UK Motorway network

secretsam

If you want to see really horrific driving, try Egypt. After experiencing that, nothing in the UK really bothers me!

Anonymous

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Lane hogging... if I drive at 75 mph in the mid lane and someone behind flashes as he wants to get through... am I hogging the lane?

if there is a reasonable space in the lane to your left, then yes. The outer lanes are for 'overtaking' only. if there is nothing to your left, you are not overtaking, so hogging the middle lane.

Essentially it means that someone doing, say 80 has to pull out into the over-over taking lane where there may be traffic (rightly or wrongly) doing 90mph, forcing them to slam on the brakes, slowing down the traffic.

The argument for 'well they shouldn't be doing 90mph anyway' is counter productive as it causes the whole road network to clog up as everyone is using the 2 outer lanes instead of correctly using the left hand one. It also means that someone driving correctly needs to cross 2 lanes (inner to outer) to get past you.

tyred&weary

god1406 wrote:

I once waited 45mins at a junction for a 'special convoy' to pass through. During rush hour. Who does that??

London shuts down quite early in the morning but running into rush hour for the Lord Mayor's show rehearsals.

pinno

bompington wrote:

The complaining tadpole wrote:

A11 will still..Thetford!

With a bit of work that's quite a nice haiku you've got there

Meanwhile, let...

Maybe I'll head back to Pina's beloved Galloway - I used to live there in the late 80s/early 90s and, the A75 excepted (granted, that's a major exception) the biggest road hazard was when you came round a corner to find two delapidated old farmers in their delapidated old landrovers stopped in the road for a natter.

The A75 is much improved - they've built a bypass around Dunragit!, an overtaking lane between Glenluce and Newton Tootin' and more overtaking lanes just before Springyholm.
However, those VOSA baskets are building a huge vehicle inspection place before the Glenluce bypass.

pblakeney

A timely reminder that whilst the roads may be "safe", they can also be deadly.

http://www.chesterchronicle.co.uk/news/ ... ar-7910838

ugo.santalucia

coriordan wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Lane hogging... if I drive at 75 mph in the mid lane and someone behind flashes as he wants to get through... am I hogging the lane?

if there is a reasonable space in the lane to your left, then yes. The outer lanes are for 'overtaking' only. if there is nothing to your left, you are not overtaking, so hogging the middle lane.

Essentially it means that someone doing, say 80 has to pull out into the over-over taking lane where there may be traffic (rightly or wrongly) doing 90mph, forcing them to slam on the brakes, slowing down the traffic.

The argument for 'well they shouldn't be doing 90mph anyway' is counter productive as it causes the whole road network to clog up as everyone is using the 2 outer lanes instead of correctly using the left hand one. It also means that someone driving correctly needs to cross 2 lanes (inner to outer) to get past you.

Italy or France have a less congested network (toll) hence you don't see people using the middle lane. If you go to Belgium or Holland, where motorways are free and congested, it's the same as over here. Before coming to the UK I would have never dreamt of using the mid lane, but here if you stick to the left, then you are constantly forced to change lane to overtake every minute or so... it's just not worth the hassle. There is no law against it and it makes sense. Then of course you will find those that stick to the middle lane even in the middle of the night with no traffic in sight, that's what I call hogging

VTech

ugo.santalucia wrote:

coriordan wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Lane hogging... if I drive at 75 mph in the mid lane and someone behind flashes as he wants to get through... am I hogging the lane?

if there is a reasonable space in the lane to your left, then yes. The outer lanes are for 'overtaking' only. if there is nothing to your left, you are not overtaking, so hogging the middle lane.

Essentially it means that someone doing, say 80 has to pull out into the over-over taking lane where there may be traffic (rightly or wrongly) doing 90mph, forcing them to slam on the brakes, slowing down the traffic.

The argument for 'well they shouldn't be doing 90mph anyway' is counter productive as it causes the whole road network to clog up as everyone is using the 2 outer lanes instead of correctly using the left hand one. It also means that someone driving correctly needs to cross 2 lanes (inner to outer) to get past you.

Italy or France have a less congested network (toll) hence you don't see people using the middle lane. If you go to Belgium or Holland, where motorways are free and congested, it's the same as over here. Before coming to the UK I would have never dreamt of using the mid lane, but here if you stick to the left, then you are constantly forced to change lane to overtake every minute or so... it's just not worth the hassle. There is no law against it and it makes sense. Then of course you will find those that stick to the middle lane even in the middle of the night with no traffic in sight, that's what I call hogging

I find drivers in Belgium and Holland are the same to Italians and Germans on the freeway/motorway. I agree with you that in most cases you would be driving in and out (weaving) in the UK as you simply can't driver properly here due to the nature of drivers and lack of motorway manners.

I think that professional drivers in the UK are in an incredibly hard line of work, I couldn't stand it and would chose many other options before taking that route.

morstar

Were I to have had experience of driving at speeds higher than 70mph on the motorways...
I might suggest that it's actually far easier being one of the faster vehicles on the road as your primary focus is ahead of you and you could flow between lanes freely.
Supposing I were no longer like that and had slowed down in recent years. I might suggest that driving at 70 or thereabouts and following proper lane discipline is far more taxing. Not only do you need to have a good forward focus, you need to have eyes in your arse to time your overtakes carefully. Otherwise you spend ages blocked in, end up toying with undertaking the middle lane berks or the one that really bugs me are the ones who just sit in your blind spot for mile after mile. Wtf is going through their heads, I have no idea.
I understand why people sit in the middle lane but I have also seen it create real carnage and big tail backs on an otherwise fairly empty bit of motorway. Difficult to see how you police anything other than the really blatant though. I sometimes hang in the middle longer than ideal because I know pulling in for the minute or so before my next overtake will see me well and truly blocked in or with somebody sat in my blind spot because the guy behind has already done it on that journey. Conversely, I have seen people join near as dammit empty motorways and just go straight into the middle lane with nothing in sight ahead. Why would you do this?
My old boss joked how he wanted to buy a big 4x4 and strap a mattress to the left side. He would then drive down the motorway and push middle lane hogs over to the left.

pblakeney

morstar wrote:

My old boss joked how he wanted to buy a big 4x4 and strap a mattress to the left side. He would then drive down the motorway and push middle lane hogs over to the left.

I witnessed a woman try that on the M6 yesterday.
The fact that we were in a roadwork* area with a 50 limit and average speed cameras, everyone doing 50 in all lanes seemed to escape her as she tried to move from the outside lane to undertake the car (cars) in front of her, and there was another car just beside her.
Some people only appear to look 6 feet in front of their bonnet and are oblivious to all else.

*Another thread required. I went though so many "roadworks* that I lost count. Miles upon miles of zero work being done.
Plus, the M40 had a 30 section where the traffic was light, weather and visibility was good, and there were no roadworks or cones??????

VTech

PBlakeney wrote:

morstar wrote:

My old boss joked how he wanted to buy a big 4x4 and strap a mattress to the left side. He would then drive down the motorway and push middle lane hogs over to the left.

I witnessed a woman try that on the M6 yesterday.
The fact that we were in a roadwork* area with a 50 limit and average speed cameras, everyone doing 50 in all lanes seemed to escape her as she tried to move from the outside lane to undertake the car (cars) in front of her, and there was another car just beside her.
Some people only appear to look 6 feet in front of their bonnet and are oblivious to all else.

*Another thread required. I went though so many "roadworks* that I lost count. Miles upon miles of zero work being done.
Plus, the M40 had a 30 section where the traffic was light, weather and visibility was good, and there were no roadworks or cones??????

With all of the studies being paid for at the "peoples expense" I would be happy to read results from a study of roadworks and how they effect the carbon output.
I wonder what the implications are of countless thousands of miles of roadworks where no work is actually being done and the output of emissions in these areas directly caused by the increase and decrease of engine load.
I reckon the results would be astonishing.

Having said that, I'm yet to read a paper that even remotely puts road fuels as the reason for "global warming".

ugo.santalucia

VTech wrote:

Having said that, I'm yet to read a paper that even remotely puts road fuels as the reason for "global warming".

We haven't yet decided which way we want to go with this... it's not uncommon to see a politician predicate carbon emission reductions and within a couple of minutes campaign for a reduction in fuel tax or road tax.

Personally I think reducing the emissions without a credible technology is impossible and instead of giving ourselves unrealistic targets that we don't even get close to meet, we should invest in technology to deal with the consequences of climate change, if that is at all related. If it isn't, we'd still have improved the engineering to deal with climate issues... it's a win-win situation

veronese68

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Personally I think reducing the emissions without a credible technology is impossible and instead of giving ourselves unrealistic targets that we don't even get close to meet, we should invest in technology to deal with the consequences of climate change, if that is at all related. If it isn't, we'd still have improved the engineering to deal with climate issues... it's a win-win situation

Sense has no place in politics and the money needs to come from government. After the flooding in Somerset there may be more of a political will to invest in such things but it will take a few more such 'disasters' before anything is actually done. Then the public will demand something is done, the tabloids will get behind the idea and then the politicians will see it as a vote winning idea. Then things may start to change.

pblakeney

ugo.santalucia wrote:

VTech wrote:

Having said that, I'm yet to read a paper that even remotely puts road fuels as the reason for "global warming".

We haven't yet decided which way we want to go with this... it's not uncommon to see a politician predicate carbon emission reductions and within a couple of minutes campaign for a reduction in fuel tax or road tax.

Personally I think reducing the emissions without a credible technology is impossible and instead of giving ourselves unrealistic targets that we don't even get close to meet, we should invest in technology to deal with the consequences of climate change, if that is at all related. If it isn't, we'd still have improved the engineering to deal with climate issues... it's a win-win situation

I think that car manufacturers are already negating that with improved performance.
Not that long ago 50 mpg would have been unthinkable, now it is the norm.
Who knows what is just round the corner?

ugo.santalucia

50 mpg was achievable with a Renault 5 30 years ago... now you can do it with a big diesel monster... that's the only difference

veronese68

ugo.santalucia wrote:

50 mpg was achievable with a Renault 5 30 years ago... now you can do it with a big diesel monster... that's the only difference

What comes out of the back of a big diesel other than the carbon that taxation class is measured on?

pblakeney

ugo.santalucia wrote:

50 mpg was achievable with a Renault 5 30 years ago... now you can do it with a big diesel monster... that's the only difference

The point is that whilst there was the exception, it is now expected. And that is in large cars with decent performance.
Small economical cars now do 80+ mpg.
That is a huge improvement.

ugo.santalucia

PBlakeney wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

50 mpg was achievable with a Renault 5 30 years ago... now you can do it with a big diesel monster... that's the only difference

The point is that whilst there was the exception, it is now expected. And that is in large cars with decent performance.
Small economical cars now do 80+ mpg.
That is a huge improvement.

I don't think it has improved quite that much. Cars have become a lot heavier, have bigger engines and use a lot more power to drive electronics... 10-20% better yes, but nothing as dramatic as you seem to imply... we had cars doing 60-65 mph back then, especially diesel ones and the proportion of cars with big engines was a lot smaller.
I agree that if you take a 900 cc now and back then the difference is significant, but there were lots back then (over 50% of the market in Italy at the time) and not many right now...

pblakeney

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I don't think it has improved quite that much. Cars have become a lot heavier, have bigger engines and use a lot more power to drive electronics... 10-20% better yes, but nothing as dramatic as you seem to imply... we had cars doing 60-65 mph back then, especially diesel ones and the proportion of cars with big engines was a lot smaller.
I agree that if you take a 900 cc now and back then the difference is significant, but there were lots back then (over 50% of the market in Italy at the time) and not many right now...

You can do a lot with statistics.
Lets compare a standard family car 10 years ago with equal performance with todays.
2004 Ford Focus 1.6 - 40 mpg, 165 g/km, 0-60 10.6 (For comparison as a 1.6 diesel did not exist)
2004 Ford Focus 1.8 TDCi Zetec, 51 mpg, 145 g/km, 0-60 10.3 (A 1.6 diesel with equal performance did not exist)
2014 Ford Focus 1.6 TDCi - 67 mpg, 109 g/km, 0-60 10.5

A 31% improvement on mpg, almost equal performance and less emissions. I call that an improvement.

PS:- I am aware that some people have an issue with diesel emissions in town but we are discussing motorways.

veronese68

PBlakeney wrote:

You can do a lot with statistics.
Lets compare a standard family car 10 years ago with equal performance with todays.
2004 Ford Focus 1.6 - 40 mpg, 165 g/km, 0-60 10.6 (For comparison as a 1.6 diesel did not exist)
2004 Ford Focus 1.8 TDCi Zetec, 51 mpg, 145 g/km, 0-60 10.3 (A 1.6 diesel with equal performance did not exist)
2014 Ford Focus 1.6 TDCi - 67 mpg, 109 g/km, 0-60 10.5

A 31% improvement on mpg, almost equal performance and less emissions. I call that an improvement.

PS:- I am aware that some people have an issue with diesel emissions in town but we are discussing motorways.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.
I half heard something on the radio about claimed consumption figures and how they were more inaccurate on small cars. It was to do with the perfect testing conditions compared to real world use. In effect nobody would get close to small car figures, but in a car with more power available it was much easier to get close, but still not quite. Unfortunately whilst anyone that looks into it will soon learn claimed figures are pie in the sky I suspect many people do take them at face value.
PS Modern diesels only make sense if you do big motorway miles, otherwise all the filters get clogged up.

wongataa

Veronese68 wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

50 mpg was achievable with a Renault 5 30 years ago... now you can do it with a big diesel monster... that's the only difference

What comes out of the back of a big diesel other than the carbon that taxation class is measured on?

The issue with diesel emmissions isn't the CO2 that tax is based on it's the very small particulate matter that can't be filtered out (or seen) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) to a lesser extent. Petrol cars produce a good amount of NOx as well.

VTech

I think it is important to understand that manufacturers DO NOT release the latest technology, their are two reasons, 1) by the time it is developed and put into production it is no longer the latest tech. 2) it isn't cost effective, they build generations within an engine core design.

My wife drives a 2015 Range Rover, the engine is cutting edge, only it was developed 12 years ago.
It is a huge improvement over previous engines giving 33mpg stock, 38mpg on our efficiency software whereas previous models were around the 20mph mark.

Also we have better injections control, the new direct inj is a thing of beauty and allows for far better fuel control but this is only down to demand, manufacturers only make these steps because people are looking for efficiency when purchasing a new car and they realise that if they don't get the right figures, the punters will go elsewhere.

As I said earlier, my honest opinion is that this is a globalised exploitation of tax revenue. I am genuinly still waiting for any paper to convince me that "global warming" is as a direct result of mankind.

pblakeney

VTech wrote:

As I said earlier, my honest opinion is that this is a globalised exploitation of tax revenue. I am genuinly still waiting for any paper to convince me that "global warming" is as a direct result of mankind.

You will have lit the paper there now. Pun intended but poor.
However, I am yet to be convinced that a Government collecting increased taxes will result in anything other than increased benefits for the politicians.

fatsmoker

Pross wrote:

I had the misfortune of regular travel to Skegness for a few years and the A158 is a road I hope to never see again!

Not just the misfortune of the travelling to Skeg, but also misfortune of being in Skeg.

jimmythecuckoo

Came back from Cardiff this morning and some of the M42 middle laning was almost embarrassing.

40-50mph and just hanging in the middle lane.

Now, although I have been judgemental I wanted to try and understand and I think some of these people are genuinely worried about being on the inside lane in case they get on a slip road by accident and then can't get back out into the main carriageway.

So I am now also blaming those who put out the signs.

ugo.santalucia

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Now, although I have been judgemental I wanted to try and understand and I think some of these people are genuinely worried about being on the inside lane in case they get on a slip road by accident and then can't get back out into the main carriageway.

So I am now also blaming those who put out the signs.

There is that too... given if you indicate your intention to move lane nobody will give you way... :?

Anonymous

But that is a fail in your test. You indicate once you see a space available then move into it, not to start encouraging people to move out the way. (Some do anyway out of politeness)

florerider

[quote="VTech"

As I said earlier, my honest opinion is that this is a globalised exploitation of tax revenue. I am genuinly still waiting for any paper to convince me that "global warming" is as a direct result of mankind.[/quote]

Typical response of a sceptic, especially to keep to some concept of warming rather than climate change.

It wouldn't take a man of your computing ability more than an hour to prove it to yourself. Start with the radiation constant of the sun vs the earth and the wavelengths that are blocked by CO 2, and use some basic physics and maths.

VTech

florerider wrote:

[quote="VTech"

As I said earlier, my honest opinion is that this is a globalised exploitation of tax revenue. I am genuinly still waiting for any paper to convince me that "global warming" is as a direct result of mankind.

Typical response of a sceptic, especially to keep to some concept of warming rather than climate change.

It wouldn't take a man of your computing ability more than an hour to prove it to yourself. Start with the radiation constant of the sun vs the earth and the wavelengths that are blocked by CO 2, and use some basic physics and maths.[/quote]


I have a "slight" understanding of emissions, I am still the only person in the UK to win the queens award for emissions reduction. My point is probably not understood by the average user here, not because it is above an understanding but because it is outside of most peoples skill set.
The governments wanted to reduce Co2 and this was complied with, so why then move to other gasses, why not start with polutants ?
Governments globally see fuels as a perfect solution to revenue issues which of course it is but this doesn't mean that we should be fooled by papers suggesting that mankind is solely to blame.
The biggest cause of Co2 is the supply of electricity at around 40% with personal vehicles estimate at worst to be around 2.5%.

Formaldehyde used within the wood industry could be argued as being far more dangerous to humans and pollution.

We could also look at the ozone layer which after huge research bought about the montreal protocol on CFC's which imo was a great thing but still, governments move to switch the alternatives into larger tax brackets to replenish lost revenue from the makers of these chemicals.

Then global warming, I am not sure where to start as most people have zero idea of how this phenomenon works.
If you asked 100 people I guarantee 90 would say something like, "global warming is where we ruin the outer layer of the earth and allow more sun to radiate into the earth and in turn warms the earth and melts the ice"

Its quite funny as this is not what is being suggested at all.

As a planet we take in heat from the sun, the ozone layer which is mostly water vapour allows the heat to deflect from the surface and bounce back into the atmosphere keeping the earth at around 15/15.5 degrees.
What is suggested is that the introduction into this layer of increased gases is stopping the heat escaping and therefor heating the surface of the earth.

Not that of course is true, this can and will happen but to blame the auto industry is a very easy way for the governments to raise much needed revenue whilst stupid people accept it as gospel.
The earth by its very nature increases and decreases in temperature naturally over hundreds/thousands of years but we have no real way of fully confirming this outside of rock and earth sampling which to its best has proven the heating is completely natural, way before cars and coal were used.

Now lets get to real issues, proven and undeniable.

Rice, the massive increase in rice is a major factor in methane gas increase which along with the huge rise in need for meats and the landfills decaying globally makes this a real danger, forget about cars if you really want to get to the nasty stuff, we need to stop breading more cattle and drastically cut down on rice production.

Wood, the need for wood causes more damage over a few days than you could ever imagine fuel could muster up.
Our natural friend, the tree is being destroyed to allow for our needs of building and whatever else we need it for yet this fights and counters the issues we cause.

Anyway, I'm getting bored now because I know anyone willing to reply to this will be more interested in arguing the toss with me than discussing true factors of emissions control so whats the point.
I have some tiling to do at home.

Anonymous

Everyone knows that. It's gcse geography