Wild fires in BC Canada.

[John Brown]

The UK Parliament web site describes the role of an MP as - "The UK public elects Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their interests and concerns in the House of Commons."

Does "their" refer to the public or to the MPs, I wonder? A visitor from space, observing the behaviour of the government would conclude the latter.

 

[Jameshow]

So you think that in spite of everything, that on our behalf, he should have made a foolish decision, poorly executed?
He was also expected to exercise judgement about the details of what was being delivered and making final decisions based on the final deal, even if that meant cancelling the whole process.

He is also expected to adjust policy based on what is known and the outcome, and seems to be doing exactly that. Well done Sadiq, ignore the howling mob!

They are both under the same obligation; to assess the viability of any proposed course of action and to adjust accordingly.

More likely to be error of judgment in the first place, impossible ambition etc. and change of plan accordingly.
What was seriously wrong about recent history was blindly to go ahead and "Get Brexit Done" in spite of there being no deal on paper, many questions unanswered, many doubts about the whole project.
We elect representatives to use their judgement, to act on our behalf, not merely to obey the mob. If the latter we would not need MPs we could just instruct the civil service by plebiscite or other means. We would not need judges and legal processes either.
Johnson failed in his basic duty to act in the bests interests of the electorate, he was not delegated to blindly obey their instructions whatever the outcome.

Johnson acted on the mandate given by the electorate at the referendum the outcome you happen to dislike!

 

[Jacob]

Johnson acted on the mandate given by the electorate at the referendum the outcome you happen to dislike!

Yes (arguably) but he failed 100% on acting in the best interests of the electorate.
Nothing to do with whether or not I like it; it hasn't produced the amazing results forecast and has thrown up a maze of problems, as everybody now can see.

 

[artie]

Having said all that, the 20 mph limits have F.A. to do with emissions or efficiency, they're about minimising casualties and fatalities on the roads.

One thing I have learned over the years is, everything is connected, there are always unintended consequences,

Reducing speed limit to 20 mph instead of 30 mph may well reduce the number of pedestrian fatalities and reduce the severity of injuries.
It might also increase the amount of harmful emissions and therefore damage vastly more peoples health, reducing their quality of life and indeed lifespan.

 

[Jacob]

One thing I have learned over the years is, everything is connected, there are always unintended consequences,

Sometimes, not always.

Reducing speed limit to 20 mph instead of 30 mph may well reduce the number of pedestrian fatalities and reduce the severity of injuries.
It might also increase the amount of harmful emissions and therefore damage vastly more peoples health, reducing their quality of life and indeed lifespan.

It might, but it looks very unlikely.
If there was evidence then yes it should be acted upon. Is there any evidence?

 

[John Brown]

One thing I have learned over the years is, everything is connected, there are always unintended consequences,

Reducing speed limit to 20 mph instead of 30 mph may well reduce the number of pedestrian fatalities and reduce the severity of injuries.
It might also increase the amount of harmful emissions and therefore damage vastly more peoples health, reducing their quality of life and indeed lifespan.

Yes, but according to the link in post #222, it doesn't.

 

[artie]

Yes, but according to the link in post #222, it doesn't.

There's no link in post 222

 

[John Brown]

There's no link in post 222

I beg your pardon. It's not a link. It does refute the idea that vehicles travelling at 20mph increase pollution.

 

[John Brown]

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-ar...an-answer/20mph-speed-limit-and-air-pollution
Here's a link for you. No doubt there are others, and I'm sure you can find some that totally contradict the one I've posted, but I feel that a study at Imperial College is as reliable as any.

 

[Jacob]

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-ar...an-answer/20mph-speed-limit-and-air-pollution
Here's a link for you. No doubt there are others, and I'm sure you can find some that totally contradict the one I've posted, but I feel that a study at Imperial College is as reliable as any.

Here's another. Reducing motorway speed may improve air quality – but more real-world studies are needed - University of Birmingham. It's still an intelligent and ongoing study.

The thing about these long threads is that a lot of people seem quite happy to burble a continuous stream of half-baked opinions but are too lazy to check the facts or broaden their view.
It ends up like talking to little kids about how to cross the road safely or how the world is not flat. Necessary exercise of course, but tedious - the real world out there is far more interesting.
OTOH it's interesting having to do a bit of background reading - all sorts of things turn up and you may get better at arguing a case when the burbling starts up again!

 

[Tom K]

Driving faster than about 20mph does not improve fuel economy except by a small amount, and it then falls off around 55mph. according to this interesting graph. Mpg For Speed - Fuel Efficiency Vs. Speed
Figures likely to be very different for a modern car with electronic fuel control etc

An odd graph for you to post Jacob, seems the optimum speed for fuel efficiency would be attained by slightly increasing or perhaps even leaving our speed limits at 30mph certainly if every little counts the 20% increase by reducing limits to 20mph should be avoided wherever possible.

 

[Jacob]

An odd graph for you to post Jacob, seems the optimum speed for fuel efficiency would be attained by slightly increasing or perhaps even leaving our speed limits at 30mph certainly if every little counts the 20% increase by reducing limits to 20mph should be avoided wherever possible.

What is odd about it? It seems to be an attempt to get at truthful data.
Yes, according to the graph, on the face of it driving at 55mph is best for increasing fuel efficiency.
The point is - 20mph is a compromise taking into account a lot of other factors.
Maybe it has escaped your attention but 55mph is not a safe speed in many streets and roads?
I realise that many people can't hold two ideas in their heads simultaneously, especially if they are slightly contradictory!
Or to put it simply: fuel efficiency is not the only issue, or 55mph would be obligatory. Neither is safety, or motorised transport would have to stop completely. And fuel efficiency doesn't directly relate to air pollution. There's three ideas together! Let's face it a lot of things are not as simple as they look.

 

[Tom K]

What is odd about it? It seems to be an attempt to get at truthful data.
Yes, according to the graph, on the face of it driving at 55mph is best for reducing air pollution.
The point is - 20mph is a compromise taking into account a lot of other factors.
Maybe it has escaped your attention but 55mph is not a safe speed in many streets and roads?
I realise that many people can't hold two ideas in their heads simultaneously, especially if they are slightly contradictory!
Or to put it simply: fuel efficiency is not the only issue, or 55mph would be obligatory. Neither is safety, or motorised transport would have to stop completely. And fuel efficiency doesn't directly relate to air pollution. There's three ideas together!

What is odd about it? It seems to be an attempt to get at truthful data.
Yes, according to the graph, on the face of it driving at 55mph is best for reducing air pollution.
The point is - 20mph is a compromise taking into account a lot of other factors.
Maybe it has escaped your attention but 55mph is not a safe speed in many streets and roads?
I realise that many people can't hold two ideas in their heads simultaneously, especially if they are slightly contradictory!
Or to put it simply: fuel efficiency is not the only issue, or 55mph would be obligatory. Neither is safety, or motorised transport would have to stop completely. And fuel efficiency doesn't directly relate to air pollution. There's three ideas together!

No Jacob your graph shows a large drop in fuel efficiency by going from 30mph to 20mph and that between 30mph and 50mph it is almost flat so there is no cost saving by driving slower only a less efficient use of time.

 

[Jacob]

No Jacob your graph shows a large drop in fuel efficiency by going from 30mph to 20mph

Shows a drop of about 4mpg

and that between 30mph and 50mph it is almost flat so there is no cost saving by driving slower only a less efficient use of time.

Shows a rise of about 2mpg.
Either way it isn't the only issue as I was trying to explain above. Nor is time wasting or cost saving - you've included them as two more issues to be taken into account!
It's a question of balance.
The main issues:
"When speed limits are lower, people feel safer to cycle and to walk, so less people are driving," said Mr Waters. A Welsh government spokesperson said: "The introduction of a 20mph speed limit in mainly residential areas is designed to save lives and make our communities safer for everyone, including motorists."

 

[artie]

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-ar...an-answer/20mph-speed-limit-and-air-pollution
Here's a link for you. No doubt there are others, and I'm sure you can find some that totally contradict the one I've posted,

Agreed. It's possible to find backing for almost any position on t'net

I feel that a study at Imperial College is as reliable as any.

Possibly. A lot depends on who funded the study and what preconceptions they had before starting.

There's no harm in questioning and or pointing out possible discrepancies in studies no matter how grand the institution they were conducted at.

 

[Jacob]

...

There's no harm in questioning and or pointing out possible discrepancies in studies no matter how grand the institution they were conducted at.

I think there is harm in spreading misinformation such as the video you linked to earlier.

 

[deema]

I used to be long time ago the Technical Director at Sagar Richard’s looking after the design and manufacture of synchronising products and gear shift items for manual transmissions which was the only UK company that made these. There used to be around four company’s in the world that made these items. The gear ratios were set to maximise engine power / efficiency based on the anticipated speed that the vehicle would travel at. Having carried out design work for every single car manufacturer excluding those now in China I can state categorically that none of the design specs included 20mph as a desired efficient gear ratio. So, anyone who thinks of suggesting otherwise is taking absolute bull. You don’t need any university studies, just a knowledge of gearbox design and what ratio s have been set. ie, 20mph is not an efficient speed and therefore will be more polluting than say 30mph which was usually a desired optimised gear ratio

 

[deema]

I think there is harm in spreading misinformation such as the video you linked to earlier.

Stop posting about stuff you know absolutely nothing about. Take your own advise

 

[Jacob]

.....I can state categorically that none of the design specs included 20mph as a desired efficient gear ratio. So, anyone who thinks of suggesting otherwise is taking absolute bull. ....

But nobody said that in the first place.
The issues are:
"When speed limits are lower, people feel safer to cycle and to walk, so less people are driving," said Mr Waters. A Welsh government spokesperson said: "The introduction of a 20mph speed limit in mainly residential areas is designed to save lives and make our communities safer for everyone, including motorists."

 

[deema]

How about increasing speeds to 40mph in urban areas? Reduces CO2, decreases traffic density. Ask pedestrians to use crossing, not Jay walk? That would solve virtually all pedestrian deaths over night! Alternatively, just ban anything including cycles that’s got wheels and everyone just walks. No accidents ever, no CO2, very simple. We should go further and add rubber to every hard surface so if pedestrians do fall over they don’t hurt themselves and make them wear crash helmets, pads, high visibility vests and mobile warning bleepers and amber flashing lights so when they start walking an audible sound is emitted so everyone else knows that a walking hazard is coming.
Its about proportionality, the claims it’s safety is BS. If they want to make it safe, then adopt the proposals I’ve suggested.