Here appears to be a Welsh Gov fact sheet, they are obviously for it so take it as you will.
This: 30% Urban Fuel Savings Justify a Wide Area 20mph Speed Limit Policy albeit a pro 20 zone group implies fuel consumption can be better.
This also needs to offset against any increase in bikes/walking as well. Someone who cycles instead because they can easier keep up with the flow of the traffic instead of the car is a huge plus.
So drive like a tortoise, not a hare. Thanks for sharing that.
Start Stop and acceleration always is the big fuel consumer, a lot of cars can use nearly no fuel when left in gear with no depression of the accelerator.
In Edinburgh travel times went up slightly for me but the biggest travel time delay was traffic lights and traffic in general, most traffic as peak times wouldnt hit 30mph for long before hitting a red light or catching up with traffic but all that energy getting to 30mph over 20mph is wasted as the 20mph drive catches up at the same lights albeit a few seconds behind. Ideally you want to never start stop and arrive as the traffic light changes for better economy.
People in Edinburgh pleeped they couldnt handle doing 20mph over 30mph but they either remembered how to drive properly or were pointed out of their license by speeding.
It isnt a simple change but in Edinburgh there were quite a few roads left at 30/40mph as they were not residential and were trunk roads for a lot of traffic. Maybe Edinburgh could have got away with a few more 30mph trunk roads but I am not sure now.
This does not meant the next town/city/gov wont bork it up though and go overboard one way or the other.
Not had an invitation yet but I noticed I can now book one in the NHS app. I had my last booster at the end of May, so will leave this one until November. Recent studies have shown that you get the maximum immune response 6 months apart.
I’m going to try and find one that fell off the back of a lorry.
I don’t think I’m officially eligible but have repeat prescriptions for medication that may or may not be on the list plus CEV relatives I’m in contact with. So… fingers crossed.
At least once considering a vote of no confidence.
Oh come on now people will get used to it. The economy isn’t going to tank because people have to drive a little slower now.
Beyond saving lives, I think it makes towns nicer places and makes cycling and walking around safer, especially for families.
The hotly debated emissions question is all a distraction. To lower emissions we need to move to newer engines and eventually electric as quickly as possible, this is well known already. Changing the speed limit won’t alter the goal or how we get there.
Overall, it seems pretty sensible to me to save lives and make towns nicer places for walking and cycling around.
Whenever anything annoys drivers (speed cameras, emissions zones, pedestrianised areas etc ) the drivers will come out armed with ‘facts’ pumped out from lobby groups as to why we should let drivers do basically whatever they want, but honestly I struggle to believe their main objection is not just ‘this is a bit inconvenient for me so I’m going to find some reasons not to like it’:
This might be the most depressing news story of the year for me.
“Other countries should do their bit” is the moral equivalent of “everyone else is walking by that person who needs help so it’s only fair if I walk by too”. A borderline childish view of morality and responsibility on an issue that faces the globe (not to mention the absurdity of the idea that the U.K. - not remotely on track to hit net 0 in 50 years which is already a dangerously low target - has ‘done its bit’).
I can only hope the public won’t stand for it. The papers will support it though.
It’s such a stupid thing to do.
Ah! We had the rhetoric out of the US government recently too (right of course think it was an argument that DESTROYED Greta), but I think Greta’s group had an amazing response to it, even in the edited version that supposedly put her weak argument to shame.
Gonna have to try and find it now. It was a YouTube short I was mindlessly scrolling through though.
Edit: found it. The title makes no sense in the context of the video at all, and IMO it’s the contrary. Her panel had a superb response to that idiocy. It ends at about 2:30 and jumps to something completely different as far as I can tell.
Ford seems THRILLED with the change…
And if she is saying that children prefer portacabins, then the state of their usual classrooms must be pretty dire. Can’t believe she’s trying to see this as a positive thing.
The delaying of net zero targets is nothing but electoral desperation to further differentiate themselves from Labour.
I’m not surprised children prefer them after being told their normal classrooms might collapse on top of them
Yeah they are just trying to get in on the ULEZ hate.
All this because they won that seat a few weeks ago (despite also losing a lot of votes).
I don’t even understand the political motivation behind this. The Tories could spend very little trying to meet any goals over the next year, then force Labour into the decision to spend the large amounts of money needed or scrap the plans, both of which the Tories could use against Labour. It makes absolutely no sense for the Tories to scrap them now considering “going green” is popular in polls and because it now gives Labour a very obvious group of people to blame if/when they get into power.
What is Rishi on about?!
“The public don’t like short-termism, so I’m going to rip off policies that have been in place for years for a short-term win.”
“The public doesn’t like current politics” says the PM
“Listing the 5 aims that I still haven’t sorted out and won’t any time soon.”
It’s so bad.
And now he’s on about honesty and democracy, you know, the PM changing policy without a general election and without even facing MPs. An utter disgrace.
And he listed a full range of policies that they were never going to implement and said he canceled them. His speech was just full of lies and gaslighting.