80 mph speed limit proposal

[reohn2]

I agree about rural roads but don't see a way of feasibly enforcing it on low budgets or without speed cameras.

If enough tax was paid and if that tax revenue was used correctly there would be enough money to do the job properly(whatever that job were).

Governments lump together related law changes into on big bill. Its just what they do to save parliamentary time. One discussion, one vote, Simpler. Crams a lot more legislation into one parliament.

In this case (and many others) bunkum!

[Nutsey]

I agree about rural roads but don't see a way of feasibly enforcing it on low budgets or without speed cameras.

If enough tax was paid and if that tax revenue was used correctly there would be enough money to do the job properly(whatever that job were).

When I say 'feasibly' I mean reasonably likely to actually happen. Difficult to raise disposable tax revenue in a depression whilst paying off gargantuan debt.

Even the great inelastic petrol demand curve is being questioned. Fuel consumption down a whopping 15%

[snibgo]

What people and the media are overlooking is that this bill is way more than just the 80mph thing. Its also going to increase the number of 20mph zones in towns, and introduce a new "causing injury by dangerous driving" law.

I dunno if it matters, but the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/0 ... jail-terms) says the causing serious injury by dangerous driving "is to be introduced as an amendment to the government's legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill."

[reohn2]

What people and the media are overlooking is that this bill is way more than just the 80mph thing. Its also going to increase the number of 20mph zones in towns, and introduce a new "causing injury by dangerous driving" law.

I dunno if it matters, but the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/0 ... jail-terms) says the causing serious injury by dangerous driving "is to be introduced as an amendment to the government's legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill."

Theres a "dangerous driving" offence with stiff penalties on the statute books now,but its seldom implementeted,thats because we have a judicial system that stinks to high heaven and is afraid of slick lawyers.
Whats needed is a judicial system willing to hand out penalties the fit the crimes committed and a policeforce willing catch the criminals,not one thats being decimated by get you back politrickians.
Laws are useless unless they are able to implemented!

[Vorpal]

Even the great inelastic petrol demand curve is being questioned. Fuel consumption down a whopping 15%

Petrol consumption is down 15% over 2008 figures.

Comparing this year to last, UK petrol retail sales from January to March this year were down 3.7% on the same period last year. Diesel sales on forecourts were up 0.5%.

from link.

Not quite the same thing. Although diesel sales have dropped 6% since 2008, how much have they gone up over the lest decade with the increase in the number of diesel cars on the road? And how much do they account for the drop in petrol sales? How much do increases in fuel efficiency, or people purchasing smaller cars account for differences?

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just not quite what the AA paints it to be.

[Nutsey]

Even the great inelastic petrol demand curve is being questioned. Fuel consumption down a whopping 15%

Petrol consumption is down 15% over 2008 figures.

Comparing this year to last, UK petrol retail sales from January to March this year were down 3.7% on the same period last year. Diesel sales on forecourts were up 0.5%.

from link.

Not quite the same thing. Although diesel sales have dropped 6% since 2008, how much have they gone up over the lest decade with the increase in the number of diesel cars on the road? And how much do they account for the drop in petrol sales? How much do increases in fuel efficiency, or people purchasing smaller cars account for differences?

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just not quite what the AA paints it to be.

The 15% comes from the data which is split into various fuels, and includes deisel iirc. I think the fall in petrol is 20% from 2007 whilst deisel has remained constant. Depending on what figures and time periods you bundle together, it comes to 10-20%.

15% is broadly accurate enough. Its the reasons behind the drops thats most interesting though. The report is still embargoed, but shows that its due to all sorts of stuff, the main ones being:
- the Felixstowe train being used more for freight, trains being used more for cross country logistics more (eg from southern ports to Scotland etc),
- slower driving, fewer people driving, driving less frequently
- more economical cars being driven,
- people shifting to bikes and public transport

When the report is out, it should have all those coefficients you ask about above.


re deisel over the last decade. Figures here from the source - https://www.uktradeinfo.com/index.cfm?task=bulloil

Deisel volumes consumed roughly doubled from 1990 to 2007, then flatlined.

[snibgo]

I note the 2010 motor mileage figures are down by only 3.4% on the peak in 2007. Of course, the 2011 figures might be lower still.

[Vorpal]

15% is broadly accurate enough. Its the reasons behind the drops thats most interesting though. The report is still embargoed, but shows that its due to all sorts of stuff, the main ones being:
- the Felixstowe train being used more for freight, trains being used more for cross country logistics more (eg from southern ports to Scotland etc),
- slower driving, fewer people driving, driving less frequently
- more economical cars being driven,
- people shifting to bikes and public transport

When the report is out, it should have all those coefficients you ask about above.

It doesn't surprise me. I know that my friends and family are all using cars less. We went from two cars to one a couple of years ago. When we first did that, Mr. V was using the car daily, and I was using it once every week or two. Now, the car sometimes goes a week or two without moving. While others I know haven't reduced their use as much as we have, they're certainly driving less, and walking more. Even one of my neighbors, who has been stubborn and vocal about his rights to drive his kids to school, now lets them walk.

[Nutsey]

The big factor is fuel economy imho. Lots of people changing to smaller engines etc.

And all due to market forces rather than watermelon draconianism.

[Jonty]

The big factor is fuel economy imho. Lots of people changing to smaller engines etc.

And all due to market forces rather than watermelon draconianism.

True, but as I'm sure you are aware much of the price of petrol and diesel is due to tax. If the prices were simply market-determined they would be a lot lower.
Even the most highly inelatic demand curve will be tested if the price increases are draconian.
I suspect the demand curve for diesel is more inelastic than that of petrol because so many commercial vehicles use diesel and their journeys tend to be less discretionary.
jonty

[Nutsey]

The big factor is fuel economy imho. Lots of people changing to smaller engines etc.

And all due to market forces rather than watermelon draconianism.

True, but as I'm sure you are aware much of the price of petrol and diesel is due to tax. If the prices were simply market-determined they would be a lot lower.
Even the most highly inelatic demand curve will be tested if the price increases are draconian.
I suspect the demand curve for diesel is more inelastic than that of petrol because so many commercial vehicles use diesel and their journeys tend to be less discretionary.
jonty

The underlying change in petrol prices has been market-driven though, is what i meant. Upwards at least! They don't like to lower the prices

Re inelasticity, looking at individual decision-making at the micro level, I would say the inelasticty stems to some extent from irrational consumer behaviour whereby the perception is that cars/petrol is non-discretionary. But rational in the sense that this behaviour is probably modelable (new word?) based on marketing, entrenched group-think, etc - so undoable.

[Jonty]

The big factor is fuel economy imho. Lots of people changing to smaller engines etc.

And all due to market forces rather than watermelon draconianism.

True, but as I'm sure you are aware much of the price of petrol and diesel is due to tax. If the prices were simply market-determined they would be a lot lower.
Even the most highly inelatic demand curve will be tested if the price increases are draconian.
I suspect the demand curve for diesel is more inelastic than that of petrol because so many commercial vehicles use diesel and their journeys tend to be less discretionary.
jonty

The underlying change in petrol prices has been market-driven though, is what i meant. Upwards at least! They don't like to lower the prices

Re inelasticity, looking at individual decision-making at the micro level, I would say the inelasticty stems to some extent from irrational consumer behaviour whereby the perception is that cars/petrol is non-discretionary. But rational in the sense that this behaviour is probably modelable (new word?) based on marketing, entrenched group-think, etc - so undoable.

I go along with that. There may be all sorts of reasons, irrational and rational, why the demand for petrol doesn't tail off much when the price goes up but the key thing is that it is relatively inelatic as evidenced by the data on prices and quantity sold. You pay your money and make you choice for whatever reasons and that's that. I suspect it could be modelled using historical data.
Another related reason for the fall in demand could be the fall in real incomes being experienced by most people and of course rising unemployment with fewer people travelling to work.
jonty

[Ribblehead]

I'm opposed to an increase from 70 to 80, purely on the basis that it will increase the differential between the slowest and fastest vehicles. I've driven on plenty of motorways with steep hills and I'm pretty sure the increase will result in more accidents due to the greater disharmony of mixing traffic at different speeds.

I don't think more 20 zones will help much either. In my opinion the greatest problem is people who flout the existing 30 limit. Does anyone think they're going to give a stuff about 20 zones? Let's start by enforcing the limits we already have.

[Jonty]

I'm opposed to an increase from 70 to 80, purely on the basis that it will increase the differential between the slowest and fastest vehicles. I've driven on plenty of motorways with steep hills and I'm pretty sure the increase will result in more accidents due to the greater disharmony of mixing traffic at different speeds.

I don't think more 20 zones will help much either. In my opinion the greatest problem is people who flout the existing 30 limit. Does anyone think they're going to give a stuff about 20 zones? Let's start by enforcing the limits we already have.

+1
jonty

[Steady rider]

http://www.securite-routiere.org/docacr ... ne2001.pdf

part 162 makes the important safety point about speed differentials.

Part 141 states there is a case for reducing national speed limits and keeping the limit of 70 mph for better quality roads.

The national limit of 60 mph for single carriageway roads - non built-up areas - could be reduced to 50 mph unless signed otherwise.