct a greenfield city, eventually the size of London, that would be the ultimate statement of what an early 21st Century city looks like.
Kind of like Milton Keynes is an example of what a post-war city looks like.

But siting such a thing would be a pain with the political wrangling that would go on

 

[bramling]

Generally speaking, within limits (!), reducing speeds reduces the severity of collisions, whereas other factors reduce the likelihood of them (60 to 50 on single carriageways is an unusual one as it also significantly reduces likelihood, as a large number of single-carriageway accidents are caused by incorrectly-judged overtakes, and by making lorries do the same speed as cars the number of overtakes is reduced significantly). Particularly when you add environmental grounds (as per the thread), I think you are justified in looking at both at the same time, particularly as speed enforcement can pay for itself.

Why not just toughen up the laws on overtaking?

I’m unconvinced that lowering the speed limit would make that much difference. Many HGVs tend to run at about 55 mph in any case, and I’d place a wager that many of the misjudged overtakes involve passing cars which are doing well below 50 mph.

With a lowered speed limit those that are desperate to overtake will still do so, and in fact may do so more as they are more likely to encounter slower vehicles. I find it amazing how many people will do an overtake when there’s features like side-roads and the like, seemingly oblivious to how risky this is.

I don’t see why everyone should be prevented from driving at 60 mph when safe to do so because some people can’t be trusted not to overtake safely.

 

[radamfi]

There is a lot of talk about how you have to live in London or a big city to get work, but the reality is that most people tend to stay where they grew up and find jobs, especially those who didn't go to university. In addition, cheap housing can be found in and around most major British cities. The house I grew up in was demolished in the 80s and that patch of ground is still derelict with a "land for sale" sign on it, despite being less than 10 miles from the most important commercial centre in the UK outside London. Terraced houses in that area can be found for £70,000 or less.

 

[Esker-pades]

Oh because of course the Planet is dying because of its citizens’ tiny cars, it’s never the corporations and the factories, is it.

It's both, not just one or the other. Further, the vast number of people using private vehicles means that the overall effect of such a measure will be significant.

When you take into account the fuel consumption per passenger-km of a transatlantic 777 flight, the carbon footprint of that plane is tiny.

Afraid not. 3 transatlantic flights is calculated as the equivalent of living entirely car-free (Wynes & Nicholas:20175)
Simplified Graph.

This plane-shaming business is ridiculous. And how would you travel to America if not by plane ? Electric bike ?

Why? Climate Change is a significant threat, aviation is a significant contributor to that, therefore people should fly less.

 

[AM9]

A false sense of security in that this fails to resolve numerous other aspects of poor driving, for example poorly judged manoeuvres, poor concentration, distraction or poor hazard perception. My personal experience is that these factors represent more of a risk.

Not much of a defence when caught at 80+ mph though. Safety is one issue that speed plays a part in, emissions are without doubt, another.

 

[bramling]

Not much of a defence when caught at 80+ mph though. Safety is one issue that speed plays a part in, emissions are without doubt, another.

Yes, however it’s a judgement call as to whether the benefits outweigh the costs in terms of extra journey time. The only totally safe vehicle is one which never commences a journey, after all. Risk is an exercise in management not total removal.

 

[Lucan]

This plane-shaming business is ridiculous. And how would you travel to America if not by plane ? Electric bike ?

I have never gone to America and I don't feel I've missed much. I work with guys who think it normal to fly to places like NY and Dubai just to do some shopping. We need to get out of that midset.

 

[AM9]

Yes, however it’s a judgement call as to whether the benefits outweigh the costs in terms of extra journey time. The only totally safe vehicle is one which never commences a journey, after all. Risk is an exercise in management not total removal.

This thread is about the reduction of maximum speeds of road traffic in order to reduce the level of emissions, - principally NOx, so arguments about the cost of extra journey time indicates a complete failure to understand the issue. Ultimately, in the face of an ever deteriorating climate and all that it would bring with it, costs of extra journey time, even those of somebody as important as you, are totally irrelevant. I am amazed at such a self-centred point of view, unless you just don't understand what the scientific community is telling everybody, - in which case I apologise for not recognising that.

 

[radamfi]

This thread is about the reduction of maximum speeds of road traffic in order to reduce the level of emissions, - principally CO2, so arguments about the cost of extra journey time indicates a complete failure to understand the issue. Ultimately, in the face of an ever deteriorating climate and all that it would bring with it, costs of extra journey time, even those of somebody as important as you, are totally irrelevant. I am amazed at such a self-centred point of view, unless you just don't understand what the scientific community is telling everybody, - in which case I apologise for not recognising that.

Climate change is of course the most important challenge facing the world, however this emergency reduction in the speed limit is to improve air quality. It should reduce CO2 as well, but it is interesting to note that climate change by itself hasn't led to speed limit reductions.

 

[Bald Rick]

NOx from road vehicles will effectively cease to be a problem in around 5-8 years time. By then something like 70% of vehicles will be Euro 6 or equivalent, 20%+ EVs and most of the rest Euro 5. It’s pretty likely that in certain cities the largest emitter of NOx will be diesel trains.

 

[TRAX]

Why? Climate Change is a significant threat, aviation is a significant contributor to that, therefore people should fly less.

I’m sorry but I’m 23 years old, so I don’t feel like I’m responsible for causing anything related to climate change, therefore I don’t feel like I should prevent myself from going on holiday by plane if it’s cheaper than rail, even if that’s just 150 km away. And it’s certainly not a manipulated 16 year old who’s seen no challenge in life yet, or 50 year old folks and their whole generation which can quite rightly be charged with causing all this mess, who’ll change my mindset. Sorry, count me out on this one.
Also, let’s not be hypocrites. Isn’t this forum full of railfans who travel on steam and diesel trains just for the fun of it and haulage ? It’s all fun and games to be telling other people to stop using their cars to go to work and planes for business trips, but this forum will be the one crying when the Flying Scotsman stops running because of concerns about emissions from steam locomotives.

 

[Mag_seven]

or 50 year old folks and their whole generation which can quite rightly be charged with causing all this mess,

I'm 54 so it's all my fault is it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m sorry but I’m 23 years old, so I don’t feel like I’m responsible for causing anything related to climate change

Wow, just wow. This is incredibly ignorant.

Do some reading about it - it's an ongoing and cumulative effect. And if you're 23, you're going to have to "enjoy" far more of the effects than I am at 40.

 

[DarloRich]

we should increase speed limits so the fumes get blown away much quicker

 

[d9009alycidon]

Those of us old enough to remember the 1970s may recal that due to the 1973 oil crisis the government of the day
introduced a temporary maximum national speed limit of 50 mph (80 km/h) for all roads, including motorways, on 8 December 1973. The 70 mph limit was restored on motorways in March 1974 and on all other roads on 8 May 1974 but later that year as an initiative to reduce energy consumption, the national speed limits for otherwise unrestricted single-carriageway and dual-carriageway roads were temporarily reduced to 50 mph and 60 mph respectively (motorway speed limits were left unchanged at 70 mph) from 14 December 1974. In April 1977, the government announced that the national speed limits for single-carriageway roads was to be increased to 60 mph and that the 70 mph speed limit was to be restored on dual-carriageways on 1 June 1977.

 

[AM9]

Those of us old enough to remember the 1970s may recal that due to the 1973 oil crisis the government of the day
introduced a temporary maximum national speed limit of 50 mph (80 km/h) for all roads, including motorways, on 8 December 1973. The 70 mph limit was restored on motorways in March 1974 and on all other roads on 8 May 1974 but later that year as an initiative to reduce energy consumption, the national speed limits for otherwise unrestricted single-carriageway and dual-carriageway roads were temporarily reduced to 50 mph and 60 mph respectively (motorway speed limits were left unchanged at 70 mph) from 14 December 1974. In April 1977, the government announced that the national speed limits for single-carriageway roads was to be increased to 60 mph and that the 70 mph speed limit was to be restored on dual-carriageways on 1 June 1977.

I remember it well. Even in the '70s, most cars that ordinary people owned wouldn't easily go at speeds over 70 continuously so the 50 limit was broadly kept to (certainly most would go less than 60 on open roads. I didn't live near any motorways so can't comment on what happened on them. The big differences now are that almost any car or van can happily cruise at 70 for miles and there is a sub-culture of speeding by some self-entitled drivers, (often justified by some bad science about how their car/driving style is actually less polluting and they are much more alert and less likely to be involved in incidents at illegal speeds), so any attempt to reduce actual speeds would need to be backed-up with comprehensive enforcement measures.
One good measure is that electric cars are not only zero emission at the poinnt of use, but also, when running at sustained high speeds, the reduced range will be more apparent, which might help teach those drivers to moderate their behaviour. If they think that they can avoid such limitations by sticking with polluting IC engined vehicles, the ever increasing cost penalties of such vehicles versus electric will at least give everybody else a return.

 

[Esker-pades]

I’m sorry but I’m 23 years old, so I don’t feel like I’m responsible for causing anything related to climate change, therefore I don’t feel like I should prevent myself from going on holiday by plane if it’s cheaper than rail, even if that’s just 150 km away. And it’s certainly not a manipulated 16 year old who’s seen no challenge in life yet, or 50 year old folks and their whole generation which can quite rightly be charged with causing all this mess, who’ll change my mindset. Sorry, count me out on this one.

NEWSFLASH: Whatever age you are, flying is still just as damaging to the environment.

Your position here is based on pathetic selfishness. The idea that you, as 1 person in a population of several billion humans and trillions of living things, can do whatever you want because you haven't directly caused the climate crisis is fundamentally flawed. There's nothing I can do to change that state of mind, but you are responsible for the climate crisis if the position outlined in the above comment is how you actually behave. At this point, doing nothing makes you complicit*.

RE: Your comment about Greta Thunberg:
You don't know what she has or hasn't gone through. Don't pretend you do. Don't make any judgements on her based on your ignorance.

Also, let’s not be hypocrites. Isn’t this forum full of railfans who travel on steam and diesel trains just for the fun of it and haulage ? It’s all fun and games to be telling other people to stop using their cars to go to work and planes for business trips, but this forum will be the one crying when the Flying Scotsman stops running because of concerns about emissions from steam locomotives.

One of the things you should learn is not to assume what people think.

There are 2 main issues with this part of your argument:
1: Protecting the environment is not really supposed to be 'fun'. The point is that it is necessary to change one's lifestyle and behaviour in order to keep ecosystem functioning (an ecosystem which sustains all life, so it's quite important). If steam and diesel locomotives are withdrawn from traffic because of the climate crisis, I will be sad, but I will understand. That undermines your 'hyprocrite' argument.
2: Secondly, your comment also assumes I am against electrification. I am firmly, firmly pro-electrification. When I travel on diesel trains, I do feel a slight twinge of guilt if the journey is not essential. Obviously, train travel is so much less bad than flying or private vehicle ownership. Given the choice between the 3 (and that is the choice sometimes), the diesel train is almost always the most environmentally friendly option.


*Slight caveat - I understand that parts of changing one's lifestyle costs money, and that some people can't afford that. My comments are not targeted there.

 

[TRAX]

Wow, just wow. This is incredibly ignorant.

Do some reading about it - it's an ongoing and cumulative effect. And if you're 23, you're going to have to "enjoy" far more of the effects than I am at 40.

Sorry if I have bigger issues than thinking about the air I breathe.

NEWSFLASH: Whatever age you are, flying is still just as damaging to the environment.

Who said the opposite ?

Your position here is based on pathetic selfishness.

And damaging the environment in the 19th and 20th century while knowing all about it wasn’t selfish ? It’s always the Others, is it ?

1: Protecting the environment is not really supposed to be 'fun'.

Who said that it was ?

When I travel on diesel trains, I do feel a slight twinge of guilt if the journey is not essential.

Oh dear but you do realise that the train would’ve ran without you in it, right ?

My point is that going to work in a Euro 2 car is more acceptable, useful and logical than riding a diesel train just for railfanning.

 

[Esker-pades]

Who said the opposite ?

You implied it. "I don’t feel like I should prevent myself from going on holiday by plane if it’s cheaper than rail, even if that’s just 150 km away"

And damaging the environment in the 19th and 20th century while knowing all about it wasn’t selfish ? It’s always the Others, is it ?

No. You do it too. This isn't an 'either/or' issue, everyone can be at fault. I fundamentally dislike previous generations for doing sod all about it, but that doesn't mean I get to sit back and do sod all either.

Who said that it was ?

You. "Isn’t this forum full of railfans who travel on steam and diesel trains just for the fun of it and haulage ?"
My emphasis.

Oh dear but you do realise that the train would’ve ran without you in it, right ?

It's still an amount of carbon emitted that contributes to my overall carbon footprint.

My point is that going to work in a Euro 2 car is more acceptable, useful and logical than riding a diesel train just for railfanning.

You're comparing work and hobbies, which are not comparable in this instance. I have no idea how one can apply the same logic to both going to work and having a hobby. This point is undermined by your previous point (the train would have run anyway). Which is it? You're going to have to explain this one before I can form a relevant response.


I'd rather you engaged with my wholistic argument instead of taking half sentences and making failed sarcastic comments on them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

we should increase speed limits so the fumes get blown away much quicker

Now now, back beneath your bridge

 

[Bletchleyite]

And damaging the environment in the 19th and 20th century while knowing all about it wasn’t selfish ?

That has a tone of "OK Boomer" about it[1], and it is not appropriate. It is more unacceptable to do it now, because we understand the issue much more. Two wrongs also do not make a right.

[1] I'm not a Boomer, that's my parents' generation.

 

[scotrail158713]

And damaging the environment in the 19th and 20th century while knowing all about it wasn’t selfish ? It’s always the Others, is it ?

We have the evidence that what we’re doing is damaging the planet though - did they have this 200 years ago?

 

[Geezertronic]

So a genuine question here - if the speed limit was reduced from 60mph to 50mph on a single lane A road, the throughput of traffic per hour would go down I assume which might mean an increase in pollution if jams occur as a result? Would that be the case or is it a negligible impact?

 

[telstarbox]

Throughput isn't directly related to speed because vehicles need to leave more headway at higher speed (think of the 'two second rule').