Im slightly confused. Why is it a criminal offence to drive slowly down the motorway but if you glue yourself to the road or priceless pieces of art then that fine and nothing happens.
there has been a minimum speed on motorways for as long as i’ve been driving. just like there’s a maximum speed. it had nothing to do with these protesters vs climate protesters.
@molgrips all the answers boil down to the same thing really.
Not massively. It would mean reconfiguring refineries to produce different products but you can process heavier components into lighter ones, so your gasoline/diesel/naphtha fractions can just be cracked into more usefull things like ethylene.
You can produce hydrogen from oil. It's referred to as blue hydrogen. There's a worldwide excess of it and as a result it's a fairly major component in refineries fuel for their own boilers. The issue isn't it's production it's the distribution. Look at California for an example, for years they've been subsidising it and paying for stations to be built. But as soon as the subsidies run out (the cars come with a fuel card), the fuel then ends up costing as much as UK fuels do, but with no tax. It's ruinously expensive, compared to an electric car, you're looking at fuel costs 3-4x higher.
There's no official minimum speed but drive slowly enough and it's dangerous. The whole point of motorways is traffic is travelling at roughly similar speeds, someone sitting at 30mph is a danger to themselves and others.
Any other protests planned for this week? Am I going to have to avoid them on Friday on my 9hr drive to Scotland?
It’s a hypothetical scenario, to ask questions about oil demand and pricing.
Well if your not changing your source or demand then the overall impact would be limited as the only thing changed is the efficiency of centralised generation over individual.
There’s no official minimum speed but drive slowly enough and it’s dangerous. The whole point of motorways is traffic is travelling at roughly similar speeds, someone sitting at 30mph is a danger to themselves and others.
Yes, if the rest of the road is travelling at 60+ The fact that they're all driving deliberately at 30, and consequently everyone's forced to do 30, I'm not sure if that's actually prosecutable.
I frequently drive on the M25 at 30mph or slower, because everyone else is. Am I breaking the law too?
There’s no official minimum speed but drive slowly enough and it’s dangerous
The HWC doesn't mention going slowly on a M-way at all. I'm sure that if they considered it to be dangerous, they would either advise or rule on it. As OJV says, Smart M-ways are often advising traffic to reduce speeds, often to 40mph...no one is arrested.
Yes, if the rest of the road is travelling at 60+ The fact that they’re all driving deliberately at 30, and consequently everyone’s forced to do 30, I’m not sure if that’s actually prosecutable.
I frequently drive on the M25 at 30mph or slower, because everyone else is. Am I breaking the law too?
I'm guessing (given the police warned these drivers about driving too slow before arresting them) that the protest had agreed restrictions, reading up it was not to completely block the road, not to drive under 30mph. The people who got arrested were doing 20mph.
At least 12 have been arrested on the M4 for breaching a legal notice issued by police before the protest. Demonstrators were told by officers that they needed to travel at 30mph or higher to carry out the action legally.
The HWC doesn’t mention going slowly on a M-way at all. I’m sure that if they considered it to be dangerous, they would either advise or rule on it. As OJV says, Smart M-ways are often advising traffic to reduce speeds, often to 40mph…no one is arrested.
Banned for 12 months for driving at 20mph on the M1.
https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022-04-14/woman-caught-driving-20mph-on-m1-was-resetting-sat-nav
The difference to the speed limit being set to 40mph, or everyone doing 30mph due to heavy traffic, is that driving at 20mph while everyone else is doing 70 is downright dangerous. See above, prosecuted for dangerous driving.
The protesters broke the legal requirement to travel above 30mph during the protest which is why they got arrested.
The HWC doesn’t mention going slowly on a M-way at all. I’m sure that if they considered it to be dangerous
Its not an offence in its own right but you could be done for careless driving although probability is under normal circumstances they would just escort you off the motorway.
The smart motorway isnt a good example since the speed limits have officially changed and there is generally an attempt to slow traffic down gradually before you hit the jam.
Better example would be some of the big slow moving vehicles but they will have escorts as necessary to warn people.
so not specifically for driving slowly, rather for breaking the rules the police put in place for the protest. Interesting, if one car or lorry at the front breaks that restriction how does everyone else stay above the restriction, might form an interesting defence / challenge.
Banned for 12 months for driving at 20mph on the M1.
No, she was banned for dangerous driving, you can't be fined or banned for driving 20 mph on the motorway. It's not in of itself, an offense, as @dissonance says, you just be escorted of the road, and probably asked if you were OK.
TBF I'm just internet arguing, I don't disagree with you, driving slowly can be dangerous, but the emphasis should be (quite rightly) on drivers paying attention to what's going on around them, someone pootling along at 30 in the inside lane shouldn't be a danger to anyone, that folks (like in your story) are having to swerve out of the way at the last minute says quite a bit about their driving standards also
you live and learn. i honestly thought that there was a minimum speed, on a free-flowing m-way.
you live and learn. i honestly thought that there was a minimum speed, on a free-flowing m-way.
There isn't a minimum speed but if you were driving along a free-flowing motorway at 20mph, you could be done for careless or dangerous driving.
My grandfather was once stopped by police on an A-road for driving too slowly. It was dark and raining and the glare of oncoming lights was confusing him. One of the officers got in his car and drove him home with the police car following. No charges but they did have some strong words about him perhaps getting a taxi in future.
As others have said if there was a minimum speed limit thousands could be punished every day in the endless traffic jams….. Now there is an idea for plod to boost the Xmas party fund 🙂
Hydrogen and EVs aren’t a replacement energy source as they are methods of energy storage. We need to start getting more of our energy from other sources in tendme with actually using less.
Exactly the hydrogen cell is nothing more than a battery. It does have many advantages over a more traditional battery is that it is much easier and environmentally friendly to produce than a li-ion battery. They are much lighter so improving the vehicles performance and they dont degrade and loose charge density like a normal battery.
Well if your not changing your source or demand
I was changing the demand for petrol and diesel but not other products.
molgrips
I won’t argue with that. The current government doesn’t give a shit about anything, they are just pissing about. We’d be better off with the STW forum running the country.
The thing is a huge number of people are just sick and tired of mis-information and being lied to.
If they can dismiss something as a lie in seconds then they can just get on and believe what is most convenient.
So if the government say's "stopping global warming is our biggest priority" (or there were no parties or no press here or ... ) then the evidence is within a few seconds. Should they have forgotten from when they were (mis) sold a diesel or need reminding google will help
https://www.google.com/search?q=does+diesel+or+petrol+create+more+greenhouse+gases
Now take the counter... extinction/un-inhabitable
Again google is your friend (or not)
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+mars+habitable+for+humans
Regardless of any argument of "the end justifies the means" lying to people on easily checked facts just doesn't work. Even if they can't be arsed to actually check themselves someone in the FB mutual microcosm echo chamber or pub will do it for them... "if we can put people on Mars like Elon Musk plans how the *** can we go extinct on earth?"
You can say I'm nit picking... and perhaps I am because I'm doing it by proxy for the huge numbers of people for whom "extinction" or "uninhabitable" are a qualifier. If the soundbite/headline/counter is easily proven to be false why not just dismiss the rest?
I mean we are still arguing what "uninhabitable" or "extinction" mean. All many people are going to want to know is is which side to believe that doesn't upset their immediate plans.
You can produce hydrogen from oil. It’s referred to as blue hydrogen.
Colour classification is getting silly but BEIS only classify it as blue if there is CCUS installed otherwise it's grey. I had a session with the policy guys from a major O&G on this the other day and they seemed fairly exasperated by it all.
That said there are multiple major H2 production plants due to come on line in the next couple of years in the UK. Static and large scale mobile plant, HGVs and busses are looking to convert across and there is a trial due on gas grid injection as a replacement to natural gas. Personal transport is not the target at the moment, BEV serves that pretty well.
Just to get back on track a bit, when global oil prices are dropping all the time, down another 10% now, to below $100/barrel, how can the current prices at the pump be justified, especially when it’s impacting the entire economy and the cost of living.
Just to get back on track a bit, when global oil prices are dropping all the time, down another 10% now, to below $100/barrel, how can the current prices at the pump be justified, especially when it’s impacting the entire economy and the cost of living.
Assuming you live in the UK the answers already in this very thread.
“Just to get back on track a bit, when global oil prices are dropping all the time, down another 10% now, to below $100/barrel, how can the current prices at the pump be justified“
Because:
- the fuel in the forecourts was likely ordered weeks ago at a higher price
- because the spot price for oil today doesn’t reflect a price you can buy at tomorrow so there’s always some averaging
- because $100 a barrel is pretty meaningless without knowing the grade of oil, where it’s coming from, the cost of moving it, how long it will take to move it , the cost of refining it, the cost of transporting it from the refinery to the forecourt etc etc.
- because the price is in dollars and any economy that has a different currency will see changes in exchange rates
- because the spread today was actually been $108 and $132 for Brent crude
- etc etc.
Steve. The scientific consensus is that we are in a mass extinction event and thst large areas of the pkanet will become uninhabitable
Now if you have proof global warming is a fiction and can change tjis fine but i am fed up of folk like you minimising what is happening. Or dont you understand the words?
Now take the counter… extinction/un-inhabitable
Those things aren't really lies, it's just not quite what you assumed it to mean.
There is an extinction event going on. Caused by lots of things that humans have done, climate change is part of it.
Lots of places will become uninhabitable in practical terms i.e. people will have to leave because there's not enough arable land or water. For example, Spain as a whole will still have people living in it. But parts of it will become too dry to support agriculture, and whilst yes, people could actually live in those places, they wouldn't because why would they? It's unlikely to be too much of an issue in a developed country, there'll be plenty of places to move to and the situation will be manageable. But in the developing world it won't be so good. Mass migrations are predicted over time.
Call me prejudiced, but it's nearly always gammon types that feel so entitled to all things car-related.
Those things aren’t really lies, it’s just not quite what you assumed it to mean.
I and most of the population know what extinction means or can look it up...
This is exactly the same as "it wasn't a party" .. (being one of a long string of lies). Bozo can make all the excuses he wants BUT people know what a party look like and what the photo's show.
There is an extinction event going on. Caused by lots of things that humans have done, climate change is part of it.
There is ALWAYS an extinction event going on... though I don't disagree at all that humans are causing specific extinctions.
Lots of places will become uninhabitable in practical terms i.e. people will have to leave because there’s not enough arable land or water. For example, Spain as a whole will still have people living in it. But parts of it will become too dry to support agriculture, and whilst yes, people could actually live in those places, they wouldn’t because why would they? It’s unlikely to be too much of an issue in a developed country, there’ll be plenty of places to move to and the situation will be manageable. But in the developing world it won’t be so good. Mass migrations are predicted over time.
Emm... that's pretty much what I said. Frankly I think it will be MUCH worse.. but uninhabitable means uninhabitable (100%) and extinction is dropping below a viable DNA pool. Hundreds of millions, probably billions will die but that is NOT extinction. We can argue about the MVP for humans but its "thousands" at most..
The real point is that most people in the UK are sick to death of lies ... even Sunak and Javid realise you can't just keep lying about something the evidence contradicts and throw word salads at it indefinitely.
If you want them (the majority) to actually do something positive about anthropomorphic climate change playing word salads is NOT going to convince people.
Our local Green party just (this morning) published a misleading post on FB... for clarity we have a huge fire started on an army live shooting range... the fire brigade have been doing a sterling job but the Green Party choose to publish only the particulates data.
This is either deliberately misleading or they are prioritising local particulates over CO2... they have to choose one. Personally I'd prioritise the CO2... but putting some fire breaks and encouraging a clean burn so not pumping water on it will lower the particulates, especially locally but obviously more CO2 will be produced.
There is ALWAYS an extinction event going on
Not according to actual scientists.
but uninhabitable means uninhabitable (100%)
Look, you're clearly a neurodivergent individual and as such are in good company on here, but you have to appreciate that the rest of the world doesn't expect strict definitions from words like these, and if a common usage doesn't agree with your own view of these defintions it a) doesnt invalidate the concept b) doesn't mean you are actually being lied to and c) it actually doesn't help the debate for the majority of people.
In other words, quibbling over stuff like this does no-one any favours. You're giving space to the climate sceptics, even if you aren't one yourself. Just accept that whilst that's not how you'd put it, the message is the same.
playing word salads is NOT going to convince people.
This is precisely what you are doing.
Not according to actual scientists.
Extinction is literally the start middle and finish of evolution. You can't have one without the other, we wouldn't be here otherwise. Given a long enough time scale; every living thing alive today will go extinct, in that sense everything is endangered.
Mass extinction events has a meaning in science. Its what is happening now.
I think that fuel cells and hydrogen ICs are being developed somewhat speculatively. I mean the BEV market is already crowded, but someone’s banking on their being enough applications that aren’t suited for them to try and come up with something else. I can see it for trucks, especially for those that do regular routes between distribution hubs where hydrogen stations can be installed. I guess not every investment needs to pay off, so you might as well spread your bets, so to speak
Fuel cells not to much but the IC yes. I think it's a wider application than just trucks, it covers even small commercial vehicles and all plant and agriculture. Dad today people have a domestic mindset (understandably)
There is also an evangelicalisum about battery tech at the moment that doesn't allow for honest exceptence if the the limitations of batteries. I think this is another area where social media / media in general / forums etc has whipped this up into a almost tribal issue.
For me the problem is a mindset one across public and political class of one tool to rule them all because in the fossil fuel world we have been able to take this simple solution.
There is also an evangelicalisum about CARS moment that doesn’t allow for honest exceptence if the the limitations of CARS.
How many of these problems wouldn't be problems at all if public transport had even a fraction of the investment that private car ownership does?
How many of these problems wouldn’t be problems at all if public transport had even a fraction of the investment that private car ownership does?
The current situation though is that the country (in fact a lot of the world) has sleepwalked into a "we all need cars" state of mind where those with cars cannot possibly conceive of any other means of travelling anywhere.
You see this on social media when (eg) Chris Boardman suggests building bike infrastructure and moving away from car dependency and a host of people pop up on the timeline to immediately decry this and explain how they need to carry their 97-yr old grandmother, a fridge, a double bass and a 60" TV on all their travels which are invariably 100+ miles and how could they possibly do that on a bike/a train?!
Near where my Mum lives, a Low Traffic Neighbourhood has been put in much to the despair of the 4x4 brigade who are demanding to know how little Tarquin could possibly make it to the school gates 1/2 a mile away without being ensconced in 2 tonnes of Range Rover's finest. They suggest that free school buses are needed but you can't just pile a load of buses onto roads already congested by cars - you need the stick approach first to actually drive that modal shift [b]alongside[/b] the investment in public and active transport. Needs to be done together.
Extinction is literally the start middle and finish of evolution.
Yes, but then there's MASS extinction. Caused by some great upheaval. There have been 5 big ones so far, and we are starting a 6th one now caused by human activity.
https://www.science.org/content/article/are-we-middle-sixth-mass-extinction
"The current rate of extinction is between 100 and 1,000 times higher than the pre-human background rate of extinction, which is jaw-dropping. We are definitely going through a sixth mass extinction."
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-mass-extinction-and-are-we-facing-a-sixth-one.html
So let's put this to bed. It's happening.
you need the stick approach first to actually drive that modal shift alongside the investment in public and active transport. Needs to be done together.
You misunderstood me.
I'm absolutely, unironically, all for the banning of private car ownership.
There is also an evangelicalisum about battery tech at the moment that doesn’t allow for honest exceptence if the the limitations of batteries. I think this is another area where social media / media in general / forums etc has whipped this up into a almost tribal issue.
Yeah I agree in some cases, however most people in the UK seem to be pretty pro BEVs for personal use. Car sites on social media are mostly frequented by petrolheads of course with a fetish for noise and sometimes even pollution. However I think most people who use cars just to get around are quite pro the idea and even a surprising number of petrolheads anyway. The normal group appears to be divided into people who:
- Have an EV
- Want an EV
- Would have an EV but aren't changing cars right now
- Can't afford one and hate being made to feel bad about not having one
- Can't charge one and hate being made to feel bad about not having one
But yes clearly H2 is a good option for other uses.
The current situation though is that the country (in fact a lot of the world) has sleepwalked into a “we all need cars” state of mind
That's the neoliberal government concept. Basically, too many cars are what you get if you don't bother planning anything centrally and just let people do whatever, because cars are the personal solution. We need government led solutions, which means governments actually have to put some work in and make things work.
but uninhabitable means uninhabitable (100%)
Space is also uninhabitable, 100%, people live there, they need a huge amount of food, water, oxygen, repairs and materiel carrying back and forth to maintain life.
Much the same way as those "living" on Antarctica or much of the Arctic (99.99% Uninhabitable?). By most practical definitions, those places are uninhabitable. Impossible to habit (without massive external support).
The major deserts are pretty much uninhabitable as you need to keep bringing basic stuff in, like water for one, you can't just lick it off the shady sides of the dunes every morning.
Give it a bit longer and you'll find places in Europe starting to move that way. Once you are *having* to import water and/or food staples, it's the start of a (very) slippery slope.
That’s the neoliberal government concept. Basically, too many cars are what you get if you don’t bother planning anything centrally and just let people do whatever, because cars are the personal solution. We need government led solutions, which means governments actually have to put some work in and make things work.
The trouble is people will quite happily spend thousands of pounds on a new Mercedes, then thousands more fixing it's issues, and thousands more in operating costs, and it'll depreciate to zero in a few years.
Centralized government projects costing a fraction of that on the other hand will never happen. Can you imagine a government of any colour spending the price of an average 2nd hand car per person on public transport every 3-4 years?
Frankly, it's big stick time, because carrots aren't going to work.
I’m absolutely, unironically, all for the banning of private car ownership.
I would vote for this. Some difficult stuff has to happen and it might as well start now.
Most of the more pragmatic/realistic car manufacturers are already planning for that.
Creating their own hire/fleet companies, more advanced health monitoring (for service needs), self driving (so it can toddle off to somewhere it's needed for use/charge/service).
Pretty much an entire new phase space for the industry.
Some difficult stuff has to happen and it might as well start now.
Difficult stuff won't be happening until at least 30 years away when the disaster is right in front of peoples eyes and they might start to realise something needs to be done about it.
Difficult stuff won’t be happening until at least 30 years away when the disaster is right in front of peoples eyes and they might start to realise something needs to be done about it.
I think you're probably right, sadly.
[img] 
[/img]
The trouble with the ideas above is that they are based on a sociailst principle that doesn't work. It goes agaist human nature. We all have our own interests at heart first.Indeed the socialist principle does as it prohibits, in practice, other people opinions. Just look at STW. If anyone dares to go beyond the T5 driving consumerism that is modern MTBing they are shot down in flames.
Sadly removal of private cars creates situations that hammer the poorer first. Short of only allowing online shopping only people have to drive to get their food in many places or maybe work. We could go back to the village shop but that would hammer the less well off and impose on the freedoms that those who would encourage it think so important. You cannot have your cake and eat it.
If we are worried about the use of fuel why not hit the obvious. Ban leisure use. Ban holidays especially international travel. Ban non essential commerce. We don't need most of our cycling purchases and they all need to be transported to us. We don't need most of our electrical goods. I bet 99% of mobiles phones are not essential and I bet 99% of those don't need frequent replacement.
Sadly removal of private cars creates situations that hammer the poorer first
Don't be stupid, the poor can't afford cars, government spending on roads and driving infra structure is a massive subsidy to the better off
Tomorrows world:- Hydrogen fuel cells are the green fuel of the future
Industry:- You’re not listening are you.
https://www.citroen.co.uk/about-citroen/news/e-dispatch-hydrogen.html
Intelligent Energy at Loughborough University produced an hydrogen-powered PSA van 20 years ago, as well as a motorbike (the ENV), aircraft auxiliary power unit, etc. Their HQ moved to California because the UK didn't have refuelling infrastructure
I can't catch a bus to travel less than 10 miles without going in the "wrong" direction first and changing buses. I've no chance of getting to work on time because the buses don't run unless I'm stupidly early. My nearest railway station is 10 miles away from home and 4 miles from work. I cycle a couple of times per week but even that isn't practical year-round
The world needs to sort its infrastructure out first to see any significant changes and it doesn't help that the EU announced yesterday that nuclear and gas investments are "green" thanks to the invasion of Ukraine and sanctions
I can’t catch a bus to travel less than 10 miles without going in the “wrong” direction first and changing buses. I’ve no chance of getting to work on time because the buses don’t run unless I’m stupidly early. My nearest railway station is 10 miles away from home and 4 miles from work. I cycle a couple of times per week but even that isn’t practical year-round
Google says my public transport commute is an hour and a half.
Its 18 minutes by car (and I once managed 13 doing it late in the evening)
Its 45 minutes hard sweaty work on an MTB taking a non direct off road and back lane route. I reckon 30 on a decent road/gravel bike but I would refuse to do that in the dark.
Am I in some rural desert, no, I am under 10 miles from the M25.
I absolutely agree that it does not require 1.5 tonnes with a 2.0 turbo diesel to accomplish (60 to 65mpg though), but suggesting banning private cars is just internet eco point scoring.
