20mph is just the start.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

As posted on Page 3 of this thread, this is shown to be counterfactual…

You may believe that, but if you recall, I responded:

‘I’d love to know how they worked that out. Did they carry out an experiment?’

Figures may be banded about that someone thinks up, and people are just supposed to believe it without question.

It stands to reason that travelling at 20mph takes longer to travel from A to B than a car travelling at 30mph, which means that engines are running longer, in second or third gear, and car bunching increases the concentration of fumes before they can be blown away by the wind.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You may believe that, but if you recall, I responded:

‘I’d love to know how they worked that out. Did they carry out an experiment?’

Figures may be banded about that someone thinks up, and people are just supposed to believe it without question.

It stands to reason that travelling at 20mph takes longer to travel from A to B than a car travelling at 30mph, which means that engines are running longer, in second or third gear, and car bunching increases the concentration of fumes before they can be blown away by the wind.

https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloa...issions-report

Page 6 onwards.

Originally Posted by Hugh

As posted on Page 3 of this thread, this is shown to be counterfactual…

"estimated" & "may increase" are not entirely factual.

[Pierre]

It shouldn’t even be a discussion item.

Anyone advocating a blanket 20mph limit is an idiot. If you’re defending that on here you’re an idiot.

I am not against 20mph limits. Outside schools, in residential estate roads. But on main thoroughfares in urban areas 30mph is fine.

Anyone wanting 20mph in town centres, also an idiot.

Have the next two generations below me been born and bred so stupid they can’t cross the road? If they’re that stupid Darwinism takes over.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

As posted on Page 3 of this thread, this is shown to be counterfactual…

In your ritual attempt to take OB down, you omitted this conclusion on page 11 of the report:

Conclusions were that:
<SNIP>
 streets where traffic flow was more likely to be interrupted were shown to have higher emission rates. However, this was often the result of other traffic management infrastructure (pedestrian facilities and junctions);
<SNIP>

The experts involved with this study were: Air Pollution/Quality Dons, E., Temmerman, P., van Poppel, M., Bellemans, T., Wets, G., Panis, L. 2013. Street characteristics and traffic factors determining road users’ exposure to black carbon, Science of the Total Environment, 447: pp. 72-79.

OB was making just this point.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I am not against 20mph limits. Outside schools, in residential estate roads. But on main thoroughfares in urban areas 30mph is fine.

Most councils had use TROs to set up 20mph limits around schools, etc already. In fact, quite a few here have traffic bans at certain times near schools. Policed by automatic cameras. A nice little earner.

Some even have signs that illuminate at certain times when school are actually in use.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It shouldn’t even be a discussion item.

Anyone advocating a blanket 20mph limit is an idiot. If you’re defending that on here you’re an idiot.

I am not against 20mph limits. Outside schools, in residential estate roads. But on main thoroughfares in urban areas 30mph is fine.

Anyone wanting 20mph in town centres, also an idiot.

Have the next two generations below me been born and bred so stupid they can’t cross the road? If they’re that stupid Darwinism takes over.

For national government I agree. Nobody is better placed to make decisions for their local area than local people.

The fact Sunak lowers himself to this, embracing himself to the deluded fantasists who think 15 minute neighbourhoods is a way to control people, stinks of desperation.

Originally Posted by Pierre

It shouldn’t even be a discussion item.

Anyone advocating a blanket 20mph limit is an idiot. If you’re defending that on here you’re an idiot.

I am not against 20mph limits. Outside schools, in residential estate roads. But on main thoroughfares in urban areas 30mph is fine.

Anyone wanting 20mph in town centres, also an idiot.

Have the next two generations below me been born and bred so stupid they can’t cross the road? If they’re that stupid Darwinism takes over.

You OK, hun?

(I don’t think there should be blanket 20MPH zones)

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You OK, hun?

I don’t think I am.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Pierre

It shouldn’t even be a discussion item.

Anyone advocating a blanket 20mph limit is an idiot. If you’re defending that on here you’re an idiot.

I am not against 20mph limits. Outside schools, in residential estate roads. But on main thoroughfares in urban areas 30mph is fine.

Anyone wanting 20mph in town centres, also an idiot.

Have the next two generations below me been born and bred so stupid they can’t cross the road? If they’re that stupid Darwinism takes over.

They are on the phone…

---------- Post added at 20:12 ---------- Previous post was at 20:10 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

For national government I agree. Nobody is better placed to make decisions for their local area than local people.

The fact Sunak lowers himself to this, embracing himself to the deluded fantasists who think 15 minute neighbourhoods is a way to control people, stinks of desperation.

He’s speaking for the majority. You are not one of them.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

He’s speaking for the majority. You are not one of them.

The majority of whom?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

He’s speaking for the majority. You are not one of them.

He's speaking for less than 1 in 4.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articl...26-27-sep-2023

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

In your ritual attempt to take OB down, you missed this conclusion on page 11 of the report:



The experts involved with this study were: Air Pollution/Quality Dons, E., Temmerman, P., van Poppel, M., Bellemans, T., Wets, G., Panis, L. 2013. Street characteristics and traffic factors determining road users’ exposure to black carbon, Science of the Total Environment, 447: pp. 72-79.

OB was making just this point.

OB asked a question

You may believe that, but if you recall, I responded:

‘I’d love to know how they worked that out. Did they carry out an experiment?’

I replied

https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloa...issions-report

Page 6 onwards

I’m not sure how answering a question with a link and the page number within that document can be seen as a "ritual attempt to take someone down"

However, in response to your comment re that link, can I point out you may have missed the info in this link I posted at 16:37 today, two hours before your post - this was the source for the information in first post.

https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloa...issions-report



Your <snip>

a) quoted incorrect sources (the sources you quoted were for the study above the one you provided a <snip> from)
b) missed out the first conclusion, such stated "It would be incorrect to assume a 20MPH speed restriction would be detrimental to ambient air quality, as the effect on vehicle emissions are mixed", the fourth conclusion "it is accepted that lower speed limits impacts on brake and tyre wear emissions resulting in lower demand for power at lower speeds which is likely to be beneficial to emissions of this type", and also the supporting commentary in the second paragraph.



Original document for completeness

https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/...qyReyJ0_8gzM0Q

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

OB asked a question



I replied



I’m not sure how answering a question with a link and the page number within that document can be seen as a "ritual attempt to take someone down"

However, in response to your comment re that link, can I point out you may have missed the info in this link I posted at 16:37 today, two hours before your post - this was the source for the information in first post.

https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloa...issions-report



Your <snip>

a) quoted incorrect sources (the sources you quoted were for the study above the one you provided a <snip> from)
b) missed out the first conclusion, such stated "It would be incorrect to assume a 20MPH speed restriction would be detrimental to ambient air quality, as the effect on vehicle emissions are mixed", the fourth conclusion "it is accepted that lower speed limits impacts on brake and tyre wear emissions resulting in lower demand for power at lower speeds which is likely to be beneficial to emissions of this type", and also the supporting commentary in the second paragraph.



Original document for completeness

https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/...qyReyJ0_8gzM0Q

So, I was right.

Except for all the things you got wrong, yes…

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]