raymundo:
If three or four sausages collided somehow I dont think the carnage caused would be quite as bad as three or four trucks colliding at 70 mph +
Limited to 70 or unlimited to 60 mph +10% + 2 mph would only drop the max by 2 mph to 68 so not much difference is there ?
I think you missed the point Iâm not saying increase the limit to 68 mph.Itâs if youâre caught at 68mph or above you lose your licence no ifs no buts which isnât exactly the same thing.Itâs obvious in that environment no one with any sense is going to run at more than 65 mph max with the win win situation that we also get rid of elephant racing.While as I said we didnât have pre limiter motorways strewn with the wreckage of multiple 70 mph truck crashes then so why would that be any different now.Especially with what amounts to a much stricter speed regime than we had then while at the same time keeping all the benefits.
If nobody with any sense would go above 65 then surely youâll still get 2 trucks trying to get past each desperately trying not to go above 65 but not willing to back off. And if the tolerance was 68 mph youâd still have plenty at 68 the same way plenty of people used to run max on the limiter on Dual Carriageway before the limit was raised.
You still havenât answered the question as to why would those causing the overtakes running at less than 90 kmh now suddenly want to run at 60 mph after the increase in limits.While itâs obvious that itâs only those running at 90 kmh now whoâll be running at 60 mph so wonât be overtaking each other anyway.Theyâll only be overtaking those still running at less than 90 kmh which means faster journey times than at present for those who want to run at 60 mph and faster overtakes in the case of overtaking under 90 kmh traffic.
If your making more sausages In less time then the cost of making sausages will decrease.
An increase in production will lead to a decrease in price.
If demand stays constant then labour costs will decrease through the dreaded time and motion studies.
Now if costs decrease then the company will pass on this reduced price to the consumer.
This will place their sausage in a more competitive position leading to an increase in demand leading to the sausage maker on the front line making more sausages for the same wage they where on before.
Capitalism at its best, more profit based on increased labour for no increase in cost.
Bluey Circles:
why limit it to 70mph ?
how about also upping the daily driving to 18 hours, 7 days a week, and giving special dispensation to hauliers so that they can pay their drivers half of the minimum wage.
That`s what we want! A true free market. Cheaper sausages, and an end to unemployment as we underc⌠sorry⌠out compete with the eastern block. Vote now for the freedom to work how we want with no Nanny State.
Carryfast:
If we increase the limit to 60 mph with a bit to spare for overtakes why would those running at less than 90 kmh now suddenly all want to run at 60 mph ?.
According to you it would increase productivity and therefore their companyâs would want them to run at the limit, of course some would still run a couple of clicks under to give them a margin, but many would be on the limit.
Carryfast:
As for the sausage factory if weâre using the extra productivety to produce the same amount of sausages for less cost and demand remains the same how does that create a fall in sausage prices.Having said that âsomeâ of the increase in productivety âcanâ be used to reduce prices in which case the usual result is that demand increases.Hence the reason why Scandinavian drivers werenât/arenât earning less than Brits either at 32t gross or 44t.
Because there are lots of sausage factories chasing a finite demand, so price is dictated by the customer, if somebody offers a lower rate they get the work.
Iâm under the impression that a lot of Scandinavian haulage, especially international, is now done by East Europeans. because even Scandinavian companies want cheap sausages.
As I said if they see no productivety advantage in running at 90 kmh,as opposed to 80-85 kmh,now why would they see one in the case of an increase in the limit to 60 mph.
As for Scandinavia the point is if increased weights cause lower wages then Scandinavian drivers would get less money than their Brit counterparts.In which case why would East Euros want to earn less money there than they could earn here.
Dipper_Dave:
The funny thing about speed is it gives a false sense of security, back in the day when 65+ was the norm to complete an overtake elephant racing was less well known, yes it still happened but not to the extent of day.
Blimey I remember seeing a wobblebox ahead and preping for an overtake, now the buggers overtake me all the time.
That said pulling at 65 like in the old days is worlds apart from being pushed at 65 when coasting now. So 70mph is a terrible idea (we are talking â â â â â â â on a bloke territory here) for the current crop of drivers who drive amongst us.
FFS 56 was the speed we used to reduce to when things got a bit windy, now the buggers cant even stay upright at this speed.
As far as sausages go the more you can make the more the gaffers will want you to make. The worker on the front line will find speed is not his freind.
Luckily for me I only have a chipolata to worry about.
^^^^ this ^^^^ particularly âânow the buggers cant even stay upright at this speedââ.
some of the sods are a menace at a limited 55, far too many lorries and other vehicles on the road (plus thereâs what?, 10+ million more people here than 30 years ago, just the ones we know about) now to turn the clock back to 80âs speeds.
Harry Monk:
As for myself, if I worked in a sausage factory and there was sign on the wall saying âOnly make 56 sausages an hourâ then why would I petition to be allowed to make more?
Pointless argument when it comes to transport. If you could go home after making so many sausages per day then youâd obviously want a quicker machine. If you had to make x amount of sausages every day which required a 15 hour shift then most normal people would want a quicker machine to get home earlier. If you got a bonus for making x amount of sausages per day youâd want a quicker machine. Not everyone wants to drag the job out longer than necessary. Sometimes a quicker truck with less overtime is the order of the day. In 30 years driving Iâve never had a truck limited at less than 62 mph and never will.
Carryfast:
Leave the limit at 60 mph but more importantly also get rid of limiters to allow easier overtaking.As for 90 kmh max thatâs a Euro joke which doesnât apply anywhere else in the English speaking world.In which case âifâ we get Brexit thereâs no reason why we canât ditch it together with all the other Euro type approval bs.
No, keep the limiters. You really think people will stick to 60?
The idea of getting rid of limiters is obviously to allow temporary over speeds to create faster overtakes so no elephant races.Therefore better traffic flow and less bunching so more safety not less.Just as was the case pre limiters.On that note the pre limiter motorways werenât strewn with the wreckage of high speed truck crashes then any more than they would be now.Or any more than any other part of the English speaking world that doesnât impose ridiculous limits or the use of limiters.
Pre-limiter days there was a lot less traffic on the roads and people were normally better behaved. Today with all the muppetery out there, raising the limits would only cause chaos because you still get those clowns who sit on the limiter every where they go.
Dipper_Dave:
If your making more sausages In less time then the cost of making sausages will decrease.
An increase in production will lead to a decrease in price.
If demand stays constant then labour costs will decrease through the dreaded time and motion studies.
Now if costs decrease then the company will pass on this reduced price to the consumer.
This will place their sausage in a more competitive position leading to an increase in demand leading to the sausage maker on the front line making more sausages for the same wage they where on before.
Capitalism at its best, more profit based on increased labour for no increase in cost.
Work smarter not harder.
If youâre making more sausages in less time and not working less hours for more wages thatâs a problem of weak unions and the wrong idea of capitalism.Lowering productivety to fix that problem ainât going to work.
Dipper_Dave:
If your making more sausages In less time then the cost of making sausages will decrease.
An increase in production will lead to a decrease in price.
If demand stays constant then labour costs will decrease through the dreaded time and motion studies.
Now if costs decrease then the company will pass on this reduced price to the consumer.
This will place their sausage in a more competitive position leading to an increase in demand leading to the sausage maker on the front line making more sausages for the same wage they where on before.
Capitalism at its best, more profit based on increased labour for no increase in cost.
Work smarter not harder.
If youâre making more sausages in less time and not working less hours for more wages thatâs a problem of weak unions and the wrong idea of capitalism.Lowering productivety to fix that problem ainât going to work.
Capitalism blaming weak unions for its shortcomings?
Radar19:
Pre-limiter days there was a lot less traffic on the roads and people were normally better behaved. Today with all the muppetery out there, raising the limits would only cause chaos because you still get those clowns who sit on the limiter every where they go.
It would be fair to say that much of the âtraffic problemsâ are caused by slow limited trucks in lane 2 trying to overtake traffic in lane 1 with a 5 kmh speed differential.
How could anyone sit on the limiter of an unlimited truck.In which case summary loss of LGV at 68 mph would be enough to do the job of a limiter within a 60 mph limit.While allowing trucks to overtake under 90 kmh traffic with a better speed differential.
Dipper_Dave:
If your making more sausages In less time then the cost of making sausages will decrease.
An increase in production will lead to a decrease in price.
If demand stays constant then labour costs will decrease through the dreaded time and motion studies.
Now if costs decrease then the company will pass on this reduced price to the consumer.
This will place their sausage in a more competitive position leading to an increase in demand leading to the sausage maker on the front line making more sausages for the same wage they where on before.
Capitalism at its best, more profit based on increased labour for no increase in cost.
Work smarter not harder.
If youâre making more sausages in less time and not working less hours for more wages thatâs a problem of weak unions and the wrong idea of capitalism.Lowering productivety to fix that problem ainât going to work.
Capitalism blaming weak unions for its shortcomings?
The right type of capitalism blaming weak unions for allowing the wrong type of capitalism.
Radar19:
Pre-limiter days there was a lot less traffic on the roads and people were normally better behaved. Today with all the muppetery out there, raising the limits would only cause chaos because you still get those clowns who sit on the limiter every where they go.
It would be fair to say that much of the âtraffic problemsâ are caused by slow limited trucks in lane 2 trying to overtake traffic in lane 1 with a 5 kmh speed differential.
How could anyone sit on the limiter of an unlimited truck.In which case summary loss of LGV at 68 mph would be enough to do the job of a limiter within a 60 mph limit.While allowing trucks to overtake under 90 kmh traffic with a better speed differential.
I agree they do cause problems but the majority of traffic hold ups are caused by the massive increase in traffic levels as well as poor driving. Just spent some time on a busy motorway like the M1 or the M25 and the evidence is clear as day. The constant swapping of lanes when traffic begins to slow, the obsession with riding the arse of the vehicle in front, the consistent use of phones whilst behind the wheel, the general lack of attention given by drivers today. As Dipper said, we have drivers now who canât seem to handle driving at 56, why do you think letting them loose in unlimited wagons would suddenly solve traffic problems?
Dipper_Dave:
If your making more sausages In less time then the cost of making sausages will decrease.
An increase in production will lead to a decrease in price.
If demand stays constant then labour costs will decrease through the dreaded time and motion studies.
Now if costs decrease then the company will pass on this reduced price to the consumer.
This will place their sausage in a more competitive position leading to an increase in demand leading to the sausage maker on the front line making more sausages for the same wage they where on before.
Capitalism at its best, more profit based on increased labour for no increase in cost.
Work smarter not harder.
If youâre making more sausages in less time and not working less hours for more wages thatâs a problem of weak unions and the wrong idea of capitalism.Lowering productivety to fix that problem ainât going to work.
Capitalism blaming weak unions for its shortcomings?
The right type of capitalism blaming weak unions for allowing the wrong type of capitalism.
Wonderful ! But, yes I do think I know what you mean. In an ideal world there would be checks and balances to all forces⌠. . . So, post Thatcher did you try to get Kinnock into government, to repair her union-bashing excesses?
Radar19:
As Dipper said, we have drivers now who canât seem to handle driving at 56, why do you think letting them loose in unlimited wagons would suddenly solve traffic problems?
Realistically you wonât solve that problem by remaining with the status quo of elephant racing and making trucks easier to drive for below average car drivers.
Franglais:
Wonderful ! But, yes I do think I know what you mean. In an ideal world there would be checks and balances to all forces⌠. . . So, post Thatcher did you try to get Kinnock into government, to repair her union-bashing excesses?
I donât think Kinnock fits the definition of the âright type of capitalismâ. On that note I wonât be counting on his support in joining the rest of the English speaking world regards road transport legislation.
Carryfast:
If we increase the limit to 60 mph with a bit to spare for overtakes why would those running at less than 90 kmh now suddenly all want to run at 60 mph ?.
According to you it would increase productivity and therefore their companyâs would want them to run at the limit, of course some would still run a couple of clicks under to give them a margin, but many would be on the limit.
Carryfast:
As for the sausage factory if weâre using the extra productivety to produce the same amount of sausages for less cost and demand remains the same how does that create a fall in sausage prices.Having said that âsomeâ of the increase in productivety âcanâ be used to reduce prices in which case the usual result is that demand increases.Hence the reason why Scandinavian drivers werenât/arenât earning less than Brits either at 32t gross or 44t.
Because there are lots of sausage factories chasing a finite demand, so price is dictated by the customer, if somebody offers a lower rate they get the work.
Iâm under the impression that a lot of Scandinavian haulage, especially international, is now done by East Europeans. because even Scandinavian companies want cheap sausages.
As I said if they see no productivity advantage in running at 90 kmh,as opposed to 80-85 kmh,now why would they see one in the case of an increase in the limit to 60 mph.
As for Scandinavia the point is if increased weights cause lower wages then Scandinavian drivers would get less money than their Brit counterparts.In which case would East Euros want to earn less money there than they could earn here.
You said there would be a productivity advantage, so if this is correct then all companies would want to take advantage of it. Personally I think with the traffic in the UK the average speed will increase very little if at all, so therefore no advantage and more cost in the fuel used when you do get it up to 60 to join the next queue of traffic.
I personally think the biggest productivity boost to a lot of UK haulage could be achieved by improving tip and loading times.
I also didnât say that higher weights have reduced pay, Harry Monk said that, but higher weights havenât increased pay either.
Iâve no idea what a Scandinavian driver earn in comparison to the national wage in those Countries, but like much of western Europe there seems to be a concern over attracting new people into the industry to replace an aging workforce coming up to retirement.
Iâd prefer to see a petition that gives cars on dual carriageways and motorways a minimum speed of 60. Why some of them sit in lane 1 doing low 50âs is beyond meâŚ
Carryfast:
Leave the limit at 60 mph but more importantly also get rid of limiters to allow easier overtaking.As for 90 kmh max thatâs a Euro joke which doesnât apply anywhere else in the English speaking world.In which case âifâ we get Brexit thereâs no reason why we canât ditch it together with all the other Euro type approval bs.
Franglais:
Wonderful ! But, yes I do think I know what you mean. In an ideal world there would be checks and balances to all forces⌠. . . So, post Thatcher did you try to get Kinnock into government, to repair her union-bashing excesses?
I donât think Kinnock fits the definition of the âright type of capitalismâ. On that note I wonât be counting on his support in joining the rest of the English speaking world regards road transport legislation.
Quite, and the electorate thought he wasn`t the âright type of socialistâ either. As for the âright type of Eu Commissionerâ. . . another debate entirely.
On that note I wonât be counting on his support in joining the rest of the English speaking world regards road transport legislation. 