50mph speed limit for M20?
Maidstone council puts foward plans after locals complain of noise and air pollution
MAIDSTONE COUNCIL have put forward plans for a 50mph speed limit on stretches of the M20 to cut air and noise pollution at peak times.
The plans, which would affect junctions six to eight of the Kentish motorway, are aimed at reducing pollution "to acceptable standards", after a report on nitrogen dioxide levels.
Operations director Alison Broom says that local residents have complained about the noise and air pollution problems for some time and the council are now looking at alternate methods to reduce the problem.
It's claimed the 50mph limit would help encourage "a smoother flow and encourage vehicles to travel at a speed that's most efficient for using fuel", she added.
Discuss this story
wat a load of bollocks! is this country really that fucking stupid?? 
Posted: 17/03/2008 at 14:47
is this country really that fucking stupid??
yep afraid so
Posted: 17/03/2008 at 14:48
NIMBYS, i bet when these idiots are trying to catch a ferry , they won't be wanting to do 50mph. What's going on in the South East, you lot are going to the dogs, with us soon following you no doubt!!!
Posted: 17/03/2008 at 14:53
itll not belong until all motorways are a 50 limit think ill emigrate to somewhere warm and sunny sometime soon
Posted: 17/03/2008 at 14:55
WHY O WHY do we have speed limits on motorways in the first place, it just doesnt make sense, let along putting them down to 50MPH. I dont like hearing cars or police sirens going down my road, but because there is a road I expect to hear it.
Posted: 17/03/2008 at 14:55
the germans dont complain about the autobahn (autobahns in england anyone?) so what if its a bit noisy? use double glazing 
Posted: 17/03/2008 at 14:59
I live 200m from the stretch where they want to put in the limit. When the winds coming from the wrong direction i.e from the M20 it's bloody noisy.... but it was like that when I moved in so I'm not about to start complaining now, not like those twats who move to Heathrow then complain about planes  On the plus side you can play 'identify the engine' at night when it's a foreign GP or WSB round and bikes are racing for the tunnel/ferry 
Posted: 17/03/2008 at 16:44
I expect that at this stage this is just a discussion point to gauge reactions. But I wonder if they have done any real scientific assessment to show that a change from 70mph limit to 50mph will actually achieve the suggested reduction in nitrogen dioxide levels given that surely lots of that must come from trucks that are largely unaffected by this reduction. Also I'll guess that the worst of the pollution comes from the periods when the traffic is stationary anyway. If it does get introduced I suspect that I won't be the only one that will have less respect for the 50 limit than the current one, and any respect I have for any limits is slowly being eroded.
Posted: 17/03/2008 at 16:57
Cannot believe the garbage you see on some forums. They already use such enforcment on M25 at peak periods. When the limit is down to 50 it is not going to hold you up. Get a life. Enjoy it while you can. You could be dead sooner than you think.
Posted: 17/03/2008 at 20:23
Cannot believe the garbage you see on some forums. They already use such enforcment on M25 at peak periods. When the limit is down to 50 it is not going to hold you up. Get a life. Enjoy it while you can. You could be dead sooner than you think.
You agree with it then? Well done. Now you get a life.
Posted: 17/03/2008 at 21:48
Cannot believe the garbage you see on some forums. They already use such enforcment on M25 at peak periods. When the limit is down to 50 it is not going to hold you up. Get a life. Enjoy it while you can. You could be dead sooner than you think.
Actually I find that when it goes down to 50MPH the traffic starts to bottle neck, so I dont know where you get your ideas from.
Posted: 18/03/2008 at 06:36
It isn't a speed limit of 50mph for the M20 though is it?
It's a proposed speed limit of 50mph for sections of the M20 - there's a world of difference. There's nothing in the article to say how successful the application is likely to be etc.
You can guarantee the council wont have been the first to apply for this sort of thing and as yet I don't think any have been put in place, so there's no precedent. Gotta think about these things a bit folks before your blood pressure goes through the roof.
Posted: 18/03/2008 at 10:46
It's one of many proposals in the Air Quality Action Plan for Maidstone, which is not new infact there is a draft document available on line which dates back to 2003. http://www.digitalmaidstone.co.uk/pdf/M20%20AQAP%202003-5.pdf Basically air quality doesn't meet standards, based on survey's done in 2000. This part is interesting: Optimising Speed: The optimum speed for minimising emissions from vehicles is 50mph. A
50mph speed limit has not previously been implemented on a non-urban motorway and it raises
policy issues. In addition the use of a speed limit, whether fixed or variable, requires
enforcement for maximum effectiveness. Speed cameras would be the most effective but costs
are high. Variable speed limits can be used in congested areas to reduce flow breakdown. This
occurs in peak periods but is currently less extensive than in other areas that do not yet have
variable speed limits. The costs are higher than for a fixed speed limit. Ref 3.
Posted: 18/03/2008 at 11:19
LMFHO the M20 spend most of its time as a lorry carpark how is cutting the seed limit going to help when most of the time its used for operation stack! I love this
Posted: 18/03/2008 at 11:39
It's lunacy. Local authorities shouldn't be allowed to have jurisdiction on motorways and trunk roads. The whole point of motorways is to take long distance traffic off local routes. If they're going to impose serious speed reductions on motorways then people will find alternative routes. If you're travelling from say Dartford to Dover you have the choice of the M20 or A2/M2 - most people would choose the M20 for a faster journey. But if they impose speed restrictions, people will revert to the A2/M2 which will throw up a whole new set of congestion problems. I suggest the local authority should give people living near the M20 free ear plugs!
Posted: 18/03/2008 at 13:05
It's lunacy. Local authorities shouldn't be allowed to have jurisdiction on motorways and trunk roads.
They don't.
The Highways Agency do. But they do have a responsibility to support their local community.
Posted: 18/03/2008 at 13:15
speed limit will be for car drivers.... motorbikes will likely ignore this anyway and whizz up the middle of that lovely stationary traffic....
Posted: 18/03/2008 at 14:17
Heres one to think about.... speed for all roads as quoted from Roadcraft, The Police Drivers Manual: "You should drive at a speed that enables you to stop in a controlled manner on your side of the road, in the distance you can see to be clear" The IAM then adds "except where other limitations apply" recognising speed limits. As for motorway speeds it is an offence under the road traffic act to impede traffic, a driver, driving excessively slowly on the motorway can (and have been) prosecuted for driving without due care and attention. In previous prosecutions car drivers have been prosecuted at speeds of 18mph, 32mph, 40 mph and 50mph. Food for thought ?? So with this new proposed regulation, if you are under or over 50MPH then you are likely to get nicked... Hmmmm how else can we get more money out of the motorists?????
Posted: 19/03/2008 at 09:56
Heres one to think about.... speed for all roads as quoted from Roadcraft, The Police Drivers Manual: "You should drive at a speed that enables you to stop in a controlled manner on your side of the road, in the distance you can see to be clear" The IAM then adds "except where other limitations apply" recognising speed limits. As for motorway speeds it is an offence under the road traffic act to impede traffic, a driver, driving excessively slowly on the motorway can (and have been) prosecuted for driving without due care and attention. In previous prosecutions car drivers have been prosecuted at speeds of 18mph, 32mph, 40 mph and 50mph. Food for thought ?? So with this new proposed regulation, if you are under or over 50MPH then you are likely to get nicked... Hmmmm how else can we get more money out of the motorists?????
i understand what you are saying about drivers driving too slow for the conditions of the road, but these prosecutions have happened when the speed limit of the road is at 70, so then driving at slower speeds in those conditions is dnagerous to other road users.
If the conditions of the road are not suitable for driving at 70mph, then people are expected to slow down. You would not get done for driving slowly say 50mph in thick fog. Also, if that section of the road has a 50mph speed limit (whether temp or perm), then they would not be able to prosecute you for driving at 45 or 50 mph, as you are then driving at the speed limit.
Posted: 19/03/2008 at 10:16
I still think that the justification for the 50mph limit on air pollution grounds is weak. I don't know myself but there is no scientific evidence in the report to suggest that a 50mph limit will actually achieve the desired result. Yes there is a suggestion that at 50 mph vehicles will be more economical, does this apply to al vehicles, trucks are largely limited to 60mph anyway, so won't slow by much (if at all). What proportion of the pollution is caused by trucks? What proportion is a consequence of traffic travelling at more than 50mph? This stretch of road is often stationary, or nearly so, how much pollution is a consequence of that?
Posted: 19/03/2008 at 10:45
I heard about all this at work yesterday (I work for the council)... I can't see how MBC is going to persuade the Highways Agency to slow down this arterial route (of international significance) for the sake of, what I can only assume would be, a minimal gain in terms of emmissions. Perhaps its to get back at the Highways Agency for putting holding objections on all our planning applications next to the motorways... a la Kent International Gateway.. And like everyone has already said with Bluebell Hill crippled, operation stack in force and the QEII bridge closing down in the wind lately.. it doesnt seem to take much to bring Kent to a standstill (in a car at least 
Posted: 20/03/2008 at 11:05
My gentle answer for maidstone council: FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!! it is a fucking motorway!!!!!!!, if some one dont like noise then why he/she build a fucking house so fucking close to motorway, why other AGAIN must be punished becouse of someone stupidity
Posted: 20/03/2008 at 12:30
To be fair, I suspect that the School being cited as suffering the pollution, was there long before the motorway, or at least long before the motorway traffic became so high. Of course this problem wouldn't be nearly so bad if we didn't try to concentrate all our traffic on one or two primary routes. The other local roads are so poor that even local traffic uses the Motorway.
Posted: 20/03/2008 at 14:41
|
|
