As a LGV driver how would this be a bad thing?
Funny how motorists say the pollution is mainly caused by lorries… the trucks of today are cleaner than most cars 
How can a 3 mile stretch cost £174 million 
Smoggie89:
How can a 3 mile stretch cost £174 million
That’s for 13 miles of upgrades, not 3, but still a lot of money! £13million a mile!
weeto:
Smoggie89:
How can a 3 mile stretch cost £174 millionThat’s for 13 miles of upgrades, not 3, but still a lot of money! £13million a mile!
Ah right I just had a flick through , still how can £13m a mile be viable , just tell Brussels to do 1 and use it for more flood defences etc lol crazy
It,s the politicians that cause the pollution.
chester:
As a LGV driver how would this be a bad thing?
I agree. Reducing the difference in speed limits between HGV’s and other traffic improves traffic flow and increases safety.
nick2008:
Funny how motorists say the pollution is mainly caused by lorries… the trucks of today are cleaner than most cars
This is so typical of the poor journalism that is spread by the gutter press (of which the Daily Mail is a shining example!!). When they report that “69% of drivers say that HGV’s are the cause” this would have been an ideal opportunity to inform the ignorant public that this in fact complete nonsense and that most modern trucks are actually “cleaner” than the car they are probably driving! However, that doesn’t suit their agenda i.e. to have a target scapegoat to victimise for anything they wish to report. No doubt the Daily Mail will be saying that the current floods in England are the fault of the EU/immigrants/benefit scroungers/HGV drivers.
My car is doing around 1400rpm at 60mph, so if it touches an incline, it’ll drop a gear - I’m sure that’s less economical and hence creating more co2 than doing 65mph where my car is most economical.
Even the figures are always done based on 62mph - so this is obviously where most cars are most economical, so why 60?
The most economical speed and therefore the most environmentally friendly speed is around 40 mph. This is the target speed for those who try to set mpg records.
DrivingMissDaisy:
The most economical speed and therefore the most environmentally friendly speed is around 40 mph. This is the target speed for those who try to set mpg records.
I’d be in 2nd or 3rd gear at 40mph, so surely my engine would be doing more revolutions per mile travelled and hence require more fuel?
I thought most economical was the lowest revs in the top gear where your engine isn’t struggling.
You wouldn’t cycle in a lower gear on a long distance flat, so why would you drive in 1?
Just passing on what I’ve read in the past Wayne! 
Hi Wayne,
You appear to answer your own question. i.e. you’re right, you wouldn’t drive a car in a low gear on a long flat road, so you wouldn’t be in 2nd or 3rd gear at 40mph, you could easily manage 5th or even 6th gear which would have the revs probably down below 1000rpm - almost ticking over.
It’s very difficult to generalise on economy/ecology performance as all vehicles have different gear ratios, cylinder numbers/capacity etc. It’s widely accepted however that for the majority of vehicles currently on the road, they will emit less pollution and use less fuel if driven at less than 60mph compared to being driven at 70mph+.
sonofjamie:
Hi Wayne,
You appear to answer your own question. i.e. you’re right, you wouldn’t drive a car in a low gear on a long flat road, so you wouldn’t be in 2nd or 3rd gear at 40mph, you could easily manage 5th or even 6th gear which would have the revs probably down below 1000rpm - almost ticking over.It’s very difficult to generalise on economy/ecology performance as all vehicles have different gear ratios, cylinder numbers/capacity etc. It’s widely accepted however that for the majority of vehicles currently on the road, they will emit less pollution and use less fuel if driven at less than 60mph compared to being driven at 70mph+.
My car is an auto, so it’d spit it’s dummy out if I tried forcing it into 4th or 5th at 4mph, and it would over-ride me.
Labouring an engine would do more harm than good and I’m not convinced it would return better fuel figures either - think of the green band on your truck 
Some tips from the experts, note tip no.13.
waynedl:
Labouring an engine would do more harm than good and I’m not convinced it would return better fuel figures either - think of the green band on your truck
Totally agree. Like I say, difficult to generalise. My old banger runs in 5th at 40mph @ roughly 1200rpm on a flat road without labouring the engine, by the time I get to 70mph it’s above 3000rpm!
DrivingMissDaisy:
Some tips from the experts, note tip no.13.
Yes, it’s true, there’s a mathematical equation around that shows how it increases per mph, but then as I said, you’ve got to take revolutions and gearing into account too.
Also, aerodynamics are designed to work in certain conditions, and outside those conditions they’re a hindrance.
I think if you get your car into top gear and you’re as low in the rev range as you can be without labouring the engine and also where you won’t have to drop it for every slight gradient, that’d be the most efficient for your car.
Some cars even have a little green dot when they’re at the perfect revs and the throttle in a good position - an eco light.
I hope that we all pay attention to no.25.
waynedl:
Even the figures are always done based on 62mph - so this is obviously where most cars are most economical, so why 60?
No, fugures used to be based on 60mph but our european neighbiurs didn’t understand this. It was changed to 62 as that’s 100kph so they don’t have to struggle with maths
I can get my Type R to just about run at 30mph in sixth gear as long as the road is flat or downhill. It is doing about 1400rpm and requires the slightest of pressure imaginable on the accelerator to do it. The ‘real time’ fuel consumption indicates that it’s doing anything between 70 and 90mpg like that. It depends on the gearing as to what speed your car’s most efficient at.