Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux

[sidd]

60 mph ?

Most freeways in the midwest are 70 away from cities, and out west the limit does up to 80. In practice that means you do 90 or more to get around a double trailer rig that might be running at 85+

sidd

[vox_mundi]

... What we need is the lightest possible box that can move objects from point a to point b as fast as possible and without emitting. ...

Think outside of the box ... Why not cable cars?

Innovation in the air: using cable cars for urban transport
https://blogs.worldbank.org/transport/innovation-air-using-cable-cars-urban-transport
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.curbed.com/platform/amp/2017/9/21/16340394/urban-gondolas-cable-cars-cities

[TerryM]

60 mph ?

Most freeways in the midwest are 70 away from cities, and out west the limit does up to 80. In practice that means you do 90 or more to get around a double trailer rig that might be running at 85+

sidd

Yeah, you can get arrested for loitering on the 401 if you dare to poke along at 120 KPH (~75 MPH), even when the posted limit is lower.


Any ideas on this apparent need for speed? Jimmy (Who?) pushed the 55 MPH limit and the world didn't come to a screeching halt. It saved plenty of fuel (and plenty of emissions), probably bankrupt a few tow operators & bone setters, but couldn't withstand Ronny's whithereding intelectual scrutiny.


(Re)lowering the speed limit would save bunches of transportation emissions without costing the State more than the price of painting new signs, (easily recovered through increased   ticket revenue). Prospective EV buyers would receive the same admiring glances from concerned tree huggers simply by driving home followed by a long line of frustrated drivers honking their encouragement. Less ff usage, fewer highway deaths, cheaper insurance - or richer insurance companies - and no need for subsidies!


It could easily save some $B to invest in E-Buses.


It won't happen under the Trumpster's regime, they move in fast circles, but change may come rapidly, & speeding to an uncertain future is the last thing we need, particularly when the lights could flicker off at any moment!
Terry

[NeilT]

Well if you want to follow that logic Terry, then why not 35mph?  My C3 does nearly 100mpg at 35mph.  Virtually no accidents would be fatal, fuel usage would plummet, traffic, around cities would probably flow a little better.

The answer is pretty obvious.  People drive more than 5 miles per day and they need to get there at a reasonable time.

But if you are going to make the case for less speed, 55 is not the target, it is a lot lower than that.

At which point you are dismissed as a nut by the very people you need to get to.

After all, if you have an EV, charge always on CO2 neutral energy, then what does it matter what speed you drive at.

Although I must admit that putting a 45mph limit on FF vehicles whilst EV's had an 80mph limit would be a Very interesting scenario.

[BeeKnees]

What is a reasonable time?

I'm forced to drive to work after my office recently moved.  I have the choice of 18 miles each way on a motorway or 13 miles on minor roads. I take the minor roads in my Prius and get 100mpg, while the motorway is 5 minutes quicker but uses 65mpg.

Are we really that desperate for an extra 5-10 minutes over a 10-20 mile distance?

[Sigmetnow]

...
Although I must admit that putting a 45mph limit on FF vehicles whilst EV's had an 80mph limit would be a Very interesting scenario.

Does Austria have any EV incentives like tax credits or rebates and does Vienna have any too?

We do have moderate incentives. There is a €3,600 incentive that you can claim — surprisingly for me, that’s for all Model 3s, even if their base price is higher than €50,000. What also helps is the exemption of taxes for emissions, which saves me around €700 per year compared to my previous car. One of the greatest incentives is that EVs are exempted from certain speed limits that are for reducing noise and emissions. Feels great to overtake two lanes of regular ICE cars because you have a vehicle with zero emissions and engine noise!

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/31/the-tesla-model-3-from-a-female-perspective/

[nanning]

What we need is the lightest possible box that can move objects from point a to point b as fast as possible and without emitting.
<snip>

Why the need for a "box"? I assume you mean a form of enclosure, a form of being 'inside'. Why is that needed?

[sidd]

Ford downgraded to junk:

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/ford/2019/09/09/moodys-ford-credit-rating-junk-status/2268425001/

sidd

[NeilT]

What is a reasonable time?

<snip>

Are we really that desperate for an extra 5-10 minutes over a 10-20 mile distance?

Well for the normal journey, I spent years working in Edinburgh.  Driving at 70mph on the dual carriageway for the 20 miles it took me to get over the bridge, leaving at 06:45, would get me to work in 45 minutes.  Driving at 50mph would tip the scales and add 35 minutes to 1 hour to the journey because the bridge would be blocked and all routes into the city would also be blocked.

Setting arbitrary speed limits that do not suit the journey don't help.  Remember we live in a democracy (mostly), where if you mess people about they vote for the other guy.  (see my comments about Trump).

Even with EV's, congestion and journey times cost more CO2 unless the EV is on 100% CO2 clean energy.  Because even sitting in a queue, an EV is burning energy for heat/cold/system power.  Granted not as much as a FF burner, but new ones of those cut the engine after a few seconds nowadays.  Creating arbitrary speed limits which cause more congestion/longer journey times, will simply negate the benefits of setting the speed limit in the first place and give those who do not want to see CO2 reduced a better argument for the masses.

There is never a one size fits all solution because we don't live in the former USSR where they sized everything to the "great plan".  You can see how that worked out.

So I'd go back to my 45mph for FF burners and 80mph for EV.  Incentives are everything.  Taking away without giving an option to retain what you have (at a price), == votes for the other side of the argument.

[NeilT]

Why the need for a "box"? I assume you mean a form of enclosure, a form of being 'inside'. Why is that needed?

Clearly you have not ridden a motorcycle in -7C conditions in freezing fog.....  Or in a snowstorm, or a rainstorm, or hail.

I have experienced all 4.  A box is a requirement for those who don't possess Polar Bear fur.

We need someone like Musk to pick up and run with it.  It needs that level of engineering ability.  After all if they can do it with a Segway they can do it with one of these.  It ticks all the boxes, EV, helps with congestion, gets around the "weather" issue of eBikes and solves the parking issue we see in cities, no need for ride sharing where that is a PITA.

Well either a Musk makeover or an open build.

As importantly it could be sold for sub $10,000, making it a secondary vehicle without the need for the long range.

The patent issue may need the purchase of the company though.  Apple were talking to them around 2016.

Essentially it is a 2 wheeled Electric "car".

[nanning]

<snip>
Clearly you have not ridden a motorcycle in -7C conditions in freezing fog.....  Or in a snowstorm, or a rainstorm, or hail.

I don't know why that's clear to you, but it is wrong. Apart from the snowstorm (we don't get many of those here).
At one time I was riding on an icy road inbetween cars and trucks. I lost front traction for a moment and was lucky to stabilise my motor again.

Most people want to put no more effort in than pushing some buttons and then 'fly' as fast as possible to place far away. Afraid of the elements. Afraid of physical exercise. Afraid of cold, wet, wind etc.

On a bicycle you are not cold. The face and hands can get cold, so what, that's normal in winter. There are gloves and mittens to help with that.

Don't be a weakling and hop on your bike 

I have done the things you wrote for years on my bicycle. As a teenager. No problemo. People have been doing that since the 1940's.
Bicycles have advantages:
                 No emissions,
                 they are cheap,
                 you are outside,
                 going at a speed that you are still able to take in the surroundings,
                 it is safer,
                 it is much much lighter (I always lift mine up and down the stairs),
                 takes hardly any space,
                 less 'highway' traffic rules,
                 if you've taken the wrong turn you just turn your bike around,
                 no helmet,
                 no special clothing,
                 no noise,
                 easy and cheap to repair it yourself,
                 it is good for your health, it is exercise,
                 there are many more different models to choose from,
                 if you fall there is little chance of hurting yourself if you're an experienced cyclist,
                 there are models for females and disabled people.

I buy my beer in a crate of 24x30cl bottles from a supermarket 2 Km away. Put it on the luggage carrier of my bicycle and secure it with elastic bands ("snelbinders").

I have been cycling with 2 or 3 others on my bike, there's a steer you can sit on and the "stang", the upper connecting metal rod where you can sit on. Having fun. Crashing in the water or bushes or going downhill for fun.

When you're the first away when the traffic light turns green, you have done it yourself, it is a real accomplishment and not just being smug from pushing buttons.


edit: improved layout

[BeeKnees]

Well for the normal journey, I spent years working in Edinburgh.  Driving at 70mph on the dual carriageway for the 20 miles it took me to get over the bridge, leaving at 06:45, would get me to work in 45 minutes.  Driving at 50mph would tip the scales and add 35 minutes to 1 hour to the journey because the bridge would be blocked and all routes into the city would also be blocked.

The point here is that leaving 5-10 earlier would probably have got you to work in 55min. 

tbh I agree with you that the carbon cost of the journey is more important than the speed, although my hybrid loves a stop-start journey and all cars use proportionately much more energy at high speeds than at an ideal cruising speed.
Perhaps it would be interesting to see an emission limit over x miles range rather than a speed limit as a way of encouraging  more EV and lighter vehicles. 

[Tom_Mazanec]

What is the most efficient speed for a car?
If it is just parked and running there is no efficient running at all, but people say that high speed is inefficient.
I would guess it is a Laffer Curve?

[NeilT]

I don't know why that's clear to you, but it is wrong. Apart from the snowstorm (we don't get many of those here).
At one time I was riding on an icy road inbetween cars and trucks. I lost front traction for a moment and was lucky to stabilise my motor again.

Let me clarify that.  When your knuckles freeze as you are riding 50 miles on your motorcycle in -7C conditions, a box is not a  luxury.  When you arrive at work covered in sweat but  your office does not provide a shower, when your journey is longer than 5 miles over hilly ground, then a box with power is not a luxury.

When I was 17, I was a county class athlete at silver and bronze level, I rode my bicycle to work,  to the athletics track, up and down the hill I lived at the bottom of.  But I was never able to ride more than 5 miles in one go at any speed.

There are two reasons I don't use my motorcycle right now.  The first is that it  needs a test and I still haven't done the repair work (yes I can do that work myself), to get it on the road.  The second is that my "box" does more MPG than the bike, so the bike is about time and not emissions.

My 24 speed mountain bike?  Is not viable for any journey other than the rather expensive local hotel to work.  All other distances are outside my 5 mile viable ride distance for my time to work.

I spent a year using my bike exclusively on Jersey.  Rather than take my car and sit it in a car park in Jersey all week.  But the 250  mile journey to the port (and back again), every week, was a car job.

I've cycled in many places.  Had my bike stolen in Zurich, from the streets, cycled in Munich, Frankfurt and Amsterdam.

But you see these days I have an enlarged heart, it presses on my lung and it makes cycling rather unpleasant.  Despite all the other things not going for it in time, distance, weather, office facilities.  So it's not quite about not being bothered or not putting in an effort.

Some of us are, today, actually physically unsuited to your solution to driving a car.

Saying people are "not trying" because cycling suits your location, work situation and physical health, does not always sit well.

[oren]

Instead of playing woth speed limits and other workaround incentives, the best solution as always is price the carbon properly (both gasoline and the natgas and coal dor electricity), and let people make their own decisions. A proper price will push many to bikes, e-bikes, lower speeds, smaller cars, hybrids, EVs and what have you not.

[NeilT]

What is the most efficient speed for a car?
If it is just parked and running there is no efficient running at all, but people say that high speed is inefficient.
I would guess it is a Laffer Curve?

As was found in the fuel crisis, some cars are actually more efficient at 70mph in cruise, than at 50mph.

There are cars, today, with 6 manual gears, which struggle below 40mph and have to be dropped a gear.  Reducing efficiency.  Also a car with that gearing, designed to cruise at 70mph or more (many EU countries have over 80mph as a speed limit), will consume more fuel climbing a hill at 50mph than at 70mph where the engine is struggling less.

Then it depends radically on CD.  If the CD is low, then the differential between 50mph and 70mph is far lower.  High CD and the impact is very high.  MPV's (or minivans), tend to suffer from that a lot as do Semi's, hence the Tesla efforts to reduce CD.

There are so many variable here, from underinflated tyres which create more rolling resistance to CD, to gearing, to the engine power (smaller engines with less torque will burn more fuel under stress), the type of countryside, the amount of stop/start.  How aggressively you drive.  If I'm in a hurry in a city environment with stop start and <50mph speed limits, I use significantly more fuel than if I'm on a motorway cruising at 70mph.  I use the power of the vehicle, drive "firmly" manage traffic lights with power and, generally, drop my long distance MPG by about 30 in the small car.  The difference is less in my larger car as it's CD is higher.

There is a reason why urban MPG figures are lower than extra urban.

All of that having been said, with most modern vehicles, around 55mph will always elicit better fuel consumption, on a freely moving road, than 70mph.

However if you have 500 miles to drive, or 1,000 miles to drive, then 55mph is no fun.  I'm used to driving long distance.  When I was at RTP Raleigh, I decided to drive to DC for the day and back again, as I was unlikely to be there again and I wanted to visit.  50mph sucks.

[oren]

BTW my car's stop/start function usually doesn't kick in when AC is on, which here is half the year. Quite disappointing.

[nanning]

You don't need to do 50 mph. -7C is very doable on a bicycle.
You don't need to shower. I have three siblings and we all showered once per week on Fridays. My mom and dad as well. And no fancy products and odours. This was in the 70's, not so long ago and a shower is an enormous luxury. Warmed potable water raining on you. Potable water down the drain.

I see the things you think you need and can only say that please, try to view it through the 'lenses' of someone from the 70's. Or 50's. Or all those millenia before.

Have you forgotten public transport? Shared transport?
Are you putting that option perhaps unconsciously away? Just asking


edit: corrected number of siblings

[Tom_Mazanec]

nanning:
Maybe he himself doesn't need to shower, but his boss needs him to?
Nowadays, a boss can ruin your life by firing you for smelling, and without a reference you don't get another job.

[Neven]

After all, if you have an EV, charge always on CO2 neutral energy, then what does it matter what speed you drive at.

It matters, because all fossil fuel energy hasn't been replaced by CO2 neutral energy yet. I know you hate to hear this, but you can't just make your lifestyle 'green' and continue business as usual.

Energy needs to be conserved. That's the first and most important step. And so no, cars with 100 kWh batteries going 130 km/h on the Autobahn aren't a solution.

[NeilT]

They're not all monsters that are not with you Neven.  However many of them demand the right to consume as the cost of compliance with society.

Getting the consumption onto the right footing (clean energy), is the first challenge.  Stopping consumption is political and I see absolutely no way you can win that one.

Good luck with it though.

[Neven]

You're just saying that as an excuse for not really wanting to change your own behaviour. That's your main reason for being on this forum.

Who is talking about stopping consumption? I'm talking about making consumption more efficient, and reducing excessive consumption. I will venture to say that a Model S is excessive consumption in itself, especially given the fact that Tesla is not going to build the EV equivalent of the Ford Model T or Volkswagen Beetle for the masses (which was always the excuse for building luxury cars first).

This is something that can be debated, but not whether driving 130 km/h in a 100 kWh Model S is excessive consumption. Maybe it won't be when there is limitless CO2-free energy, but right now it is.

[Sigmetnow]

After all, if you have an EV, charge always on CO2 neutral energy, then what does it matter what speed you drive at.

It matters, because all fossil fuel energy hasn't been replaced by CO2 neutral energy yet. I know you hate to hear this, but you can't just make your lifestyle 'green' and continue business as usual.

Energy needs to be conserved. That's the first and most important step. And so no, cars with 100 kWh batteries going 130 km/h on the Autobahn aren't a solution.

It is a solution, if it gets more people — particularly the ones who don’t give a whit about global warming — out of their ICE cars and into EVs, sooner.  It’s not hypocritical to use some fossil fuel energy to enable the transition to a cleaner, sustainable future.  We can’t run the entire solar panel manufacturing process on renewables just yet.  Going green, for whatever reason is given, helps:  a fast EV istill generates less CO2 than a slow ICE vehicle. 

If I create my own electricity, I’m harming no one if I drive fast (safely).  Would you limit emergency vehicle speed, too?  Guy in the back of the ambulance is flat-lining, but can’t get him to the hospital quickly because that wastes energy?  And no oxygen for him, because fossil fuels are used to make the supply?

...a Model S is excessive consumption in itself, especially given the fact that Tesla is not going to build the EV equivalent of the Ford Model T or Volkswagen Beetle for the masses (which was always the excuse for building luxury cars first).

Musk has mentioned several times that a $25k Tesla will be available in 3-5 years.  The millions of vehicles his pay package demands if he is to make any money himself will doubtless involve even cheaper vehicles after that.  It’s NOT about luxury — that’s just where you have to start, when you begin with nothing. (As opposed to the big established automakers.)  You need high-price, lower volume cars at first.  Then, you can build higher-volume, lower-price cars next.  Musk wrote that 10 years ago.

[TerryM]

I was no fan of Carter's 55 MPH max speeds at the time they were initiated, but it didn't take long to adjust.
Different speed limits for different vehicles on the same roadway is a recipe for more accidents, this is why "limited access highways" are in existence.
Nevada had no speed limits in unincorporated areas until Carter's 55 MPH limits were forced onto the State. It saved a lot of lives and damage. Much more than the rather draconian drunk driving laws that followed.
Long distance driving in a personal vehicle has never made sense. What's needed is easy access to and from the HS train once your destination city has been reached. Once you're in an urban city the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians and kids playing has to be taken into consideration & high speeds are simply not safe.
Anyone that can afford a Tesla can afford a "city car", it has no need for speed, but may be required to keep a couple of people out of the weather & tote a load of groceries to the house. If such was available I might be interested even if Freeway driving was not an option.
Terry

[Neven]

It is a solution, if it gets more people — particularly the ones who don’t give a whit about global warming — out of their ICE cars and into EVs, sooner.  It’s not hypocritical to use some fossil fuel energy to enable the transition to a cleaner, sustainable future.  We can’t run the entire solar panel manufacturing process on renewables just yet.  Going green, for whatever reason is given, helps:  a fast EV istill generates less CO2 than a slow ICE vehicle.

It is not a solution if it doesn't solve fast enough. Five slower EVs with smaller batteries generate a lot less CO2 than a fast EV. Perpetuating the culture that has caused AGW, isn't going to solve AGW. If you take the people from Extinction Rebellion seriously (and why shouldn't you?), even five slower EVs are still too much.

If I create my own electricity, I’m harming no one if I drive fast (safely).  Would you limit emergency vehicle speed, too?  Guy in the back of the ambulance is flat-lining, but can’t get him to the hospital quickly because that wastes energy?  And no oxygen for him, because fossil fuels are used to make the supply?

We're not talking about emergencies, but about regular (rich) people who don't want to change. And because they don't want to change, absolutely nothing must change

Musk has mentioned several times that a $25k Tesla will be available in 3-5 years.

Yes, we know Musk's timelines. 'We will build that car for everybody really soon now. But first we build the Model Y and then the Pickup and then we shoot off another Roadster 3.0 into space, and then another SUV, and then maybe perhaps, a 20K car that is still full of perceived and programmed obsolecence, because...

Well, the culture that caused AGW must not ever change! All we need to do, is make CO2 free energy limitless. It's just as simple as that. And we'll do it in time, of course. Like we always have.

[NeilT]

You're just saying that as an excuse for not really wanting to change your own behaviour. That's your main reason for being on this forum.

Well then, not much to say to that is there.

[Sigmetnow]

It is not a solution if it doesn't solve fast enough.

Name another car company making more BEVs than Tesla. 
You can’t, because Tesla is the global leader.

We will build that car for everybody really soon now.

Name another car company which will make more BEVs than Tesla over the next few years. 
None has the battery capacity to do it.

Edit: added data image below.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Well, I hope the car was electric 
https://365tomorrows.com/2019/09/13/car-talk/

Why am I here at home at three o’clock in the afternoon? That suspicious bastard Franklin didn’t believe me when I told him that my car had kidnapped me and taken me to Old Orchard Beach. He fired me, so I don’t have a job anymore.

[Neven]

To return to the thing I took issue with, instead of whether Tesla is offering a solution or not:

This is something that can be debated (ed: whether Tesla is a solution), but not whether driving 130 km/h in a 100 kWh Model S is excessive consumption. Maybe it won't be when there is limitless CO2-free energy, but right now it is.

Speed limits need to be reduced as much as possible, regardless of whether cars are ICEVs or EVs. Because we need to save energy, so renewables can have a chance at covering energy needs.

The whole idea of 'I'm driving a Tesla now, so I can do whatever I want, having bought off the guilt' is pathetic, pathological even. No one who is serious about AGW, acknowledging the science and everything, thinks like that.

[Sigmetnow]

...
The whole idea of 'I'm driving a Tesla now, so I can do whatever I want, having bought off the guilt' is pathetic, pathological even. No one who is serious about AGW, acknowledging the science and everything, thinks like that.

Correct.  And most Tesla owners Do Not think like that.  So trying to guilt them into driving ultra-sedately when all around them are ICE cars which do not... makes no sense.

To your point about needing more low-priced EVs:  China makes some.  But there are videos of them struggling to get up small hills at anything more than a walking pace.  I don’t think even you would want to buy one.

When someone finally offers a really good but cheap and mass-volume EV, it will sell like crazy.  But no one:  not the OEMs, not Tesla, not any startup, has found a financially viable way to accomplish that yet.  (Even though TSLAQ has been saying for years that Tesla is practically a not-for-profit company. )  Maybe by 2023, enough EV manufacturing infrastructure will be in place for that to happen.

[Tom_Mazanec]

How climate change trade woes have affected the Frankfurt Motor Show
https://www.driven.co.nz/news/news/how-climate-change-trade-woes-have-affected-the-frankfurt-motor-show/

Environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Germany and Germany’s ADFC bicycle club are organizing a march to the exhibition center on Saturday to call for what they view as more environmentally friendly transportation policies. They want more space allotted to bicycles and pedestrians and more use of renewable energy instead of gasoline and diesel.

[Neven]

Correct.  And most Tesla owners Do Not think like that.  So trying to guilt them into driving ultra-sedately when all around them are ICE cars which do not... makes no sense.

This is what I was reacting against:

After all, if you have an EV, charge always on CO2 neutral energy, then what does it matter what speed you drive at.

I live in Austria. At first, I thought it was funny that temporary speed limits, aimed at improving air quality, didn't apply to EVs. But now I think it's just stupid, because most fine particles come from tyres.

But either way, speed limits need to be set as low as possible, for instance 80-90 km/h near cities, 100-110 km/h elsewhere.

Maybe some day, when there is limitless CO2-neutral energy, you can make speed limitless again. But right now, it matters, even if you drive an EV.

[blumenkraft]

Personally, i would make it 30km/h innercity (because everything above 30 is madness when there are kids around), 70 km/h outercity (because wild animals realize your speed below 80 only), and 90 km/h on Autobahn/highway (because everything above 90 makes the drag unreasonable).

And i would make it strict, as in 'if you go faster you get your driver license nulled'.

Additionally, i would regulate the maximum amount of recourses used for a car. I would basically ban supercars. Those are madness by default.

I do think there should be perks for EVs, but loosen the speed limit should not be one.

My hometown offers free parking everywhere for EVs. That's a nice perk IMHO.

[oren]

I would do the same. But wishing doesn't make it happen. So I support EVs, even the big bad ones, as an incremental improvement on ICE, knowing full well that this is a very partial and slow solution to a problem that needs full and fast solutions, a problem that will eat us and our children. But partial and slow is still better than no solution at all. The famous incremental approach. Of course changing the system, reducing consumption and banning fossil fuels as crimes against humanity (they really are) would be better, but the support for this is not there.

[blumenkraft]

A slow transition is ought to come. Nothing special has to be done for it. Just watch renewables become cheaper and cheaper and let the market do its thing.

But we don't have the time for a slow transition. The time for incrementalism is over. Incrementalism is exactly what mankind did wrong in the last 30 years.

It's either revolution or demise.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Incrementalism is exactly what mankind did wrong in the last 30 years.

Actually since Reagan, so more like 40 years.

[oren]

It's either revolution or demise.

I do agree. But I predict demise, as there isn't support for a revolution.
In the meantime, I would rather have incremental improvements and then demise, rather than do nothing and demise.

[TerryM]

It's either revolution or demise.

I do agree. But I predict demise, as there isn't support for a revolution.
In the meantime, I would rather have incremental improvements and then demise, rather than do nothing and demise.

If "incremental improvements" made even incremental improvements to the situation I'd be a huge fan.
That said, the "incremental improvements' we've made have allowed us to increase our emissions more rapidly decade over decade.


If we accept that AGW ends with disaster, then we need to do something other than continue with  "incremental improvements".
Terry

[TerryM]

<snipped>

I live in Austria. At first, I thought it was funny that temporary speed limits, aimed at improving air quality, didn't apply to EVs. But now I think it's just stupid, because most fine particles come from tyres.

But either way, speed limits need to be set as low as possible, for instance 80-90 km/h near cities, 100-110 km/h elsewhere.

Maybe some day, when there is limitless CO2-neutral energy, you can make speed limitless again. But right now, it matters, even if you drive an EV.

I think your speed limits are still far too high. Carter's 55 MPH (88.5 KPH) Maximum didn't ruin anything worth preserving - and that limit could be cropped even further.

Wasting energy and damaging public roads isn't anyone's right.
Save a fast lane for Express E-Buses, Ambulances and Cop Cars, then slow everything else down to a crawl. It might be more efficient to install speed limiting governors as opposed to aggressive speeding citations.

There's no reason to race to our fate.
Terry

[nanning]

^^
I agree with Neven (microplastics from tyres) and TerryM.

[Sigmetnow]

What about the billions of dollars lost in productivity, with lower speed limits?  Long haul deliveries that can’t be completed in their usual time, leading to shortages of materials, medicine, food — or that now require additional trucks on the road to keep up deliveries per time period?  Worse quality of life for the people spending more of their time commuting?  Longer “rush hours.”  Making higher-pollution flying a more attractive alternative than driving, for more trips.

[blumenkraft]

Sigmetnow, it's rare, but i have to disagree on this one. You wouldn't dramatically lower the average speed with a speed limit. But you would cut off the unhealthy spikes.

It has been tested a gazillion times on German Autobahn. You let a Porsche and a Smart drive from Hamburg to Munich. The Porsche would travel as fast as possible while the Smart goes at constantly lowish speed. The Porsche will be there 15-30 Minutes earlier only for this 8h trip.

From a traffic flow perspective, a speed limit has proven to lower the rate of congestions, so you even upper the average speed in the conurbation.

So no, there would be no productivity loss.

[TerryM]

What about the billions of dollars lost in productivity, with lower speed limits?  Long haul deliveries that can’t be completed in their usual time, leading to shortages of materials, medicine, food — or that now require additional trucks on the road to keep up deliveries per time period?  Worse quality of life for the people spending more of their time commuting?  Longer “rush hours.”  Making higher-pollution flying a more attractive alternative than driving, for more trips.

From 1974 through 1987/78, 55 MPH was the Maximum Speed Limit throughout the USA. "Muscle Car" production certainly suffered, but your forecast shortages of "materials, medicine & food" didn't peak during those years. Rush hours were no better than previously - though fortunately they were no worse.
Police led convoys of vehicles from LA to Las Vegas, arresting anyone who attempted to pass the lead police car that drove along at 55. Leaving LA, or any other major metropolitan region at over 55 MPH was not only difficult, you could lose your license or even your vehicle.
Perhaps those who lived in other countries, or who weren't old enough to drive in those times fear lower speed limits, but the sky didn't fall, patients did receive needed medicines, and Americans actually managed to pack on a few pounds.
Terry

[oren]

A country that can't raise taxes on gasoline by a few cents per gallon, because of political reasons, will lower the speed limit to 55 mph? I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I'll not hold my breath.

[Sigmetnow]

Terry,
blumenkraft,

Perhaps.  But human behavior can prove to be be unexpected, and people (and cars) today are not from the 1970’s.  Also, I dare say the flying population and attitudes are different.

Terry, while I have your attention, here’s a reminder:
National Drive Electric event,  Cambridge Center Mall, September 21; 11am to 3pm!  

https://driveelectricweek.org/index.php

[TerryM]

A country that can't raise taxes on gasoline by a few cents per gallon, because of political reasons, will lower the speed limit to 55 mph? I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I'll not hold my breath.

If we limit ourselves to changes that won't harm an American Politician's electability we limit ourselves to solutions that will assure our children inherit a hellish world.


55 MPH isn't enough, but it has been done in the recent past. If we can't push something like this through what hope is there for meaningful change?
Terry

[TerryM]

Terry,
blumenkraft,

Perhaps.  But human behavior can prove to be be unexpected, and people (and cars) today are not from the 1970’s.  Also, I dare say the flying population and attitudes are different.

Terry, while I have your attention, here’s a reminder:
National Drive Electric event,  Cambridge Center Mall, September 21; 11am to 3pm!

Thanks for the heads up Sig. I'll try my best to make an appearance.


None of my business, but were you in the States and driving while speeds were curtailed?
It really wasn't that long ago, and I haven't noticed any meaningful changes in attitude over the intervening period.
Terry

[Sigmetnow]

None of my business, but were you in the States and driving while speeds were curtailed?
It really wasn't that long ago, and I haven't noticed any meaningful changes in attitude over the intervening period.
Terry

Yes, although my work commute was a short one, so I did not encounter the stress that I heard about from others around me complaining about gas rationing to alternate days, etc.

In the decades since then, everything has gotten faster:  from speed limits, to the prevalence of overnight and two-day delivery, to internet connections.   Even the presence of “Full Service” at gas stations has mostly disappeared in the U.S..   

[nanning]

 

[TerryM]

None of my business, but were you in the States and driving while speeds were curtailed?
It really wasn't that long ago, and I haven't noticed any meaningful changes in attitude over the intervening period.
Terry

Yes, although my work commute was a short one, so I did not encounter the stress that I heard about from others around me complaining about gas rationing to alternate days, etc.

In the decades since then, everything has gotten faster:  from speed limits, to the prevalence of overnight and two-day delivery, to internet connections.   Even the presence of “Full Service” at gas stations has mostly disappeared in the U.S..

Alternate days was a bummer for most. I was in a commune at that time & we had one guy whose only job was to make sure every vehicle stayed topped up.
Speed limits in many jurisdictions still aren't up to the pre-55Max years (Rural Nevada had no speed limit), and the internet wasn't on anyone's radar.
The last full service I saw was a small station in Barstow that did it for publicity in the mid 1990's. "Fill her up with Ethyl Sir?" - as they checked the tires and oil. - Good days indeed!
My wife makes extensive use of Amazon and their rapid deliveries. I still want to handle it before I buy it - a vanishing breed it seems.


Realistically lowering the speed limit to 55 isn't enough to make a serious dent in the problem. We do though need to start somewhere, and if we can't force as innocuous a change as this on our culture we're assured of losing the whole damn thing.
We don't need to do this by 2025, or 2030, we need to do this before 2020.
Terry