Greens pushing to reduce speed limits

pburns

According to today's Sunday Times the Greens are plotting for a 'temporary' reduction in speed limits - from 120kph to 100kph on motorways and 100kph to 80kph on prinary roads in a bid to enable Ireland to meet it's Kyoto targets. That's a 60 limit on motorways and 50mph on other roads! Naturally the RSA is making positive noises about all of this:rolleyes:.
The move is aping similar legislation in Spain and Germany.

So...whatya think?

Caoimhín

Another daft hippie idea from the tofu munchers.

peasant

Bollox ..utter bollox ...that's what I think of it.

Ensure that all traffic flows freely, without unneccesary stop and go, provide useable public transport alternatives, incentivise car sharing for commuters (simplified insurance and a tax break), provide park and ride facilities ...and you will cut down private transport related emissions by a far better margin.

Im gonna be a bit simplistic here but I`ll go for it anyway..........

If fuel is so expensive for people they will drop speed to save the money of their own accord. Rather than make it illegal to do 70mph the people in my hypothetical scenario will do 70mph when they are in a hurry or whatever but will do 50mph to save money generally.


Whats wrong with leaving things the way they are then? Any flaws in my logic?

peasant

peasant wrote: »

Bollox ..utter bollox ...that's what I think of it.

Ensure that all traffic flows freely, without unneccesary stop and go, provide useable public transport alternatives, incentivise car sharing for commuters (simplified insurance and a tax break), provide park and ride facilities ...and you will cut down private transport related emissions by a far better margin.

bah ! dont be so sensible ! :rolleyes:

Andrewf20

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4597538.ece

Duiske

Deleted User wrote: »

If fuel is so expensive for people they will drop speed to save the money of their own accord. Rather than make it illegal to do 70mph the people in my hypothetical scenario will do 70mph when they are in a hurry or whatever but will do 50mph to save money generally.

Pretty much agree with that. Anyway, its not exactly a new idea. It was done in the UK during the oil crisis in the mid 70's.
Congress in the US are discussing doing the same thing at the moment.
In Spain they are reducing speed limits by 20% in the next few months, but are going a bit further,ie, turning off every second street light, sending 2 energy saving lightbulbs to every home in the country.
Also, all public buildings except for hospitals will be required to set their thermostats no lower than 26 degrees Celsius in summer and no higher than 21 degrees Celsius in winter.

Reckon the Spaniards make our Greens look a tad impotent tbh.

ninty9er

The can go fuck themselves!!!

skyhighflyer

And you just know if they get away with this, that's it; the limits will stay the same forever. Look at the USA, they lowered the limits in the 70s due to the fuel crisis and they stayed that way for more than 20 years :eek:

Fcuking Greens, obviously decent public transport isn't possible to make happen so let's just penalise people wth no alternative. Again.

Than again, by allowing them into governmant the Irish have only themselves to blame. *Rubs hands in anticiaption of next general election* Cnuts.

ninty9er

General consensus from people I've spoken to within FF (not ministers or anything, but on the ground) is the only reason we have motorway limits at all is because the standard of driving here is sh1t.

Sully

ninty9er wrote: »

General consensus from people I've spoken to within FF (not ministers or anything, but on the ground) is the only reason we have motorway limits at all is because the standard of driving here is sh1t.

I think its safe to blame FF partly for that.

Schism

In all fairness a speed limit of 50mph on a primary road? It just doesn't make sense in any other way than environmentally. Sure the RSA would love to see it, but the speed limit doesn't take into account the amount of idiot drivers out there.

Surely there are better solutions available or other avenues that could be explored.

ninty9er

Sully wrote: »

I think its safe to blame FF partly for that.

Not particularly....mainly, yes...but I don't see anyone else proferring solutions or doing anything when they've had the chance.

People will drive however fast they like, criminalising it doesn't help the environment.

is_that_so

Schism wrote: »

In all fairness a speed limit of 50mph on a primary road? It just doesn't make sense in any other way than environmentally. Sure the RSA would love to see it, but the speed limit doesn't take into account the amount of idiot drivers out there.

Surely there are better solutions available or other avenues that could be explored.

Actually the Spaniards reckon it will save them billions on fuel imports which was their reason for doing it but it also makes them look good environmentally.

Sully

ninty9er wrote: »

Not particularly....mainly, yes...but I don't see anyone else proferring solutions or doing anything when they've had the chance.

People will drive however fast they like, criminalising it doesn't help the environment.

Well even common sense comes into play with the whole "Anyone can drive without experience, even if your told your not a competent driver" and they finally "fixed" that and its gone back to normal it seems. There is a lot the government could do to fix that crisis. But alas, thats an issue for another topic.

The issue at hand of course, well I think people wont listen to it. People are disgusted with speed limits as they are, and reducing them will just see a rise in people breaking them. As another poster mentioned, there are many other ways to tackle the problem of the environment without having to tell everyone to "Slow down to save the environment". I think the alternative ways will be very beneficial for a lot of people, never mind the environment.

NewApproach

I despise the Greens.

First they increase the taxes, making it more expensive to drive a car.

Now they go and penalise people who have one again by trying to decrease speed limits.

Why cant they try and cut emmissions in another way, instead of targeting motorists over and over again??

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

VH

Deleted User wrote: »

If fuel is so expensive for people they will drop speed to save the money of their own accord

most wont - you can't trust people to be sensible

if you could we wouldnt have the government we currently have

da7a

another boards thread on it here

I will be sending a strongly worded email expressing my disgust at this proposal to Noel Dempsey and the giant idiot behind the proposal - Dan Boyle. The more negative comment they get over this the less likely it will be to come into force.

I will also be getting in touch with my local TD about this. The Greens are sihting all over us with thier wacko policies and I am sick to the teeth of it.

As I mentioned in the other thread, banning the production of portland cement in favour of GBBS cement would save millions of tonnes of c02 emmissions per year. Changing the speed limits would have a negligable effect on our over all c02 emmisions compared to this.

The only way to deal with the Greens is to make it clear to the Fianna Failers in power that the Greens will be taking them down with them in the next election if they are allowed to continue to implement thier daft policies.

Noel Dempsey - Minister for Transport
Dan Boyle - Wacko Car Hater

VH

VH wrote: »

most wont - you can't trust people to be sensible

if you could we wouldnt have the government we currently have

what do you mean "trust people to be sensible".
Whats sensible to you may not be sensible to others.

Driving at 50mph or 70mph, it totally depends on the engine and gearing.
Some engines are better cruising.

A 2.4 litre diesel alfa romeo will do:
46 mpg at 56mph
and
45mpg at 70mph

So lets criminalise people for 1mpg

Its backward. Lets get some forward thinking for a change and less reactionary politics that FOOLS people into thinking politicians are doing something.....
Dont be fooled!

EDIT:
well well well,
I did more searching
and

A Toyota Corolla 1.4 petrol will do:
28mpg at 56mph
and
35mpg at 70mph

and 41mpg in "city driving conditions"


so its obviously a car that is designed for ****ty traffic.
Go check out the cars yourselves:
http://www.upsolute.ie/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,42/

Andrewf20

Corolla 1.4 doing 28mpg at 56mph? Doesnt sound right, my 323i would easily sit at 40 - 50mpg at this speed. Can a 1.4 be that hard hit at this speed?

41mpg in the city vs 28mpg at 56mph. I reckon these numbers are the wrong way around. I checked a host of other cars. Alot show mpgs getting worse at 75mph vs 56mph.

Rowley Birkin QC

Deleted User wrote: »

If fuel is so expensive for people they will drop speed to save the money of their own accord.

I wouldn't, if I'm going somewhere I want to get there as fast as legally possible. I'm not going to slow down to save a few euro and spend more time travelling. Life is too short to be at that kind of nonsense.

Even at a psychological level travelling at 100km on a motorway spec road would drive me absolutely mental.

*waits for cyclopath to hail this as the best idea ever.

maidhc

Why are we inconveniencing ourselves and costing ourselves money to meet the Kyoto targets when most of the globe is ignoring them?

I'm no fan of Bush, but in fairness he was a realist when it came to Kyoto.

ninty9er

maidhc wrote: »

Why are we inconveniencing ourselves and costing ourselves money to meet the Kyoto targets when most of the globe is ignoring them?

I'm no fan of Bush, but in fairness he was a realist when it came to Kyoto.

With the move from fossils to renewables, and the move from heavy industry to a knowledge economy I don't think it's necessary to do all that much to reach our Kyoto targets. Just because everyone else is jumping of the Empire State Building doesn't mean we should too, does it

I'm not a believer in the mentality that because everyone else it doing it, we should too. And that's the whole point of this thread.

AugustusMaximus

I urge all people here to send both Dan Boyle and Noel Dempsey a line showing your utter disgust for these ideas.

Bloody disgrace. Boyle does nothing but blow hot air.

ninty9er

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

I urge all people here to send both Dan Boyle and Noel Dempsey a line showing your utter disgust for these ideas.

Bloody disgrace. Boyle does nothing but blow hot air.

I imagine it'll go the way of Mary White's "let old learners drive locally" policy.

VH

Deleted User wrote: »

what do you mean "trust people to be sensible".

this

Deleted User wrote: »

If fuel is so expensive for people they will drop speed to save the money of their own accord

VH

Deleted User wrote: »

A 2.4 litre diesel alfa romeo will do:

can you see the flaw in that argument?

edit: quoting the website of a company that chips cars doesnt mean the figures are correct - in fact i would say they are accidentally backways on that site

bigkev49

bigkev49 wrote: »

I wouldn't, if I'm going somewhere I want to get there as fast as legally possible. I'm not going to slow down to save a few euro and spend more time travelling. Life is too short to be at that kind of nonsense.

Even at a psychological level travelling at 100km on a motorway spec road would drive me absolutely mental.

*waits for cyclopath to hail this as the best idea ever.

+1

also most people dont keep the limits that are in it now so why would they expect people to drive at a reduced limit. 120km/h is already too slow for a motorway and they want to reduce it for this complete myth they call global warming. Absolute rubbish!!

VH

Dario Microscopic Seabed wrote: »

this complete myth they call global warming. Absolute rubbish!!

the spanish are doing it to reduce the demand for imported oil - seems reasonable to me

VH

VH wrote: »

the spanish are doing it to reduce the demand for imported oil - seems reasonable to me

There is no reason good enough for a reduction in speed limits(obviously a dangerous stretch of road etc would be an exception). If I want to spend my money on petrol/diesel thats my business and not the governments job to force me to change my ways to meet there stupid plans. The way things are going it will soon be illegal to drive atall.

afatbollix

Dario Microscopic Seabed wrote: »

+1

also most people dont keep the limits that are in it now so why would they expect people to drive at a reduced limit. 120km/h is already too slow for a motorway and they want to reduce it for this complete myth they call global warming. Absolute rubbish!!

no its called climate change now!!

point im making is that its all a load of ****e that they them selfs don't even know the facts about...

we havent heard about the hole in the ozone lyair in a long time now because its now getting smaller.. and it has been proved that it attually gets bigger and smaller all the time....



also im sick of the ****e weather in ireland so by the time im retiring its 30 c + and sandy beaches ill drive at 90 mph just to help it.....

VH

Dario Microscopic Seabed wrote: »

There is no reason good enough for a reduction in speed limits(obviously a dangerous stretch of road etc would be an exception).

you're entitled to your opinion - but not everyone is going to agree with that

reducing demand will reduce price - would taking 20c off the cost of a litre be good enough reason?

peasant

VH ...are you actually

a) in support of this proposed speed limit
or
b) just posting here to niggle at others' posts

if
a) ...then just say so
or
b) ..stop it


and btw ...this is a warning

AugustusMaximus

VH wrote: »

you're entitled to your opinion - but not everyone is going to agree with that

reducing demand will reduce price - would taking 20c off the cost of a litre be good enough reason?

it seems to me you have no idea what you are talking about.

the price at the pump is generated by the price of oil on the international market, rates of tax on petrol and diesel and the overheads of the seperate vendors.

are you saying that the reduction of oil used in ireland by lowering the speed limit will noticabley reduce the world wide price of a barrel of oil ? are you having a laugh ?

it might knock a dollar off the price of a barrel of oil if China did this and that might result in a less than a cent reduction at the pump

VH

peasant wrote: »

VH ...are you actually

a) in support of this proposed speed limit
or
b) just posting here to niggle at others' posts

if
a) ...then just say so
or
b) ..stop it


and btw ...this is a warning

in support of giving it a try - if enough contries get serious about conservation then it will have an effect

what is the warning for?

AugustusMaximus

What would the cost be in both money and carbon emissions to change every single sign neccessary ?

VH

VH wrote: »

most wont - you can't trust people to be sensible

but the flaw in what your saying is when you take liberty at what is deemed "sensible".

anto-t wrote: »

also im sick of the ****e weather in ireland so by the time im retiring its 30 c + and sandy beaches ill drive at 90 mph just to help it.....

you know the upside of places turning to desert with climate change is when tundra thaws out and other areas become arable

Sandwich

Sounds like a load of nonesense to make the greens feel as if they are doing something about the environment.

All the oil is going to be burned anyway - its not as if anything will be saved - just postponed - if its not burned by China anyway before we would have a chance to use it ourselves.

The 'Cut the Crap - Keep Speeds Up' campaign starts here.

VH

Deleted User wrote: »

you know the upside of places turning to desert with climate change is when tundra thaws out and other areas become arable

edit: getting shouted down, and then stuff like the above makes debating anything on this forum not possible

thats me done with this thread

AugustusMaximus

VH, any chance of a response to my critique of your price-demand theory ?

VH

VH wrote: »

edit: getting shouted down, and then stuff like the above makes debating anything on this forum not possible

thats me done with this thread

oh dont be so serious - its the internet! and dont take it personally some people just like to debate
Ive been known to debate in favour of opposing sides in the same thread :D:D

but there is an element of truth in the tundra/desertification !

Heroditas

This has to be one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard. Pure and utter tokenism.
Perhaps the Greens should look at investment in more wind farms. Oh wait, they're leaving that to the independent electricity generators in this country, along with Bord na Mona. :rolleyes:

VH

VH wrote: »

in support of giving it a try - if enough contries get serious about conservation then it will have an effect

QUOTE]

If countries wanted to get serious about conservation they would be shutting down fossil fuel power plants and building nuclear power plants rather than always hitting at motorists. The emissions from cars dont come near to what is produced by power generation. This would also save fuel so we can enjoy driving petrol and diesel cars for many years to come. But at the end of the day climate change(well humans causing climate change) is a myth. The earth goes through phases of heating and cooling naturally and we just happen to be experiencing a heating cycle.;)

AugustusMaximus

I'd also like to comment on Dan Boyle today saying that Nuclear Fuel is finite.

In fact, at current consumption levels, there is enough Uranium 235 and 238 to last 10,000 years. He is under the impression that it will run out within 50 years as are friends of the earth for some reason.

SV

They can try to reduce them all they want, they'll always be broken by me and the majority of others and very happily so.

Flyer1

What a STUPID idea. This country is really really going to the effin dogs. You can't take a slash without there being some regulation over it.

I'm all for more wind farms, I do believe they do some good, and maybe the odd solar panel etc. But when it comes to daily transport, if it ain't broke, then don't fix it !

This Global Warming BS has given politicians and the likes a little flag to wave every time they want the public's attention.

They will not cut fuel taxes, they will not do anything to help the small guy in this country. This proposed speed limit reduction won't save lives, won't help us hit our Kyoto limit. Most of all it will hit us all in longer travel times ( more time spent with the engine's running, more time spent behind that Toyota Corolla, more of us getting tickets for going a needle's width over the speed limit because we have to be somewhere ).

is_that_so

Dario Microscopic Seabed wrote: »

There is no reason good enough for a reduction in speed limits(obviously a dangerous stretch of road etc would be an exception). If I want to spend my money on petrol/diesel thats my business and not the governments job to force me to change my ways to meet there stupid plans. The way things are going it will soon be illegal to drive at all.

Fossil fuel dependencies go beyond you and your car. As a policy on its own I agree it serves no particularly useful purpose beyond Green Party PR, but as a part of a range of measures as the Spanish are embracing it does make sense.

RobAMerc

Green party = retards

this isn't even worth debating tbh

AugustusMaximus

AugustusMaximus wrote: »

I'd also like to comment on Dan Boyle today saying that Nuclear Fuel is finite.

In fact, at current consumption levels, there is enough Uranium 235 and 238 to last 10,000 years. He is under the impression that it will run out within 50 years as are friends of the earth for some reason.

50 years of nuclear fuel left. These people actually know less than I though they did. Why do people comment on things they know absolutely nothing about.

Im sure you would agree Augustus that even 10,000 years(of nuclear fuel rather than uranium) would be a very low estimate espically with the use of breeder reactors and other fuel sources. wont get into it here as this would be drifting of topic me thinks. Sorry!

AugustusMaximus

Dario Microscopic Seabed wrote: »

50 years of nuclear fuel left. These people actually know less than I though they did. Why do people comment on things they know absolutely nothing about.

Im sure you would agree Augustus that even 10,000 years(of nuclear fuel rather than uranium) would be a very low estimate espically with the use of breeder reactors and other fuel sources. wont get into it here as this would be drifting of topic me thinks. Sorry!

Sorry to go OT but....

Well fast breeder reactors are neccessary to use Uranium 238 as a fuel which is very plentiful in the earths crust.

The figure of 10,000 years is of known reserves btw.

If you were to produce every single bit of energy the world needs from nuclear, I suppose you could drop this figure to maybe 500 or 600 years. This is still a massive amount of energy.

Many times the amount of energy stored in all other fossil fuels combined.

You would hope by 600 years another alternative such as Fusion power would be ready.

Marcus.Aurelius

It is heartwarming to see the greens preaching their braindead agenda again, I was getting worried about them for a while, no psychotic tax-making incentives slightly veiled by environmental/safety fascism.

I think it's a terrible idea, their numbers don't add up, its hideously unethical and they are lying outright about the reasons.

Private motorists are responsible for less than 10% max of total emissions, why are they bullied so fiercely by the greens?

Outright cowardice, they are too spineless to hit the industrialists; always hammer the guy with the least power, the middle and lower classes.

I'm disgusted at Fianna Fáil, I thought they had some control over these despicable fools.