If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ready for 55 again?
I ran across this interesting article about a report that the International
Energy Agency has just released. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...EFD8144333.htm The complete report is at http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/200...background.pdf Here's an interesting quote from the article (paraphrased from the report): "But the most hardline emergency proposals come in the form of drastic speed restrictions (nb: the report says 90kph - about 55mph) and compulsory driving bans. Bans could be one day in every 10 (10%) or more stringently on cars with odd or even number plates. They would be banned from the roads on corresponding odd or even days of the month (50%). In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police would be needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the bans. Even the cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study. "Policing costs are more substantial and may consist of overtime payments for existing police or traffic officers or increases in policing staff. We assume this cost at one officer per 100 000 employed people." As an example that means that the US workforce, currently around 138 million people, would need an extra 1380 officers to help enforce the bans. It may seem an optimistic figure. But even if this were so, the IEA is not put off." Floyd Rogers |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Meanwhile, my friends living in Europe drive much faster than
us in cars with much smaller engines and with much better fuel economy. Why cant I cruise at 100 mph in a car with a 3 liter engine and my buddy in France can with his 1.4 liter Peugeot? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, fbloogyudsr wrote:
> cars with odd or even number plates. They would be banned from the roads on > corresponding odd or even days of the month (50%) Time to change a plate on one car to an even number. > In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police would be > needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the bans. Even the > cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study. That's always the point, _CONTROL_ of the population. Ever notice how the solution is always more monitoring, more control? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
fbloogyudsr > wrote: >I ran across this interesting article about a report that the International >Energy Agency >has just released. >http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...EFD8144333.htm >The complete report is at >http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/200...background.pdf > >Here's an interesting quote from the article (paraphrased from the report): >"But the most hardline emergency proposals come in the form of drastic speed >restrictions (nb: the report says 90kph - about 55mph) and compulsory >driving bans. Bans could be one day in every 10 (10%) or more stringently on >cars with odd or even number plates. They would be banned from the roads on >corresponding odd or even days of the month (50%). Great, so I'd need two cars, one for the odd days and one for the even days. Or, if I'm less scrupulous of the law, two license plates. The report seems to based on be a bunch of estimates pulled from the nether regions. Consider -- they claims savings of 500,000 barrels per day by a driving ban for 1 in 10 days. Insane. Even assuming the ban was actually widely observed, it would simply shift most travel to the other 9 days (including commutes; many employers would probably operate on weekends so people could make up a missed day). They also claim a > 1,000,000 barrel per day savings for a 90km/hr speed limit. Uhh, guys, we've been there and done that here in the US. Didn't really work all that well. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
223rem wrote:
> Meanwhile, my friends living in Europe drive much faster than > us in cars with much smaller engines and with much better fuel > economy. Why cant I cruise at 100 mph in a car with a 3 liter > engine and my buddy in France can with his 1.4 liter Peugeot? He can't. The speed limit on the French freeways is 130 km/h (80 mph), and they have recently started enforcing it. Besides, driving a 1.4 liter car at 100 mph would kill the fuel economy. I drove 100 mph in my BMW for 60 miles last weekend, and I had problems maintaining my speed in the steeper inclines despite the rpms being right at the engine's sweet spot. With a 1.6 liter engine I doubt it would even have been possible. Ulf -- ulf.cc |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:38 -0800, fbloogyudsr wrote:
[nonsense] It is a common misconception that 55mph either saves gas or improves safety. And the reason of these control freaks to demand a 55mph speed limit is not their concern for the environment or energy consumption but the desire to control people. Chris |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. If you think driving at
75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving at 60 mph, you need a reality check. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:38 -0800, "fbloogyudsr"
> wrote: >In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police would be >needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the bans. Even the >cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study. > >"Policing costs are more substantial and may consist of overtime payments >for existing police or traffic officers or increases in policing staff. We >assume this cost at one officer per 100 000 employed people." > >As an example that means that the US workforce, currently around 138 million >people, would need an extra 1380 officers to help enforce the bans. It may >seem an optimistic figure. But even if this were so, the IEA is not put >off." Interesting stupidity. Let's see, we will allow people to work 10% less, and increase taxes by 50%, thereby making all of our citizens happier while increasing the standard of living. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Magnulus wrote:
> I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. If you think driving at > 75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving at 60 mph, you need a > reality check. And if you think that driving 60 mph doesn't take significantly more time over the long term as compared to 75 or 85 mph, then you really need a reality check. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Magnulus > wrote: > I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. If you think driving at >75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving at 60 mph, you need a >reality check. If wind resistance, or rolling resistance, or any sort of friction that increases with ground or air speed, is the key to fuel economy then the optimum speed is zero. But the optimum speed of a car is over 40 MPH. So a superficial understanding of wind resistance leads one to the wrong conclusion. -- John Carr ) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
getting ready to order | [email protected] | Jeep | 14 | December 26th 04 01:55 AM |
New *FREE* Corvette Discussion Forum | JLA ENTERPRISES TECHNOLOGIES INTEGRATION | Corvette | 12 | November 30th 04 06:36 PM |
Went for inspection, failed because "Catalytic converter not READY" code is coming | Santa | Honda | 12 | November 20th 04 07:22 PM |
New Saturn Car Owner and Ready To Quit Being One! | louis | Saturn | 5 | July 22nd 04 10:36 AM |