# Motorway speed reduction trials



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

Seems it has been decided to trial lower speed limits - 60mph - on four sections of motorway to see if it lowers NO2 output.
The four sections are
M6 - Juncs 6-7 Wyton
M1 - Juncs 33-34 Rotherham 
M602 - Juncs 1-3 Eccles
M5 - Juncs 1 - 2 Oldbury

Watch your speed through these sections, the information regarding when the trial is being started, is " before October" which is helpful.


----------



## Andyblue (Jun 20, 2017)

Well, they’ve got to use the smart motorways for something I suppose...


----------



## BrummyPete (Jun 10, 2010)

Well I work in Oldbury, and it will be a change if I can actually get UP to 60 on the M5, that stretch has been poo for ages especially with the bridge works for the last few years


----------



## kingswood (Jun 23, 2016)

Limit applies at all times too. Even midnight on an empty road

People will slow down then speed up. Causing more pollution. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## nbray67 (Mar 22, 2012)

Do I take it the overhead signals will display said limits?

If so, from when I'm driving, I reckon 99.9% of drivers actually adhere to the smart m/way overhead speed messages IF they know a camera is located at that stretch as most now know where the speed cameras are located, especially when Google maps warns drivers of the upcoming camera.


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

No idea, i should think yes on the M6 and M5 but i havent been on the M1 that far up for years and not been on the other motorway.


----------



## TonyHill (Jul 28, 2015)

NO2 my backside!!! Its just another revenue raiser. If they're so concerned about the environment, why do they seem to do everything within their power to engineer congestion?? It just doesn't wash with me.


----------



## Cookeh (Apr 27, 2017)

Already had this trial multiple times on the M1 stretch. Its normally sign-posted on the gantries. Ban the bloody diesel buses in Sheffield instead, every single one of then pukes black smoke on each throttle adjustment.

On a side note, I found that traffic was actually much better during previous trials and it was easier to change lanes and overtake slow traffic (lorries et al), as the speed differential between traffic is lower.


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

We've had it on 2 dual cw by us for 18mths now but 50mph instead of 70! Started with trialling it, funnily enough no data has ever been shown on air quality. Drivers comments during trial was that it was dangerous, many weren't doing 50, lorries up your back end, acceleration after it meant more emissions. Councils went for it, decided it was good idea.
Permanent signs etc all went up then 6mths later, hey Presto, average speed cameras go up! Totally a money making scheme.

Oh, and it's at all times of the day and covers electric vehicles too.


----------



## J306TD (May 19, 2008)

Darlofan said:


> We've had it on 2 dual cw by us for 18mths now but 50mph instead of 70! Started with trialling it, funnily enough no data has ever been shown on air quality. Drivers comments during trial was that it was dangerous, many weren't doing 50, lorries up your back end, acceleration after it meant more emissions. Councils went for it, decided it was good idea.
> Permanent signs etc all went up then 6mths later, hey Presto, average speed cameras go up! Totally a money making scheme.
> 
> Oh, and it's at all times of the day and covers electric vehicles too.


You from Wrexham by any chance and on about the A483?

If so I totally agree. Thats a dangerous place to do it as there is no warning, so if you don't know the road and hit the brakes no chance a vehicle or lorry behind you can stop in time. I did see an article about this. But as you say no real data. Plus I've never seen any pollution monitoring equipment.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## RS3 (Mar 5, 2018)

I wouldn't be against this if they offset by lifting limits in rural areas in good conditions when theres little traffic.
Not the best time to slow down traffic when its reduced already and weve got an economy to get going and also when we are on the verge of an electric revolution - shouldn't electric cars get a pardon?.


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

J306TD said:


> You from Wrexham by any chance and on about the A483?
> 
> If so I totally agree. Thats a dangerous place to do it as there is no warning, so if you don't know the road and hit the brakes no chance a vehicle or lorry behind you can stop in time. I did see an article about this. But as you say no real data. Plus I've never seen any pollution monitoring equipment.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


Yep, the Queensferry one I meant with cameras though. Funny as I'm in Flintshire, just had a junction redesigned on outskirts of our village due to a couple of bad accidents as it's on a bend. Even worse now as you can't see right from the new junction! Average cameras suggested many times over years but no can do, due to lack of money:lol:


----------



## Darlofan (Nov 24, 2010)

RS3 said:


> I wouldn't be against this if they offset by lifting limits in rural areas in good conditions when theres little traffic.
> Not the best time to slow down traffic when its reduced already and weve got an economy to get going and also when we are on the verge of an electric revolution - shouldn't electric cars get a pardon?.


Also I wonder, in 10yrs time when balance has swung to electric cars, will the limits be raised again?


----------



## suds (Apr 27, 2012)

Darlofan said:


> Also I wonder, in 10yrs time when balance has swung to electric cars, will the limits be raised again?


No, battery charges will last longer and less plastic/rubber particles eroded from tyres - less pollution 
:thumb:


----------



## Rayaan (Jun 1, 2014)

Doesn't make sense to me. I heard these sections are around 4.5 miles long. 

at 60mph it takes 4 minutes 30 seconds. At 70mph it takes 3 mins 51s 

Is there any research to suggest that a car travelling slower for an extra 40s will make any difference to the pollution coming out of the back end?


----------



## BrummyPete (Jun 10, 2010)

The oldbury junction won't make any difference its the sheer volume of cars , its a huge bottleneck, I can't see slowing people down to 60 making it easier on pollution


----------



## Vossman (Aug 5, 2010)

BrummyPete said:


> Well I work in Oldbury, and it will be a change if I can actually get UP to 60 on the M5, that stretch has been poo for ages especially with the bridge works for the last few years


I live around here too and those works 1 - 2 have been ongoing for 30 years to my knowledge, they can never get those expansion joints right ... and its still like driving over kerbstones.

60mph on that stretch :lol::lol::lol:

Come to think of it I can't remember going over 60 on many of these central motorways, you struggle to even move in a morning or night from J10 M6 to M5 J1.

Laughable UK.


----------



## Vossman (Aug 5, 2010)

Darlofan said:


> Also I wonder, in 10yrs time when balance has swung to electric cars, will the limits be raised again?


No, only the road tax to drive electric will go up, but by then they will have the auto toll system in use, pay for every mile you drive.

Got to replace the lost fossil fuel revenue :devil:

It will be like the "use diesel cars" all over again, lull you into it then ... bang!


----------



## BrummyPete (Jun 10, 2010)

Vossman said:


> I live around here too and those works 1 - 2 have been ongoing for 30 years to my knowledge, they can never get those expansion joints right ... and its still like driving over kerbstones.
> 
> 60mph on that stretch
> 
> ...


Everywhere near there is horrific, im looking to mover closer ot Oldbury for work, I have to travel from Shirley every day and its a pain if I go through brum or use the motorway


----------



## Cookeh (Apr 27, 2017)

Rayaan said:


> Is there any research to suggest that a car travelling slower for an extra 40s will make any difference to the pollution coming out of the back end?


Are you even vaguely aware of how engines work? Bit of a daft statement, to be honest. Travelling at 70mph versus 60mph means more resistance, which means higher engine load, which means more fuel. So for those 40s you're using less fuel, which inherently means less emissions.

Previous trials were over larger motorway stretches, now they're centred closer to urban areas, so we can ascertain that there was a noticeable improvement in airquality. Certainly the M1 trials used to be something like J34-30. If all that costs is an extra 40s of my time, I'm not sure how I can possibly argue with it.

Now, if they bring it in universally and even in rural areas then I can understand why one might get mildly frustrated with the idea of it.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Driver education would be the best way of reducing emissions. Dropping from 70mph to 60mph will reduce emissions in that area, however more could be done. 

How often do you drive on these busy areas and everyone is on and off the brakes as they are sitting too close? Sit back a bit and everyone will end up travelling faster and less emissions avoiding having to constantly speed up and slow down.

Educating drivers probably is the most difficult task though.


----------



## muzzer (Feb 13, 2011)

Yeah that's fair, it does seem to be that drivers aren't taught about anticipation much these days. I know most people hate them but towing a caravan is good for teaching you about that, when to slow down, when to brake early, moving early etc.
Might just be me but it seems to be a dying skill on the roads of the UK nowadays.


----------



## SuperchargedLlama (Apr 25, 2008)

Tbh when we're all using something like radar cruise with a decent gap I can imagine it generally smoothing out the traffic flow, especially as it'll likely go the way of Tesla's auto pilot...and for motorway stretches I'll happily take that after experiencing it. Even my GLC with radar cruise and active lane assist is good enough.

I'm amazed that they haven't just made all the motorways average speed limits (at 70), or even trialled that in the M25. I quite like the French system where the limit is higher in dry weather and lower in the rain. But then I've never driven on French auto route's that are as busy as ours...


----------



## petemattw (Nov 3, 2008)

Slow living traffic doesn’t reduce pollution. Ever6 day there is slow to non moving traffic in rush hour on the m6. All those cars sitting still, engines on, burning fuel for much longer than if they were clear to get through at 90mph... I think they are missing the point, instead of slowing cars down, make the road up to deal with capacity. I could overnight make less traffic in Birmingham by building lots of accessible parking so people drive in and stop, not drive round for 30 minutes trying to find a space. I’d scrap the cyclist traffic lights on the Bristol road that make cars stop so the cyclists don’t have to slow down on their cycle lane, I’d scrap most of the traffic lights which impede traffic from flowing freely and I’d open up broad street again instead of sending traffic round in circles as it can’t go straight through the centre of the city. These are the reasons for poor air quality....


----------



## Rayaan (Jun 1, 2014)

Cookeh said:


> Are you even vaguely aware of how engines work? Bit of a daft statement, to be honest. Travelling at 70mph versus 60mph means more resistance, which means higher engine load, which means more fuel. So for those 40s you're using less fuel, which inherently means less emissions.
> 
> Previous trials were over larger motorway stretches, now they're centred closer to urban areas, so we can ascertain that there was a noticeable improvement in airquality. Certainly the M1 trials used to be something like J34-30. If all that costs is an extra 40s of my time, I'm not sure how I can possibly argue with it.
> 
> Now, if they bring it in universally and even in rural areas then I can understand why one might get mildly frustrated with the idea of it.


The point is, less emissions for a longer period of time doesn't necessarily mean its any better than higher emissions for a shorter period of time - theoretically the emissions could just end up becoming the same.

Fuel use at 60mph consistently is around 45mpg in my car. I get 42mpg sitting at 70mph. From a fuel perspective its not that much difference, especially over only 4.5 miles


----------



## Cookeh (Apr 27, 2017)

No, it's not a huge amount in a single vehicle. But when you're considering that stretch of road over an entire day its a significant fuel saving. More importantly it's a significant drop in emissions, which was your query.


----------

