Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
37,542 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Drove to Erddig the other day. Lovely place, great day out, only one problem.

Rectum Wrexham.

Not the place itself, I’m sure it’s nowhere near as grim as folks make out. My only issue is that I don’t really want to be there, specifically I would like to, ahem, pass through as quickly as the laws of the highway allow.

There is the problem.

I drive through on the A483, which is a dual carriageway with a barrier between northbound and southbound carriageways. So, good people, according to the law of the land, what is the speed limit?

70mph?

Nope.


Fifty.

Fifty feckin miles per hour.

Because the poor people of RectWrexham will be coughing over their cornflakes unless I slow down by 20mph.

Really?

The road is never congested. There are never any queues when I drive through. At 70 in sixth my old diseasel heap does 50+ mpg. Is -2 mpg going to pollute the entire population of you-know-where?

So, a handful of whingers moan about something and everyone in the country has to fart through there at 50?

Really?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,553 Posts
It must be a North Wales thing. Just up the road at Queensferry there is exactly the same situation including a portion of three lane dual carriageway at 50mph. It always annoys me when we visit my sister-in-law at Ruthin. I can do 70mph on the M60 through Stockport but have to slow to 50mph for Queensferry. :grumpy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,183 Posts
So, a handful of whingers moan about something and everyone in the country has to fart through there at 50?

Really?
Usually these kinds of speed reductions are made to keep noise and pollution down.

Slowing from 70 to 50 for a few miles will add 5 minutes to your journey. Why not just leave 5 minutes earlier?


Ralf S.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
Also travelling at 50 rather than 70 means you'll be in the area longer and therefore polluting for longer. I can't see how this helps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,247 Posts
Also travelling at 50 rather than 70 means you'll be in the area longer and therefore polluting for longer. I can't see how this helps.
Quite simple really if you really want to know and are not being facetious.

It isn't a function of time at all in this case, instead it is of the pollution created for a given distance.
Example: all numbers are selected to keep it simple and these are they-
At 35 m.p.h. the consumption, and therefore pollution emitted, will be less than if the same vehicle is travelling at 70 m.p.h. all other variables kept the same. If that given distance is say 70 miles obviously the slower car will take 2 hours and the faster will take only 1 hour but the latter will have produced more pollution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
Quite simple really if you really want to know and are not being facetious.

It isn't a function of time at all in this case, instead it is of the pollution created for a given distance.
Example: all numbers are selected to keep it simple and these are they-
At 35 m.p.h. the consumption, and therefore pollution emitted, will be less than if the same vehicle is travelling at 70 m.p.h. all other variables kept the same. If that given distance is say 70 miles obviously the slower car will take 2 hours and the faster will take only 1 hour but the latter will have produced more pollution.
Agreed, but the difference isn't that great. I suppose if there's a million vehicles then the difference may have some effect.

Interesting that the government have considered raising the national speed limit to 80 when there are enough electric cars on the road and the pollution levels drop. That is until they realise that there isn't enough electricity to go around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,257 Posts
It’ll be interesting if VW has put all of it’s , and the works council and Lower Saxony regional, money in the wrong basket. And part of the bill is going to be all the pcp cars coming back in negative equity now they’ve said they’re obsolete.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,247 Posts
I really should've used 50 m.p.h and 70 m.p.h. but the numbers would've been a bit trickier. (I also used 35 and 70 as that is a doubling of velocity which would result in a quadrupling of air resistance and at constant velocity the fuel used is largely to overcome the force of drag).The difference in consumption at those speeds is significant as at about 50 m.p.h. many cars are in top gear at an engine speed which gives best results, lower, not so good, higher and worse by as much as 20%. The graphs and numbers to confirm that are easily researched.

I have read that the Netherlands are considering lowering speed limits as a concern over sea levels rising is, of course, a major one for a country that is under sea-level for a great part. In that case I can see their point!
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top