backtop


Print 66 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Oct 17 at 3:01 PM

The Department of Energy and Climate Change says EVs can travel faster without emitting as much CO2

British Transport Secretary Philip Hammond announced last week that the highway speed limit might be raised to 80 mph by 2013 on the motorways of England and Wales. But now, the Department of Energy and Climate Change is arguing the government's intentions by suggesting that the new speed limit should be applied to electric vehicles only.

The reason for the highway speed limit increase was to reduce travel times and cut pollution. But those at the Department of Energy and Climate Change say this would lead to a boost in carbon dioxide emissions and goes against the UK's greener policies.

To compromise on the issue, Chris Huhne, Energy and Climate secretary, suggested that the new speed limit apply only to electric vehicles. That way, extra CO2 emissions would not be a problem.

Tesla Models S (black) and Roadster (red) electic cars [Source: Tesla Motors]

"You could foresee a situation where it [the 80 mph limit] would apply to electric vehicles, in which case there would be absolutely no extra carbon emissions," said Huhne. "We're consulting on this and going through all the processes of looking at what the costs and benefits are. We are lower than many other countries at the moment, including some with very good green reputations."

Reports note that some stretches of highway will continue enforcing a 70 mph speed limit for all vehicles due to their "engineering and environment."

Government officials will also need to look into how a split speed limit on highways will be policed as well as potential safety issues associated with a 10 mph boost for electric vehicles only.

CarScoop noted that 80 mph would quickly deplete an EV battery, and that many wouldn't comply with the enhanced speed limit for this reason.

Sources: CarScoop, AutoCar



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

This makes no logical sense.
By 91TTZ on 10/14/2011 12:42:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The reason for the highway speed limit increase was to reduce travel times and cut pollution.


This makes no sense. A car will emit more pollution per mile doing 80 mph than it will at 50 mph.

They're probably falsely believing that since the cars will be on the road for a shorter period of time that they'll pump out fewer emissions.

They're thinking:

A car traveling 40 miles will be on the road for .5 hours at 80 mph but .8 hours at 50 mph. Therefore it will have less emissions.

But in reality at 80 mph you'll have more total emissions since your fuel economy drops. This holds true for EVs and normal cars.




RE: This makes no logical sense.
By Wonga on 10/15/2011 4:31:54 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know where CarScoop got their information from, but I haven't heard anyone in government suggesting that emissions would drop if we drove faster.

What I have heard stated is that 1) modern cars are safer than the old vehicles which were on the road when the 70mph limit was introduced and 2) the UK economy could benefit from the increased speed limit (since we're spending more time being productive).

I think an increase in the speed limit is long overdue and will more closely reflect the reality on the ground (i.e. the majority of people do exceed 70mph on the motorway at some time or another).


RE: This makes no logical sense.
By Qapa on 10/15/2011 8:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, limits should be increased when no one cares about them anymore because they are a joke.


RE: This makes no logical sense.
By Navvie0 on 10/16/2011 4:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
When the 70mph limit was introduced, very few cars that Average Joe owned could actually achieve 70mph. Those that could shook so much you'd think the car was going to fall to pieces around you.

Compare that to a modern car today, you could just as easily do 100mph as you can 30mph. Aside from the fact that lamp posts pass a bit quicker there is little to no sensation of speed.

The only economic benefit is that we'd all be putting more fuel into our cars, and the government would make more in duty and VAT.

With an 80mph limit we'd all just leave for work later, get home earlier. I fail to see the economic benefit in that?!


RE: This makes no logical sense.
By Qapa on 10/15/2011 8:09:58 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, slower does not always mean less gas used per distance .

There are optimum speeds to use less gas in the same trip.

That said, I'm not sure about which speeds those are, and engine's rpm is also a factor for gas consumption and at "high speeds" car drag should also be a factor.

But for instance, for sure going 60mph is better than going 10mph (similar rpms).


RE: This makes no logical sense.
By cmdrdredd on 10/16/2011 12:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
Um...what? I know for a fact that highway driving gives HIGHER MPG than city driving.


RE: This makes no logical sense.
By Navvie0 on 10/16/2011 4:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
Just because you say something is a fact, doesn't make it so.

City driving is usually accelerate, stop, acccelerate, cruise a little, stop. Goto 1. Sitting in traffic doing 0 mph with the engine idling gets you 0 miles per gallon, and accelerating is bad for fuel economy.

In the best case scenario, highway/motorway driving you are able to cruise at a steady speed.

My own experience is that, in all cars I have owned, the best fuel economy is achieved when travelling at city speed limits without the accelerate/stop usually associated with city driving.


RE: This makes no logical sense.
By shiftypy on 10/17/2011 6:13:26 AM , Rating: 2
driving at steady speed in top gear at lowest usable rpm
for most cars it is between 30-50 mph
if you go faster the air resistance increases too much
there is no car that would use less fuel at 80 than at 70


fantasy world
By tastyratz on 10/14/2011 11:16:00 AM , Rating: 3
What fantasy world do government regulators live in where electric vehicles result in no emissions?
The all electric vehicle emits no LOCALIZED emissions, but still runs on our nations derelict largely coal powered electric grid resulting in MORE EMISSIONS and pollution overall than a gasoline engine!

I want a free lunch too




RE: fantasy world
By titanmiller on 10/14/2011 10:45:36 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly my thoughts! That shows you the very limited knowledge that some policy makers have of subjects they legislate on.


RE: fantasy world
By dotpoz on 10/17/2011 8:05:50 AM , Rating: 2
It's true but..

A petrol engine has a 28% efficiency
A diesel engine has a 33% efficiency
A battery powered engine has a 43% efficiency (a modern thermoelectric plant has a 60% efficiency, battery pack has a 80% eff. and the electric engine has a 90% eff.)


RE: fantasy world
By rcc on 10/17/2011 2:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, many of them know. They just don't care. At least not if saying otherwise will further their current agenda.


RE: fantasy world
By Aloonatic on 10/15/2011 5:18:02 AM , Rating: 2
Totally agree. It's probably the same fantasy world where the speed limit isn't already 80 MPH, if not 90 MPH on UK motorways anyway, as that's what most people drive at when they want to. The basic rule followed by many is that you get an instant ban if caught going 30 MPH over the speed limit (no matter what the limit) so anything under 100 or 90 MPH on the motorway is pretty much the norm. Many police officers will tell you that they are instructed to ignore people doing 10 MPH over the limit in most areas, other than residential and shopping areas where there are people walking about, of course.

Having said that, from what I've seen on the UK's motorways over the last few years is that average speeds and car numbers have dropped considerable because people either try to drive more efficiently, or simply can't afford to at all, as the price of petrol is £1.30 to £1.40 (an a little more expensive for diesel too) a litre across the UK.


RE: fantasy world
By Qapa on 10/15/2011 8:33:24 AM , Rating: 2
You're not completely off - EVs do produce pollution because their juice usually comes from a mix of coal/natural gas/water/wind/solar/nuclear/... (some more than others on different countries).

But:
1 - some of that energy is renewable (some European countries are reaching 20%-50% renewable energy for their grid)
2 - large factories of whatever are way more efficient than ICE

So there is NO WAY an EV can pollute as much as an ICE vehicle, even if you try really hard.

So, not a free lunch, but still with less pollution.

Also a little off topic, but as you mentioned EV's pollution is not localized, which is great since it should help people have less breathing illnesses.


RE: fantasy world
By FirNaTine on 10/17/2011 9:04:51 AM , Rating: 2
As with many things it depends on your definition. I can't quickly find it, but I saw a comparison that showed a Prius to be worse for emissions than a Hummer over their lifetime. How you may ask? The amount of fuel/resources used in producing and shipping the components making the Prius was not overcome by the lower fuel consumption in its projected lifetime.

There is a large amount of rare earth elements used in the electric portion of hybrids. They are almost exlcusively mined in China, and are very resource intensive to obtain the quantities involved in the production.

If you add in the battery components as well, they CAN be worse than ICE vehicles over a life cycle.

Now this addresses pollution after production, but don't think for a minute that this would not change the demand curve. This would cause more of these vehicles to be produced with a significant impact.

Simplistics policies, and analysis does not work when you are talking about a subjeccgt this complex.....

As far as the breathing problem comment, where do you think that non-local polltion goes? People are still breathing it somewhere....


RE: fantasy world
By rcc on 10/17/2011 2:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also a little off topic, but as you mentioned EV's pollution is not localized, which is great since it should help people have less breathing illnesses.


Well yeah, unless of course you live downwind of the coal burning power plant.

While I grant you that EVs are more efficient for most things, it's not a magic want.


But but but,
By EasyC on 10/14/2011 10:53:51 AM , Rating: 2
Aren't the current speed limits set for safety's sake??? That's what Uncle Sam says so it must be so! These EV's must be much safer at that speed!

[/sarcasm]




RE: But but but,
By Camikazi on 10/14/2011 5:42:23 PM , Rating: 4
Don't think Uncle Sam has any say in the UK :P


Good old governemnt...
By hughlle on 10/14/2011 10:45:24 AM , Rating: 2
If they want to try farting arou/nd like that, well firt, there are no EV's in the Uk really, they're all just hybrids which run at full clop by using a non-electric motor.

And well, if i'm restricted to 70mph then i will sit in the outside lane doing my 70mph and anyone else can get stuffed :) Poxy interfering government.

I say all that, it won't make any difference, i've never driven on motorways at anything less than 90mph and near every car in the outside lane is generally doing 90-100. When everyone's speeding it' pretty difficult for a motorway cop to do anything to any great effect :) Power in numbers! :)




RE: Good old governemnt...
By semo on 10/14/2011 10:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
This could also be the government's excuse to introduce those tracking black boxes they've always wanted to push out.

How else can they send penalties to non EV cars doing 80Mph?


Volt?
By Flunk on 10/14/2011 11:20:41 AM , Rating: 2
Does the Chevy Volt count as a EV? It's the only thing I can think of that would actually be useful going 80MPH because it has that backup generator. I suppose a Tesla could be fun but it would still run out of juice pretty quick.




RE: Volt?
By MrTeal on 10/14/2011 12:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on what you mean by pretty quick, I guess.

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/roadster-efficienc...

According to Telsa, the Roadster would get about 150 miles going 80MPH.
quote:
Now that we have a better understanding of how much energy the Roadster uses per mile, the next question is how far can it go? The typical full capacity of a new battery pack when charged to 100% in maximum range mode and discharged steadily over 3 hours is about 55kWh. Using that number you can calculate an interesting driving range curve for various speeds.

The last curve on that page is probably a little simplistic since it assumes a constant capacity battery and then calculates the range based on the modeled power draw vs speed curves. It needs to be derated for the lower effective capacity you'll get at higher draws, so range vs speed will actually drop off a little quicker than indicated there. Still, you should be able to get at least 120 miles on a charge @ 80MPH. If your commute is more than 120 miles round trip, you need to plug and at work and start looking for a new house or job.


CO2...
By Arsynic on 10/14/2011 11:28:22 AM , Rating: 4
Everytime I see the "CO2" in a title, I approach it like I'm reading religious material.

You would be surprised how things start to make more sense from a logical perspective when you look at it through a religious lens.




And don't forget...
By kjboughton on 10/14/2011 11:30:08 AM , Rating: 4
All animals are equal. Some are just more equal than others.




Idiot government.
By dark matter on 10/14/2011 12:44:14 PM , Rating: 3
We pay the highest energy prices in Europe. The UK consumer is actually subsidising FRENCH consumers by paying a dramatically higher price for the same energy produced by the French STATE owned energy company.

Our idiotic Toff Tory bastards who have had privelged lives have no idea about the real world other than their contacts in the golf house and public school friends.

They are full of sleaze. One of Camerons minions got caught throwing confidential documents in the bin in a PUBLIC park.

Our defence secretary is a shitstorm of trouble for his "friend" who has been using him as a cover to obtain some questionable business deals...

And still Cameron won't sack him.

They also refuse to give the people a vote on Europe, where we pay billions out, and still pay billions in aid to INDIA, despite them having a fucking SPACE program..

So they can take their extra 10mph speed increase and shove it where the sun don't shine.

NO ONE will be able to afford to drive at that speed.

Apart from those bastards, who claim it illegally on expenses.




RE: Idiot government.
By martin5000 on 10/14/2011 1:28:44 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, I know its fun to hate government, but at least be accurate. point by point:

We don't pay the highest energy prices, despite the amount media like to moan about it.

It's Labour's policies that are causing prices to rise (remember those 13 years of Labour???)

The documents Cameron's "minion" put in a bin were not confidential.

No media has any real evidence Fox did anything wrong beyond inviting his friend to meetings, and he has resigned anyway.

There is more poverty in India than in Africa, just because their government doesn't care doesn't mean we shouldn't (and it was Cameron who stopped giving aid to China).


RE: Idiot government.
By dark matter on 10/14/11, Rating: 0
Can't wait..
By ConcernedConsumer on 10/14/2011 11:56:52 AM , Rating: 3
I can't wait to hear Clarkson and crew's take on this one :-D




Oh I cant wait
By GruntboyX on 10/14/2011 12:59:53 PM , Rating: 3
This is sure going to Piss Jeremy Clarkson off. Cant wait to watch the fall out.




Yea -
By Dr of crap on 10/14/2011 10:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
I can see where these EV will be on the side of the road needing a tow to the nearest charging station.

Aren't most EV designed for in city driving, and the range is reduced a lot if the speed is to high?




Most people do 80 already
By Madzombie on 10/15/2011 4:44:53 AM , Rating: 2
The de facto limit is already close to 80. Speed cameras are set to 79mph+ and I have never heard of someone being pulled over for less than that.




Yea but...
By ballist1x on 10/17/2011 4:38:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to IIHS data, Speed - defined as exceeding the posted speed limit or driving too fast for conditions - is a factor in nearly one third of all fatal crashes. They further assert that speed reduces the amount of available time and space needed to avoid a crash, increasing the likelihood of crashing and increasing the severity of a crash once it occurs.


Yea but they tend to crash into those going too slowly...Its the guy doing 55 in the outside lane whos the problem, then some guy tanks up to the back of him at 80-90 and has to brake suddenly - enter chaos.

The ecological argument i dont understand here either, YES you will consume more petrol at 80mph as opposed to 70...But petrol isnt free, nor subsidised. You'll end up paying 75% extra on all of that extra petrol you consumed anyway...The government has made it fine to consume petrol, they have externalised mitigated the pollution through taxation. My car gets roughly 15-20mpg (MR2 turbo) - in good conditions, thats less than some cars will get at 60mph let alone 80. But i pay the cash penalty for it. if i did 70 or 80 the difference between the two will be quite low.




No...
By ballist1x on 10/17/2011 9:00:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even so, what is it that makes drivers a LESSER amount below the speed limit a danger? People who are going ABOVE the speed limit. It is totally ridiculous to think everyone should drive over the speed limit because a few do. The fact is, study after study confirms that the higher the speed limit is, the higher the fatalities are. Driving faster DOES cost lives.


No.. its driving recklessly that costs lives. Look people OFTEN do 50mph on the outside lane on a motorway i drive to work every day overtaking some lorry, that they arent going fast enough to overtake quickly or safely. They lack discipline, they lack awareness.

But irrespective of that:

I could drive 'sensibly' at 100mph down an empty motorway, a whole 30 above the limit and not have a crash OR endanger anyone elses life.

Alternatively i could drive at 70mph down the same stretch of clear motorway, recklessly hooning the car about all over the road. What is causing the danger? It is of course the driver.

Sure get a reckless driver who is going faster and the end result could be worse, but its not the speed in an absolute sense that is the problem, its the standard of the driver.




I think it is a good idea
By semo on 10/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: I think it is a good idea
By JediJeb on 10/14/2011 11:07:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just hope that oil cartels are not replaced by lithium cartels...


In my best Yoda impression "They will be,,,They will be"


RE: I think it is a good idea
By DT_Reader on 10/14/2011 11:10:16 AM , Rating: 3
Most lithium deposits are in Bolivia, and the government has already taken steps to ensure their reserves aren't taken over by foreign corporations. In other words, there's already a lithium cartel: Bolivia.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By AnnihilatorX on 10/14/2011 11:14:13 AM , Rating: 2
While advancement of battery technology is slow, breakthrough does happen. I don't think Lithium batteries is the ultimate material for providing electric power like oil is for the motoring power of present day transports.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By semo on 10/14/2011 11:31:41 AM , Rating: 2
That's my hope too but I think it is unlikely. There is just too much money put in to lithium already and it is still struggling to gain traction.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By idiot77 on 10/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: I think it is a good idea
By MrBlastman on 10/14/2011 12:47:25 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. Bolivia is sitting on their hoard just waiting to force prices to skyrocket. Fortunately though, we have found substantial deposits of Lithium in Afghanistan. Unfortunately for everyone though, the natives there appear to be restless. ;)


RE: I think it is a good idea
By DT_Reader on 10/14/2011 11:08:25 AM , Rating: 4
It's a terrible idea. It's not the speed that's a problem, it's speed differential. With some cars allowed to go faster than all others there's bound to be more accidents - and high-speed accidents, to boot! Unless the EVs get their own lane it won't work, and that lane will be mostly empty because, as others have pointed out, EVs can't go very far at that speed.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By Breakfast Susej on 10/14/2011 11:15:20 AM , Rating: 3
This is the most valid point.

A speed differential like this without a designated lane will be a disaster.

Contrary to belief going 20 mph below the speed limit is arguably just as dangerous as going 20 mph past it.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By sigmatau on 10/14/2011 11:45:21 AM , Rating: 3
Actualy more accidents are caused by slow drivers than by fast drivers. Speeding is most often than not a contributing factor but not the cause.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By Iaiken on 10/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: I think it is a good idea
By sigmatau on 10/14/2011 12:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing I said is incorrect. Everyone is speeding except for a handful of drivers.

Whether it's 1mph, 5mph, 10mph, or more over the speed limit, all of these will be listed as speeding. If everyone is going 75mph in a 65mph zone, and 1 - 2 drivers are going 60mph, then many drivers will have to go around these slower drivers. Accidents occur because someone did not expect another driver to be going 20mph less than everyone. The speed limits are designed to try to get everyone traveling at the same speed so there won't be any surprises, not to punish speeders.

So the numbers are meaningless if you can't break down how fast over the speed limit caused how many accidents. Otherwise, speeding is listed in almost every accident.

It is safer to drive 5 mph over than 5 mph under the speed limit.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By Iaiken on 10/14/2011 12:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even read my post? You basically disagreed with me by reposting my final point.... the fact that there is a flip side.

quote:
Now there is also a flip side to this, there are highways in LA, Toronto, Phoenix, etc where I wouldn't dream of driving the posted limit just because literally everyone else is doing 30kph over the limit. If you're doing 30 less than everyone else, you become an obstacle whether you like it or not. In situations like this, enforcement needs to either crack down on speeding or bump the limit up.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By Spuke on 10/14/2011 12:46:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They further assert that speed reduces the amount of available time and space needed to avoid a crash, increasing the likelihood of crashing and increasing the severity of a crash once it occurs.
I question these statistics everytime I read them. By their own data, raising speed limits would cause even more accidents. So why let the states manage their own speed limits, with nearly all increasing them since the national 55 limit, if speed is such a huge factor in accidents? This sounds like reason to have a low national speed limit to me yet we don't. Which is it, safe or unsafe?


RE: I think it is a good idea
By Iaiken on 10/14/2011 12:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which is it, safe or unsafe?


Well that depends on the road...

Roadways that are perfectly straight for miles with no intersections (just ramps) are more tolerant to high speeds than say a narrow twisting road along a cliff-side.

I've been on roads where the speed limit was 25kph for good reason, I've also done 250kph on the autobahn.

Basically you need to set the speed that is appropriate to what a typical car can do there safely. On that 25kph road, I could have easily done 80kph in my Mini without even leaving my lane, but I would have died in a fiery car crash if I tried that in a Camry at even 50kph.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By Spuke on 10/14/2011 3:00:04 PM , Rating: 2
I understand what you're saying but I'm addressing US hypocrisy I mean policy in particular here. Those that defend this particular policy ALWAYS bring up, IMO, flawed statistics that state "speed" is unsafe yet the feds returned the decision on where to set speed limits back to the states. And those states promptly raised all limits. If "speeding" is so unsafe, why did the feds give that back to the states? They had a case to keep it national and low. There's something missing here.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By cjohnson2136 on 10/14/2011 3:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
I say lower them in the US. If Americans can't won't follow the speed limit set a max and min. If you can't drive in between that limit you shouldn't be driving...this is assuming that there is no rain.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By cruisin3style on 10/14/2011 3:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Contrary to belief going 20 mph below the speed limit is arguably just as dangerous as going 20 mph past it.


so very much this.

if i have one more d-bag that is going 35-40 from the on-ramp to a highway where even in the right lane people drive at least 60 i'm going to shoot someone


RE: I think it is a good idea
By cjohnson2136 on 10/14/2011 4:08:16 PM , Rating: 2
Depends where are the ramp you are. Around the turn you are suppose to go the limit that it says. But half way through the turn you can start to spend up to what traffic will be on the highway. You shouldn't be flying around on the on-ramp at 60mph though.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By mindless1 on 10/14/2011 6:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
Learn how to drive. The safe speed for an on-ramp is NOT the same speed as the expressway itself, due to visibility factors, your turn radius, and your need to yield to traffic already on the expressway if it came down to a dead even approach at the end of the ramp.

Further the argument is ludicrous to begin with. It is extremely rare for people to be traveling 20 MPH below the speed limit, and in cases they are, it is highly likely they do so only because of some problematic situation like overload weight hauling, a flat tire replaced with the standard temporary low speed tire that cars now come with.

Even so, what is it that makes drivers a LESSER amount below the speed limit a danger? People who are going ABOVE the speed limit. It is totally ridiculous to think everyone should drive over the speed limit because a few do. The fact is, study after study confirms that the higher the speed limit is, the higher the fatalities are. Driving faster DOES cost lives.

If you get so enraged that you feel the need to fantasize about shooting someone, you are mentally unfit to be driving on public roads, are the primary problem. Differences in speed are not nearly so great a problem as that once man had invented a gas and brake pedal in automobiles. Learn to use them.

I too find people driving slow in the wrong lane annoying but the fact remains that if you are driving at an illegally high speed, you are in the wrong to complain about someone so long as they aren't driving at an illegally low speed.

Sometimes they ARE driving at a speed low enough they should not be on that particular road and so they should get a ticket, but using that excuse to hate is no better than their hating excessive speeders for making everything less safe in general.

PS - if you have a problem with people entering the freeway at 35-40, it seems a simple matter to leave that lane when you see traffic merging. I do it all the time and consider it the polite and better way to help keep traffic flowing smoothly.

Also, if you find these slow drivers such a problem, THAT in itself is a very clear sign you are driving too fast for conditions. Learn how to drive please.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By YashBudini on 10/15/2011 3:49:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Learn how to drive.

One need only look the trends in safety to see that what you're asking for is too much.

It's a nice thought though.

quote:
The safe speed for an on-ramp is NOT the same speed as the expressway itself

How many people go the end of the on ramp without looking in the mirror, stop, and then look back?


RE: I think it is a good idea
By sigmatau on 10/14/2011 11:33:47 AM , Rating: 2
I would guess those vehicles would have their own lane. Can't see it happening any other way.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By semo on 10/14/11, Rating: 0
RE: I think it is a good idea
By Invane on 10/14/2011 12:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
He's absolutely correct. And he's not saying drivers will blindly drive into a car in front of them. Overtaking/passing situations are more dangerous than simply remaining at speed behind vehicles that are doing the same speed as you. Any thing you do to increase the speed differential and how often overtaking/passing situations occur will increase how often accidents occur. I also believe this to be a poor idea for the same reasons.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By sigmatau on 10/14/2011 12:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
I can only see this working in a car pool lane which is usualy the most left lane in the US. This lane is only for certain cars and if California is any indication, these lanes will be for only EV vehicles in the future. Hybrids don't even qualify for some of them anymore.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By rcc on 10/17/2011 2:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
ok, that's a bit misleading.

It Hybrid, or, as you said, now EV if you are in the car by yourself. You can drive a Humvee in the car pool lane with a passenger(s).


RE: I think it is a good idea
By MrBlastman on 10/14/2011 12:45:36 PM , Rating: 5
Have you ever driven on an 8-lane highway (in each direction)? Have you ever had the displeasure to be minding your own business travelling at 70 MPH only to come upon what looks to be major congestion in front of you... and ultimately discover the reason behind it is a SINGLE PERSON going 50 MPH in one of the middle to left-hand lanes?

Probably not.

This is just what happens though. One bad apple ruins it for everyone on the highway and it happens all the time. You get these putzes who have no freaking clue that the left hand lane is the passing lane and end up driving much slower than the rest of traffic on it. This causes other people to slow down behind them or instead, do something more dangerous.

Dangerous such as passing on one of the right-hand lanes which are typically reserved for allowing people to exit the highway from--thus creating MORE chaos because people who want to exit, can't because people are speeding by them as they try and move over to get off. One single slow person causes a complete cluster-f%&k on the highway.

You haven't been driving for long if you've never seen this... or you just don't get out and travel much.

Oh, and YES, they DO contribute to road rage. You aren't human if you have encountered one of these dolts and thought of some less than nice thoughts about them.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By sigmatau on 10/14/2011 1:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
In my state, there is not one highway with one car pool lane, so I know far more than anyone about the left lane dolts. My state even has signs that says "Slower drivers keep right", and they still sit there going 10 mph slower than everyone else. They don't even notice people zooming on their rear. Most are oblivious, on the cell phone, think the left lane is safe because it is far away from the exiting/merging lanes, etc.

All I can say is that I understand you feel that they are inconsiderate, dangerous drivers, but what can you do?

Anyhow, I was talking about areas that have car pool lanes. These lanes are clearly marked, sometimes separated from the highway with many, many signs indicating penalties for violations, and indeed many of them are patrolled. I can see these lanes increased in speed as it will be one or two lanes at most (almost always one lane), as they will be separated from the other traffic to some extent and the drivers should be more educated as they will need to know the laws more clearly about these lanes than others. Many of the already have rules where you can't get out of the lane until an exit comes up.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By Solandri on 10/14/2011 1:52:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In my state, there is not one highway with one car pool lane, so I know far more than anyone about the left lane dolts. My state even has signs that says "Slower drivers keep right", and they still sit there going 10 mph slower than everyone else. They don't even notice people zooming on their rear.

In Germany, police can ticket you for failing to yield and move over to the right if another vehicle approaches you from behind. It's what lets the Autobahn work (different cars have different speed limits based on their performance rating, but all share the same road).


RE: I think it is a good idea
By sigmatau on 10/14/2011 2:12:45 PM , Rating: 2
In Germany, there are much higher requirements to get a driver's license, and the people there are much more serious drivers. I travel on a four lane (one way) highway for over an hour several times a week and have seen the most laziest, inconsiderate, and incompetent drivers.

No one uses signals when switching lanes, I am the sole one it appears. I often think that when I do so, others must wonder what I am doing. The left lane, which is the passing lane, is slower than the other lanes because everyone wants to sit and cruise there for various reason. Even buses and sometimes tractor trailers will find themselves in these lanes.

I especially love our tractor trailers. They will be going 10-15 mph lower than the other traffic sitting in the right lane behind some other traffic, and just as you are about to pass both of them in the left, the jump in the left lane and sit there for about 5 miles as they refuse to try to pass in a reasonable manner. I actually sat behind one of these twits for almost ten minutes. Two tractor trailer side by side for ten minutes on a two lane highway not allowing anyone to pass. That's just brilliant.

The other awesome driver is the one that sits in the left lane, driving 10mph slower than others, and when cars zoom up on his rear, he continues to sit there with no traffic in front of him, and opportunity to move to another (non-passing) lane. You can't do anything except either pass on the right, or allow everyone to pass you on the right.

I'd be scared to death to drive a motorcycle in my state. I'd be hit in the first 10 minutes by someone not looking and merging into my lane.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By YashBudini on 10/15/2011 3:38:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In Germany, police can ticket you for failing to yield and move over to the right if another vehicle approaches you from behind.

In the US we would need to increase the number of cops by a factor of 5 just to enforce that law.

In reality the only law enforced to any degree is speeding, because of radar. Tailgating, unsafe lane changes, running lights, for the most part are rarely addressed.

Most drivers in the US drive only in 1 state. The state of obliviousness.


RE: I think it is a good idea
By rcc on 10/17/2011 3:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
The same is actually true in most of the US. The problem is that it isn't enforced.

Passing on the right is a no-no. But everyone does it because the police will ignore the person doing 50 in the fast lane, instead of ticketing them as they should.

Perhaps it's an ego thing. They had to have to admit to writing 10 tickets yesterday for people going too slow?


RE: I think it is a good idea
By MrBlastman on 10/14/2011 2:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah carpool lanes are the only way having different speed limits per type of car/lane will work in America. Our driving requirements are so low here we get all sorts of nuts on the road. If the EV's were to be segregated to their own lane to go faster in, it would be okay provided they also had their own exit lane as well.

In Atlanta, we actually have separate exit lanes for the HOV lanes (carpool lanes) that exit from the middle of the freeway instead of the right hand side. Believe it or not, we've had some people manage to screw even _that_ up... There was a Greyhound bus driver a couple of years ago that must have thought it was a Grand Theft Auto 3 jump ramp for extra points and he, well... didn't stop when he got to the top of the ramp and flew through the wall of the bridge and off the other side...

It's incredible who we let get a license here.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki