Economic analyzes on the passage from 90 km / h to 80 km / h in France ...

[Ahmed]

I also heard this passage (around 4 '20 "). There is nothing mysterious about this phenomenon: There are fewer accidents on motorways since many causes present on other roads are absent here, but when '' an accident occurs, it is more serious and often fatal because of the speed...
It therefore seems sensible, since it can not act on many accident factors on the secondary network (especially those that are inherently unpredictable) to significantly reduce speed.
Note: just before the passage on the highways, this "specialist" says two things:
1- accidents generally result from several factors that are difficult to dissociate, but to assess the role of speed "it is necessary" to distinguish them!
2- the average speed would have gradually increased without proportional progression of accidents. This reflection is surprising since the speed was not limited (except circumstantially) a few decades ago, which is no longer the case today ... Perhaps, since it is focused on numbers and less on what they cover, is it an amalgam between secondary network and highway?

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

So ..... if he had said

He did not say "fewer deaths on the highway because'we're going faster' but 'less road deaths' whilewe're going faster. "

It seems to me that this is exactly what I wrote

I challenge him, however, the assertion "fewer deaths on the highway while'we're going faster'

No need to invent a because imaginary ....

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

I also heard this passage (around 4 '20 ").

I doubt you heard

He did not say "fewer deaths on the highway because'we're going faster' but 'less road deaths' whilewe're going faster. "

"Fewer highway deaths while'we're going faster'

Because it's my translation of his words ...

Some of his words

"There is no doubt, all other things being equal that speed is an accident factor"


Another example by type of road

The roads on which we go faster are those where there are the least deaths.

At km there are fewer deaths on motorways than on national roads ... etc

Then nobody unless stupid would establish between these correlations there a causality.

Because we drive faster than there is less death it would be stupid "


My idea is that if "at km there are fewer deaths on highways than on national roads" while driving faster than the national is because the highways are one way.

Except when a distracted person takes them in the opposite direction of course.

[Ahmed]

I did not say I heard it literally, but in the same way that your interpretation reflected it and summarized what you are quoting now verbatim... and it does not change anything to my comment above.
The one way, of course, but also the absence of intersections (despite some sometimes dangerous bifurcations) and the fact that the tracks are separated and closed on the sides by fences ... All that goes without saying, but better specify it.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Yaisse

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

Oh what is happening to them today in the media

They realize that the 80kmh costs money ... and especially businesses ... well, they have not woken up to wake up.

Figure given by a road contractor: 100 000 € in the year
Given figure in C in the Air 4 billion (net of accident costs less) so it would be net.

I have more confidence in the figure of the entrepreneur who says he is forced to, according to iti, double his drivers.

To be continued

[GuyGadebois]

The conversion of lost time into silver equivalent is irrelevant: the possibly additional transport time would simply result in the obligation to leave earlier to work and return later at home, as is the case in large cities .

I expected this counter argument: yes obligation to leave earlier and return later so fatigue due to extra work ... and less "free time" ... On millions of people this can play a significant role!

Obviously it is in case of smooth traffic. Is this a measure for the good of the French?

Since the average speed in the city is ridiculous, going from 90km / h to 80km / h will not change its arrival time at work (yoyo effect), especially during peak hours.
I have a car that runs short and I found a saving by driving 80km / h on 0.3L / 100 road on average on the onboard computer, not to mention the fact that I brake less, and I use less of tires which has the effect of reducing the quantity of fine particles emitted. In short, everything is good. As for speed on the highway, I am in favor of 120Km / h as in Switzerland.
I am also in favor of surcharging enormously (and prohibiting them in agglomeration) any vehicle having a weight / power ratio of more than 80Cv / Ton, to tax people traveling alone, in short, to annoy the world with valid ecological measures.
The installation of water doping devices should also be encouraged with appropriate tax measures.

[Christophe]

Since they are not busy enough with the covid, they want to do it again with the highways at 110 km / h there ??

While the limitation to 80 km / h was used STRICTLY FOR NOTHING !!

Received this comment, where is the fault?

Hello
With regard to speed on motorways, many people defend the idea of ​​lowering it to 110km / h instead of 130 in order to reduce emissions by 15 to 20%…!
Thus, suppose that a vehicle consumes 8 liters of petrol or 7 liters of diesel at 130 km / h, we can think that by reducing its speed by 15% and therefore driving at 110, it lowers its consumption (and emissions CO2) in the same proportions, 6,8 l in petrol and 5,9 in diesel. This is indeed a good result, but I do not hear about the duration of pollution!
Indeed, if the vehicle takes 1h to make 130kms, it will take 1h and 11minutes while traveling at 110km / h or 18% of additional time. It is therefore necessary to add 18% to the consumption obtained and the 6,8 l of petrol becomes 8 l and the 5,9 l of diesel drop back to 7litres.
In conclusion, to reduce emissions by 15% from 130 to 110km / h, as it is sold to us, we would need a differential of 1/3 of lower consumption between these two speeds. The efficiency of current engines and the multiplication of gear ratios, including automatic, translate into a much smaller difference, most often less than 10% and would therefore have the effect of reducing speed, increasing emissions ...!
Amazing no. !!!

[GuyGadebois]

If a vehicle consumes 9l / 100 to 130 and it consumes 8l / 100 to 110, to make 100 km, it will have gained 1l, it doesn't matter if it takes a few more minutes ... and since at 110 it pollutes less (considering the liter gained), it is as much pollution less.
No wonder, right?
After that, which is limited to 110 around cities and in the suburbs, why not, because of noise pollution. Afterwards, everywhere else, 120 seems to me a good compromise.

[Christophe]

Well done you understood the flaw

There is obviously no need to correct consumption since in cars we talk in L / 100 km ...

This is not the case for all vehicles: in airplanes, we speak in L / h for example at a steady cruising speed ... which must be corrected by meteorological winds to obtain consumption per 100 km ...