Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Ah, here we go - the latest cry from the eco-mentalists - tyre and brake particle emissions. Where that falls down is that by telling everyone to go out and buy electric cars - which are about 25% heavier than the equivalent ICE engined car - you put far more strain on those things.
And are most likely coming from lorries and buses than cars. Which since they already had lower speed limits means such measures either don't really affect them or are academic.
Ah, here we go - the latest cry from the eco-mentalists - tyre and brake particle emissions. Where that falls down is that by telling everyone to go out and buy electric cars - which are about 25% heavier than the equivalent ICE engined car - you put far more strain on those things.
Bit in bold - given the huge reduction in tail pipe emissions over the last 10+ years, driven entirely by technology and improvements to car design, such measures on "environmental" reasons aren't actually necessary and are really just a bit of virtue signalling, usually from the autocratic left in politics.
While it’s great that modern cars have reduced emissions reducing speed limits can instantly result in emissions reductions, rather than having to wait for new efficient cars filter through the system (and this assume that they remain well maintained over their lifespan). Exactly how much it reduces emissions will depend on various circumstances but it really shouldn’t be surprising to anyone, as everyone knows that if you reduce speed on motorways it will improve your fuel efficiency (with the added bonus of reducing your fuel bill).
To be fair Manchester doesn't have a ULEZ. If we enforced a national ULEZ you probably could lay off the ICE vehicles at least until something else is discovered.
I agree, older diesels stink. Must be as bad as smoking.
Ah, here we go - the latest cry from the eco-mentalists - tyre and brake particle emissions. Where that falls down is that by telling everyone to go out and buy electric cars - which are about 25% heavier than the equivalent ICE engined car - you put far more strain on those things.
Where did I tell everyone to buy an electric car? Please reference the post (doesn't have to be on this thread or recent).
I have maintained for a long time that BEVs were developed to save the car industry, not the planet. There's a niche for them - in situations such as rural dwellers (Surrey doesn't count) and delivery vehicles where a private vehicle may be the only option - but otherwise the future is walkable neighbourhoods and public transport. There should be almost no need to bring cars into cities at all.
I have maintained for a long time that BEVs were developed to save the car industry, not the planet. There's a niche for them - in situations such as rural dwellers (Surrey doesn't count) and delivery vehicles where a private vehicle may be the only option - but otherwise the future is walkable neighbourhoods and public transport. There should be almost no need to bring cars into cities at all.
Suspect you don't know just how rural some of the areas around London are given this. The North West (say) is much less rural than a lot of the commuter belt is, and the touristy bits of Wales act a lot less rural due to the massive tourist numbers, though admittedly the London commuter belt does lend itself to less car use - smaller towns (walkable/cyclable), usually not that hilly (but if they are, ebikes) and if you want to go anywhere else you've got the train. Though public transport between towns is generally poor if not on the way to/from London.
While it’s great that modern cars have reduced emissions reducing speed limits can instantly result in emissions reductions, rather than having to wait for new efficient cars filter through the system (and this assume that they remain well maintained over their lifespan). Exactly how much it reduces emissions will depend on various circumstances but it really shouldn’t be surprising to anyone, as everyone knows that if you reduce speed on motorways it will improve your fuel efficiency (with the added bonus of reducing your fuel bill).
No - the claim is there's evidence it doesn't *increase* them - not that it reduces them. And knowing a bit about "Connected Places Catalpault" and of more consequence the quality of some of the people they employ, I'd place less store by anything they say than anything which would have been published in the Sunday Sport.
So now that has been busted, it all of a sudden becomes an "environmental" imperative.
I suspect the reality is the proponents of such schemes are just anti-car in general and shift their argument as each of their claims gets addressed. I suspect some people won't be happy until we've regresed to the late 1800s and we have somebody walking in front of each car brandishing a red flag (a red flag being entirely suitable given the political views of such people).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Where did I tell everyone to buy an electric car? Please reference the post (doesn't have to be on this thread or recent).
I have maintained for a long time that BEVs were developed to save the car industry, not the planet. There's a niche for them - in situations such as rural dwellers (Surrey doesn't count) and delivery vehicles where a private vehicle may be the only option - but otherwise the future is walkable neighbourhoods and public transport. There should be almost no need to bring cars into cities at all.
Bit in bold - very North Korean. Good luck with persuading those of us who don't live in societies where it is believed governments act in the interests of their people.
And Surrey has places which are equally rural as parts of Yorkshire - so that kind of sneering really demeans your argument.
Bit in bold - very North Korean. Good luck with persuading those of us who don't live in societies where it is believed governments act in the interests of their people.
Wouldn't you prefer to be able to walk to the local shop or takeaway than have to drive there?
My doctor's surgery is 7 minutes' walk (walking speeds are very consistent, almost to the second) and has a pharmacy in the same building - why would I want it so I had to drive there?
The objections to 15 minute cities, which are simply cities laid out so all basic services are within 15 minutes' walk (ideal) or cycle (less ideal but still good), are bizarre in the extreme. Do you and other objectors like driving so much that a 10 minute urban drive is enjoyable and so you'd prefer to do it than not? I enjoy a drive on a scenic country lane, but urban driving is purgatory.
Remember that Milton Keynes, the city of the car, is very close to being a 15 minute city.
Wouldn't you prefer to be able to walk to the local shop or takeaway than have to drive there?
My doctor's surgery is 7 minutes' walk (walking speeds are very consistent, almost to the second) and has a pharmacy in the same building - why would I want it so I had to drive there?
The objections to 15 minute cities, which are simply cities laid out so all basic services are within 15 minutes' walk (ideal) or cycle (less ideal but still good), are bizarre in the extreme. Do you and other objectors like driving so much that a 10 minute urban drive is enjoyable and so you'd prefer to do it than not? I enjoy a drive on a scenic country lane, but urban driving is purgatory.
Remember that Milton Keynes, the city of the car, is very close to being a 15 minute city.
I can and do walk to my local convenience store (which is 5 minutes away) - but that's the only thing which *is* 5 minutes away. I don't want to live in a 5 or 10 minute walk from a major supermarket or doctors or large shops - I much prefer to live somewhere further our away from such developments and use my car when I need to get to them.
This kind of "15 minute city" planning is akin to the planning of the 1950s and 1960s with things like the New Towns - and most of those are utter dumps which I wouldn't want to live in.
I can and do walk to my local convenience store (which is 5 minutes away) - but that's the only thing which *is* 5 minutes away. I don't want to live in a 5 or 10 minute walk from a major supermarket or doctors or large shops - I much prefer to live somewhere further our away from such developments and use my car when I need to get to them.
I can understand you not wanting to live that close to a major supermarket due to the traffic issues it might cause (though in reality with 15 minute cities you have more, smaller supermarkets - you don't need the huge football pitch sized ones, the one I prefer going to is much smaller so you can get round quicker - Sainsbury's Shenley if you're familiar with it). But a surgery? The traffic at one of those is lower than a petrol station or parade of local shops.
But in reality 10 minutes is far enough that you won't experience any negative effects at all. You don't have to live next door!
This kind of "15 minute city" planning is akin to the planning of the 1950s and 1960s with things like the New Towns - and most of those are utter dumps which I wouldn't want to live in.
As someone who lives in one (well, technically in the 1960s pre-New Town overspill bit, but it acts pretty similarly, it just looks older) I'd say it's its best feature. Traditional medium towns with the smaller parades of shops really lose out on ease of accessing facilities.
Many of the other New Towns aren't nice, but that's more the people than the place, largely because if you move a load of people out of sink estates into a new-build sink estate what do you expect to happen? MK works much better with mixed tenure and mixed economic groups.
I can understand you not wanting to live that close to a major supermarket due to the traffic issues it might cause (though in reality with 15 minute cities you have more, smaller supermarkets - you don't need the huge football pitch sized ones, the one I prefer going to is much smaller so you can get round quicker - Sainsbury's Shenley if you're familiar with it). But a surgery? The traffic at one of those is lower than a petrol station or parade of local shops.
But in reality 10 minutes is far enough that you won't experience any negative effects at all. You don't have to live next door!
Well you may like going to "smaller" supermarkets - I don't, because the range is more limited and the likelihood of it not having what you want is much greater. The costs of operating smaller stores are also much higher which in turn leads to higher prices.
As someone who lives in one (well, technically in the 1960s pre-New Town overspill bit, but it acts pretty similarly, it just looks older) I'd say it's its best feature. Traditional medium towns with the smaller parades of shops really lose out on ease of accessing facilities.
And I grew up in a town which was extended by the New Towns commission and within close proximity of at least 3 others which were extended by the NTC and I can safely say they are all places I don't want to live. Likewise I worked in MK for 20 years - and the best bit of my day was getting in my car to get out of MK - I never even contemplated living there. If you like it - then fine, but not everyone shares your view.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
In a public statement Professor Russell said: “Government proposals for a 20mph speed limit in towns across the UK have highlighted two great deficiencies.
“There are no current speed cameras capable of accurately measuring 20mph. And many who advocate an in-town 20mph limit are actually supporting the change in order to reduce pollution. However, to drive at 20mph or lower (instead of 30mph) requires use of lower gears; and that demands higher engine speeds – that demand more fuel. That is what gears do.
“Hence it takes half as long again to cover at 20mph the same distance as at 30mph. Therefore wherever vehicles are restricted to lower speeds they must increase their exhaust pollution by 50%.”
And I grew up in a town which was extended by the New Towns commission and within close proximity of at least 3 others which were extended by the NTC and I can safely say they are all places I don't want to live. Likewise I worked in MK for 20 years - and the best bit of my day was getting in my car to get out of MK - I never even contemplated living there. If you like it - then fine, but not everyone shares your view.
Of course you don't have to make the town look like MK in order to implement the local centre concept, you just need to purchase some land and build a local centre. It's in my view bizarre to object to improved local facilities. And if you really want isolation, why do you live in a town at all? Living in a rural village will remain an option.
It seems clear that before too long quite a lot of urban petrol stations will become available as land - they'd be a start. And some already provide decent local shopping facilities - you just need to remove the petrol bit when no longer needed.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That comment on speed cameras is deliberate obfuscation. Most speed cameras don't measure any speed perfectly accurately, which is why the 10% + 2mph speed enforcement guideline exists. It means they don't have to be absolutely 100% precise to enforce against the people who really matter - those going significantly over the limit, not people doing 21 in a 20 because they drifted over briefly.
Many of the other New Towns aren't nice, but that's more the people than the place, largely because if you move a load of people out of sink estates into a new-build sink estate what do you expect to happen? MK works much better with mixed tenure and mixed economic groups.
Yeah - places like Fishermead, Coffee Hall, Bean Hill, Conniburrow et al all kinda disprove that.
Oddly enough I know somebody who was an architect for some of those estates in the late 1960s and he admitted they built them with alot of high minded idealism of the time, he went back to look at some of those places more recently and recognised things really hadn't turned out as they'd hoped.
So maybe, let's not repeat the mistakes of the 1960s and 1970s.
The failing estates in Milton Keynes, such as the ones listed, are generally ones which weren't very mixed at the start - they were mostly London overspill. Though it's notable that Fishermead, generally regarded to be the worst estate in MK, is nowhere near as bad as "sink estates" in other medium to large cities. There's nowhere in MK I won't walk alone, at least during the day - there are absolutely places in Manchester or London I wouldn't.
Later estates with a much more mixed tenure such as Furzton work much better.
I agree, but the Local Centre concept which gives rise to your sort-of-15-minute-city wasn't one of those mistakes, and indeed is incorporated into most large new developments throughout the country - think the likes of Berryfields in Aylesbury, or Buckshaw Village.
No - the claim is there's evidence it doesn't *increase* them - not that it reduces them. And knowing a bit about "Connected Places Catalpault" and of more consequence the quality of some of the people they employ, I'd place less store by anything they say than anything which would have been published in the Sunday Sport.
So now that has been busted, it all of a sudden becomes an "environmental" imperative.
I suspect the reality is the proponents of such schemes are just anti-car in general and shift their argument as each of their claims gets addressed. I suspect some people won't be happy until we've regresed to the late 1800s and we have somebody walking in front of each car brandishing a red flag (a red flag being entirely suitable given the political views of such people).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Bit in bold - very North Korean. Good luck with persuading those of us who don't live in societies where it is believed governments act in the interests of their people.
And Surrey has places which are equally rural as parts of Yorkshire - so that kind of sneering really demeans your argument.
The study you’ve linked does indeed report reductions in collisions, injuries, and number of vehicles - all good things regardless of whether you deem the reductions “significant” or not.
I for one am happy for 20mph limits as it would make cycling feel a lot safer and may make me feel safe enough to use roundabouts while reducing folk trying to overtake me.
That comment on speed cameras is deliberate obfuscation. Most speed cameras don't measure any speed perfectly accurately, which is why the 10% + 2mph speed enforcement guideline exists. It means they don't have to be absolutely 100% precise to enforce against the people who really matter - those going significantly over the limit, not people doing 21 in a 20 because they drifted over briefly.
No it isn't - it's a statement of fact, along with the fact that speedometers aren't 100% accurate - yet the eco-nutters will demand zero tolerance of speeding.
It also breeds paranoia in less confident drivers - you already see this on those who stick rigidly to just under the existing limits - so with 20mph they'll be backing traffic up at 15mph because they are afraid / paranoid about getting a ticket for doing 21mph. Now you might argue such people shouldn't be driving - but that's a pretty discriminatory attitude.
The failing estates in Milton Keynes, such as the ones listed, are generally ones which weren't very mixed at the start - they were mostly London overspill. Though it's notable that Fishermead, generally regarded to be the worst estate in MK, is nowhere near as bad as "sink estates" in other medium to large cities. There's nowhere in MK I won't walk alone, at least during the day - there are absolutely places in Manchester or London I wouldn't.
Later estates with a much more mixed tenure such as Furzton work much better.
I agree, but the Local Centre concept which gives rise to your sort-of-15-minute-city wasn't one of those mistakes, and indeed is incorporated into most large new developments throughout the country - think the likes of Berryfields in Aylesbury, or Buckshaw Village.
Went on a weekend away to Milton Keynes earlier this year and was great fun cycling into the city from our hotel at the stadium on the Santander bikes - just a shame it seemed many opted for the car and the cycle tracks were relatively quiet.
The study you’ve linked does indeed report reductions in collisions, injuries, and number of vehicles - all good things regardless of whether you deem the reductions “significant” or not.
I for one am happy for 20mph limits as it would make cycling feel a lot safer and may make me feel safe enough to use roundabouts while reducing folk trying to overtake me.
Small reductions in road traffic collisions of 3% and 15%, respectively, were observed 1 and 3 years after the policy took effect. But there was no statistically significant difference over time.
Similarly, casualty rates fell by 16% and 22%, respectively, 1 and 3 years after implementation, but these reductions weren’t statistically significant.
Basically saying the reductions could have been a natural fluctuation over time - so these reductions are not a direct consequence of the reduced speed limit.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I agree, but the Local Centre concept which gives rise to your sort-of-15-minute-city wasn't one of those mistakes, and indeed is incorporated into most large new developments throughout the country - think the likes of Berryfields in Aylesbury, or Buckshaw Village.
How about revisiting those places in 20 years time to see whether they were successful or not ?
Too often the high minded idealism hasn't worked out in developments, be it the New Towns of the 1950s, the High Rises of the 1960s, the mixed developments of the 1970s etc - none have stood the test of time particularly well.
Basically saying the reductions could have been a natural fluctuation over time - so these reductions are not a direct consequence of the reduced speed limit.
No - the claim being made by the proponents of 20mph is it reduces casualties - the findings of Queens are that the reduction shown in the immediate years are not statistically significant i.e. well within the usual fluctuation you might see from one year to the next - or in other words, had the speed limit been left unchanged at 30mph you may well have seen that reduction in casualties in any case.
No it isn't - it's a statement of fact, along with the fact that speedometers aren't 100% accurate - yet the eco-nutters will demand zero tolerance of speeding.
I don't see anyone demanding a move from the 10% + 2mph system. Do you have a reputable source stating that anyone is actually campaigning for that? Plus it's not specifically to do with 20mph - indeed, accuracy reduces the faster you go - hence 10% rather than a fixed variation.
It also breeds paranoia in less confident drivers - you already see this on those who stick rigidly to just under the existing limits - so with 20mph they'll be backing traffic up at 15mph because they are afraid / paranoid about getting a ticket for doing 21mph. Now you might argue such people shouldn't be driving - but that's a pretty discriminatory attitude.
We do operate a deliberately discriminatory system for road use - we expect a basic level of skill to be reached before driving alone. There is certainly a bit of a skills issue there, but if there is then making the test harder and introducing other measures to improve skill (not sure what they'd be) is the solution, not saying "we can't have 20 limits because some people will drive at 15mph".
The thing I find most frustrating myself in lower limits is that people seem to just drive in a more leisurely way generally, FWIW. Personally I accelerate the same in any limit, it just tops out at the relevant limit, subject of course to road conditions. Because 20 involves a lower gear, that means I'll be from a stand to 20 in almost no time.
Went on a weekend away to Milton Keynes earlier this year and was great fun cycling into the city from our hotel at the stadium on the Santander bikes - just a shame it seemed many opted for the car and the cycle tracks were relatively quiet.
There are a few reasons cycling hasn't reached its potential in MK, one of them can be solved (it's really quite hilly, e-bikes are the fix), another is a cycle theft problem (secure storage facilities would help here, i.e. Dutch style bewaakte Fietsenstallingen - staffed parks where you have to show a ticket to get out) but there are also the difficult ones to solve i.e. it being very distributed, meaning you need to cycle a long way, which most people won't do.
Some also perceive a crime problem on the Redways, but this doesn't really exist. Criminals don't target them because there aren't enough people on them to be worthwhile!
How about revisiting those places in 20 years time to see whether they were successful or not ?
Too often the high minded idealism hasn't worked out in developments, be it the New Towns of the 1950s, the High Rises of the 1960s, the mixed developments of the 1970s etc - none have stood the test of time particularly well.
There are plenty of nice estates in MK with local centres that have been there more than 20 years. Furzton is one, I started my time in MK there and would happily live there again. There are also plenty of places with established local centre style parades of shops - Maghull is one. Just building a set of local shops, a surgery and a primary school isn't going to turn an estate into a dump.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No - the claim being made by the proponents of 20mph is it reduces casualties - the findings of Queens are that the reduction shown in the immediate years are not statistically significant i.e. well within the usual fluctuation you might see from one year to the next - or in other words, had the speed limit been left unchanged at 30mph you may well have seen that reduction in casualties in any case.
I admit that I was being facetious. I was making light of the way that people from significant towns in the commuter belt claim to be "rural". I even saw people moaning about the ULEZ and how Biggin Hill has apparently got no usable public transport. Granted, it's not exactly Zone 1 but complaining about "only" getting two buses per hour is a bit rich when really rural areas count buses per day or per week. Some people really don't know that they're born.
I admit that I was being facetious. I was making light of the way that people from significant towns in the commuter belt claim to be "rural". I even saw people moaning about the ULEZ and how Biggin Hill has apparently got no usable public transport. Granted, it's not exactly Zone 1 but complaining about "only" getting two buses per hour is a bit rich when really rural areas count buses per day or per week. Some people really don't know that they're born.
Ah, but then you get everyone wibbling about how the UK isn't the Netherlands (yeah, and?), how we've got the British weather (Amsterdam is colder and wetter on average), how the land isn't as flat (London isn't Amsterdam, but it's not Sheffield either), how we don't have the infrastructure (yet they spit feathers if money is invested in cycling infrastructure), and how roads are dangerous (try asking them to go at 20 to make them safer, see what the response is).
Ah, but then you get everyone wibbling about how the UK isn't the Netherlands (yeah, and?), how we've got the British weather (Amsterdam is colder and wetter on average), how the land isn't as flat (London isn't Amsterdam, but it's not Sheffield either), how we don't have the infrastructure (yet they spit feathers if money is invested in cycling infrastructure), and how roads are dangerous (try asking them to go at 20 to make them safer, see what the response is).
In any case the answer to "it's too hilly" is the e-bike. I've ridden both electric and regular "Sadiq cycles" in London and the difference is fairly small as it's quite flat (though the Lime ones perform more like small motorcycles with the pedalling being fairly incidental*), but if wanting to cycle in Sheffield or indeed Milton Keynes it really would help.
* The TfL ones are mid-motor - this type tends to provide assistance proportional to how hard you pedal, which means the experience feels more like riding a normal bike but easier, whereas the Lime ones are wheel motored and appear to simply detect pedal movement, so feel more like a moped as you just need to lightly rotate the pedals to "take off" fairly quickly.
This will never sell cycling, so please don't. Not wishing to arrive at work in a puddle of sweat due to a 5 mile hilly ride (as might be a typical commute in MK, despite the Redways helping with the safety aspect) is not an unusual nor unreasonable thing.
There's nothing worse, nor more demotivating, for someone who is unfit, than sanctimonious "but I get up for a run at 4:30am every day" fit people. It does huge, huge amounts of damage to the cause.
Some people won’t be happy until they have grannies cycling the rain to the Dr’s surgery and everyone working within a 3 mile radius of their house.
Once a year you will be allowed to go on a coach holiday to your nearest wet seaside town
This modern day obsession of spouting desires regarding other peoples lives has to end.
You have one life, go and live it and do as much as you can and leave others alone. You don’t get a thicker mattress in heaven for being such a vomit inducing goody two shoes. After all given an audit of your lifestyle we will all find something to cancel you for.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
