Spain cutting speed limit to reduce oil imports. Will we?

trap4

So, after the inter-urbans are finally built will we see the speed limit reduced to 80kph in order to reduce fuel consumption / emissions, like is happening in Spain? -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/30/energyefficiency.travelandtransport

AugustusMaximus

80kph on dual carriageways is insane.

I can't even begin to think of the road rage which will happen.

This would bring down a government here.

JHMEG

That article is well worth the read. Fair play to the Spanish in being so radical. No fear of anything like that here. We're always last.

who_ru

JHMEG wrote: »

That article is well worth the read. Fair play to the Spanish in being so radical. No fear of anything like that here. We're always last.

that's because the public decided to elect a bunch of idealess incomptent people whose only real agenda is to stay in office, nothing else.

1huge1

well considering there increasing the speed of dual carriageways here... I don´t see this having any impact here

1huge1

1huge1 wrote: »

well considering there increasing the speed of dual carriageways here... I don´t see this having any impact here

Well, changing the signs, everyone already drives 120 ish anyway

It would be like going back to the early 70's oil crisis when the UK* (& others) dropped the maximum speed to 50mph.



*don't know about Ireland, I didn't live here then.

Victor

General speed limit dropped from 60mph to 55mph. Of course the 50mph limit also all but disappeared, only ever saw one ever - in Limerick.

AugustusMaximus

Victor wrote: »

General speed limit dropped from 60mph to 55mph. Of course the 50mph limit also all but disappeared, only ever saw one ever - in Limerick.

I'm guessing no one stuck to the new limit. I can't imagine enforcement was too stringent back then.

Does this 80kph in Spain apply to all national roads including dual carriageways and motorways ?

L1011

Didn't the 55 here also cover motorways? My mother was convinced the limit was 55 right up until she did her test in '96... (it was rescinded in the 1980s).

paddy

who_ru wrote: »

that's because the public decided to elect a bunch of idealess incomptent people whose only real agenda is to stay in office, nothing else.

Sounds just like Ireland:(

With the points system as it is most drivers would be banned within weeks (assuming an enforcement policy was invoked) thus bringing down the economy (even further than it is already being dragged down).

giveth

I can't see Spaniards sticking to the new limit. Most drivers (at least down south) break the existing limit going about 160kmph on motorways.

E92

JHMEG wrote: »

That article is well worth the read. Fair play to the Spanish in being so radical. No fear of anything like that here. We're always last.

Actually, we were one of the first.

Remember 20 January 2005, when we cut speed limits on around 95% of our roads by 10 mph on the changeover to metric speed limits, and for good measure we cut the 40 mph speed limit to 37 as well as introuducing a speed limit of 18.5 mph, beating the old lowest speed limit by 11.5 mph?

The M50 is also being cut from 120 to 100 as well as part of the upgrade.

Whever we build new roads we reclassify the old ones and reduce the speed limit on those by 20% as well.

It's only right that we are in the process of changing 190 miles of road to Motorway and allowing a speed limit of 120 km/h.

There reasons why we should have higher speed limits include the following:

safety benefits - if the Sweeds, an acknowledged leader in road safety, think it's a good idea to raise the speed limits on Motorways, then far be it from me to disagree with them

quality of life improvements - if we can go faster then we can get to wherever we want to get faster, which means more time at home with the family, can get up later in the morning to go to work etc

tax - going faster means you use a bit more fuel, so the Government makes more money there; they have to make money somewhere and I'd rather it be that than on VRT or stealth taxes etc

economy - the most obvious benefit, higher speed limits mean we can go wherever we want to faster, so business can be more efficient with delivery times, cut wage costs etc, in short it makes Ireland more competitive and thus better able to attract more and better jobs for Irish workers. If there's one thing businesses hate it is wasting time and higher speed limits mean less time is wasted on the roads

Victor

E92 wrote: »

Remember 20 January 2005, when we cut speed limits on around 95% of our roads by 10 mph on the changeover to metric speed limits, and for good measure we cut the 40 mph speed limit to 37 as well as introuducing a speed limit of 18.5 mph, beating the old lowest speed limit by 11.5 mph?

Perfectly reasonable, but they obviously needs to apply limits appropriate to local conditions.

The M50 is also being cut from 120 to 100 as well as part of the upgrade.

The lanes will be narrower and in any case a speed of 60kmh achieves optimum throughput.

Whever we build new roads we reclassify the old ones and reduce the speed limit on those by 20% as well.

An element of silliness.

safety benefits - if the Sweeds, an acknowledged leader in road safety, think it's a good idea to raise the speed limits on Motorways, then far be it from me to disagree with them

The VV is in the process of reducing most speed limits - I have that from the horses mouth.

quality of life improvements - if we can go faster then we can get to wherever we want to get faster, which means more time at home with the family, can get up later in the morning to go to work etc

Higher speed limits rarely achieve huge differences in travel time, bypassing congestion and the associated lower speeds is much more useful.

tax - going faster means you use a bit more fuel, so the Government makes more money there; they have to make money somewhere and I'd rather it be that than on VRT or stealth taxes etc

Not really a gain. There are losses through increase imports and while highly taxed, altrernative purchases are also taxed.

economy - the most obvious benefit, higher speed limits mean we can go wherever we want to faster, so business can be more efficient with delivery times, cut wage costs etc, in short it makes Ireland more competitive and thus better able to attract more and better jobs for Irish workers. If there's one thing businesses hate it is wasting time and higher speed limits mean less time is wasted on the roads

As above, higher speed limits achieve little - higher average speeds and reduce journey distances are much more important.

Stark

E92 wrote: »

Remember 20 January 2005, when we cut speed limits on around 95% of our roads by 10 mph on the changeover to metric speed limits, and for good measure we cut the 40 mph speed limit to 37 as well as introuducing a speed limit of 18.5 mph, beating the old lowest speed limit by 11.5 mph?

We did get a marginal increase in some limits though.
30mph -> 50km/hr (31mph)
60mph -> 100km/hr (62mph)
70mph -> 120km/hr (74.6mph)

The last one being a nice little bonus.

orbital83

Victor wrote: »

As above, higher speed limits achieve little - higher average speeds and reduce journey distances are much more important.

Not if we're talking about interurbans.

On a HQDC / motorway outside areas of urban congestion you can reasonably expect to be near the speed limit for most of the journey.
So cutting from 120kph to 80kph adds a third to journey times.

Besides, what is the point of building a road with a design specification for 160kmh and then imposing a limit of 80?
Scandalous waste of public money.

Even in areas affected by congestion, reducing speed limits lead to inefficiencies - consider haulage outside peak hours, for instance.

Not something I'd aspire to when the efficiency of our economy is already being called into question.

OP - I wouldn't lose sleep, we don't need any more nails in the coffin for the Celtic Tiger, if the more hardline Greens try to push this they'll be silenced before too long

Lennoxschips

80 km/hr is a really efficient speed though. I tried it once and the onboard computer gave a reading of 3.7 litres / 100 km, which was pretty damn impressive.

cyclopath2001

E92 wrote: »

safety benefits - if the Sweeds, an acknowledged leader in road safety, think it's a good idea to raise the speed limits on Motorways, then far be it from me to disagree with them

This has been mentioned a few times, but out of context. The Swedes, who are far from vegetative in their thinking, also have higher speeding fines than here (up to €430) and mandatory loss of licence for 2-6 months for depending on how much faster over the limit you were travelling. You lose it for +21kph in lower speed areas and for +31kph in higher speed areas.

I'd welcome measures that help our economy, but they must be accompanied by effective enforcement measures.

In business time is money, if someone can get an extra job done in the working day travelling at 120kmh rather than 80kmh, that would help the economy more than the saving in fuel costs.

cyclopath2001

Deleted User wrote: »

In business time is money, if someone can get an extra job done in the working day travelling at 120kmh rather than 80kmh, that would help the economy more than the saving in fuel costs.

Isn't that just a guess? There would be many factors in play. For example, changing the limits would skew the market in favour people who lived nearer the work.

BTW If the Spanish proposal were adopted here, the motorway limit would be reduced to 96kph, not 80kph as you imply. And, larger vehicles are already restricted to 80 kmh.

Lennoxschips

Deleted User wrote: »

In business time is money, if someone can get an extra job done in the working day travelling at 120kmh rather than 80kmh, that would help the economy more than the saving in fuel costs.

In terms of economy, the road systems are most important for trucking companies. They've been doing 80 km/hr for years purely for economy/fuel saving reasons.

So I don't know how exactly the economy benefits from a higher speed limit, I don't think it does at all.

People commuting are stuck in traffic and aren't doing 120 km/hr either, so that argument doesn't stick either.

The reason for a high limit is because people prefer it.

Flamed Diving

who_ru wrote: »

that's because the public decided to elect a bunch of idealess incomptent people whose only real agenda is to stay in office, nothing else.

How is that any different to every political party on the planet?

Lennoxschips

Lennoxschips wrote: »

So I don't know how exactly the economy benefits from a higher speed limit, I don't think it does at all.

The type of motorist I am thinking of are; multi-drop delivery (van) drivers, field service staff & sales reps. all of whom zip up-n-down the country all day. The speed limits (as well as congestion etc) will have an impact on their ability to earn.

Lennoxschips

The price of oil also does...

AugustusMaximus

Lennoxschips wrote: »

The price of oil also does...

Companies if they wish can limit their vehicles to 80kph in an attempt to save fuel.

In my mind, it shouldn't be the business of the government to act the Nanny state in an attempt to reduce our own oil consumption by reducing speed limits. In my mind, road safety should be the only justification for reduction in speed limits.

cyclopath2001

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

In my mind, road safety should be the only justification for reduction in speed limits.

Road safety is just one reason. Speeding degrades the quality of life of the areas where it occurs. The people affected deserve protection.

In the same way, if the general population decides that it's a good idea to cut back on wasteful fuel consumption practices (such as unproductive & excessive speed), we can't have speed enthusiasts slamming into the back of them.

The government's job is to look at the big picture and make changes that will benefit us in the future.

orbital83

Road safety is just one reason. Speeding degrades the quality of life of the areas where it occurs. The people affected deserve protection.

Agreed - so we have 30/50/60 limits where they're appropriate.
People don't live along motorways, so the limit is 120.

People commuting are stuck in traffic and aren't doing 120 km/hr either, so that argument doesn't stick either.

Yes, if you're commuting from Lucan to Dublin at rush hour, for instance.
No, if you're a long distance commuter, or someone for whom long distance travel is part of the job.

There would be many factors in play. For example, changing the limits would skew the market in favour people who lived nearer the work.

I think there are already enough factors skewed against people forced for family/financial reasons to live further away from work than they would like.
Forcing them to drag the kids out of bed half an hour earlier ain't gonna help.

I'd welcome measures that help our economy, but they must be accompanied by effective enforcement measures.

Time is money, and as with any proposal the benefits must be weighed against the costs, and of course the alternatives.

For instance, we could move to a four day working week, increase annual leave and add extra bank holidays.
That would introduce similar inefficiencies to the economy, but reduce pollution and oil imports.

Or we could do something progressive and sensible. First, prioritise technologies like high speed broadband that allow people to work from home, and provide financial incentives for companies that allow staff to work from home.
Zero commute - zero carbon - zero oil imports.
Then, for those who must commute, we could invest in public transport and cleaner, more efficient private transport.
We could incentivise people to use these technologies - instead of screwing them with poor service, stealth fees and a creaking state monopoly that uses public money to force private operators out of business.

Finally, we could explore ways to maximise use of the energy resources we have available to us within our own country.

Human beings were given brains for a reason. Not only were they given brains, but they were given brains with a much larger capacity than those of sheep.
It is our choice whether we want to use those brains to think hard, plot our own course and build a country with a better life for everyone.

Alternatively, we can just watch what other sheep are doing, and copy them blindly as they potter aimlessly round the field.
The painful job of thinking is avoided.

Personally, I view this as a strange proposal from a country that has always been "a little different" from a political point of view, and also happens to have an economy that is the basket case of Europe at the moment. (Admittedly, we're not far behind).