Last night, Basildon councillors agreed the plans for the major road between Fortune of War and the Pound Lane junction.
It comes after pressure from the Government to reduce air pollution.Hmmm, I wonder what it could be? A diversion away from populated zones? A low-emission only zone?
The debate was wrapped up quickly and voted in favour by 39 with just one abstention.Well, it must have been a very sensible one, if they all...
Oh, maybe not:
Basildon Council has agreed plans for a 50mph limit along a stretch of the A127 to cut air pollution.Yes, of course! Obviously, the answer is to increase the amount of time vehicles spend in the zone! It's genius!
When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
ReplyDeleteCouncils have the process to lower speed limit off to a fine art. They can do it with their eyes shut. Everything else requires some thinking and, lets be honest here, government officials generally don't have the horsepower for that.
Can we assume the person the council employed to check the validity of the change was a 'climate scientist'? Since such people work their 'science' on feelings and not facts they wouldn't see that taking longer to move over that section of road actually increases the amount of so called pollution rather than reducing it - but then council members are not the sharpest knives in the kitchen and we shouldn't expect anything worthwhile from them.
ReplyDeleteCars are more efficient at slower speeds. 1 gallon will take my car 70 miles at 50mph, but only 40 miles at 70mph. So even though it'll be slower, less fuel will be used over the same distance.
ReplyDeleteMy car isn't happy in top gear at 50, it is at 60. In 50 limits I have to drive in 5th gear. It does 45 mpg whatever I do anyway and has equal performance to the car that I had in the eighties that did about 21 mpg.
ReplyDeleteCars certainly are more efficient at speeds low enough to reduce the air resistance, but if you have to drop a gear, some of that efficiency gain is lost. You are also more efficient at constant speed than accelerating or braking. If this climate change guff was real, they'd give cars priority at pedestrian crossings, and sail would give way to steam!
ReplyDelete"When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail."
ReplyDeleteA council-approved hammer is always a lot more expensive than one from B&Q.
"Can we assume the person the council employed to check the validity of the change was a 'climate scientist'?"
Or just a pen pusher told 'Here. Google it'..?
"Cars are more efficient at slower speeds. 1 gallon will take my car 70 miles at 50mph, but only 40 miles at 70mph. So even though it'll be slower, less fuel will be used over the same distance."
Does that necessarily mean less pollution?
"If this climate change guff was real, they'd give cars priority at pedestrian crossings, and sail would give way to steam!"
But they aren't serious. Or 'climate scientists' wouldn't fly round the globe, they'd use FaceTime!