change.ie promoting dangerous driving

RobAMerc

their ridiculous add advises people to reduce their speed from 100 to 80 kph

this is dangerous and stupid - we should all spam them with a mail stating so

www.change.ie :mad:

colm_mcm

to be fair, their job is to make people aware of so called Climate Change, I doubt anyone will listen, they don't when Gaybo tells them to slow down, I doubt if change.ie will have an effect.

Max_Damage

Pfff, 80 to 100 miles per hour is more like it!

colm_mcm

I did the test to check my carbon footprint, turns out I'm below average. must fix that.

DJ Hafez

colm_mcm wrote: »

I did the test to check my carbon footprint, turns out I'm below average. must fix that.

It doesn't like that I fly so much every year. I'd say the the calculator would explode if you were a pilot :P

Idleater

RobAMerc wrote: »

their ridiculous add advises people to reduce their speed from 100 to 80 kph

Maybe they are referring to an 80kmph zone??? In which case I suppose it makes _some_ sense.

Probably more in terms of not getting a speeding ticket, hence saving the carbon emmissions involved in processing all the documentation?

L.

cyclopath2001

RobAMerc wrote: »

their ridiculous add advises people to reduce their speed from 100 to 80 kph...this is dangerous and stupid - we should all spam them with a mail stating so ...www.change.ie :mad:

What reasons would you give in your mail to them?

mumblin deaf ro

If you look at the recent EPA stats transport accounts for 21% of Ireland's CO2 emissions; you have to look at the breakdown of the figures given by sustainability Ireland to find the amount attributable to private cars (38% of the transport figure) - figures of the websites of both organisations. That means that less than 8% of Ireland's CO2 emissions are attributable to private cars. I still think we should try make more environmentally aware choices in driving and choosing cars, but the amount of blame heaped on the motorist in this country is out of all proportion to their level of actual culpability.


Agriculture causes about 26% of the country's CO2 emissions.

mobpd

RobAMerc wrote: »

their ridiculous add advises people to reduce their speed from 100 to 80 kph

this is dangerous and stupid - we should all spam them with a mail stating so

www.change.ie :mad:

This struck me also as a banal statement in the ad where it suggests I drive at 80kmh to save 160 euro a year.
I have emailed change.ie to ask for full details of how this saving is calculated as I would imagine it depends on so many variables as to be meaningless (eg type of car, engine size, amount of km driven a year, % of km driven on roads where you can drive at 80km/h etc).
If Change.ie don't provide adequate information then I'll lodge a complaint with the Advertising Standards to withdraw the ad

colm_mcm

I find their thing of turning down your central heating 1 degree and saving 10% on your heating bill a bit hard to swallow too.

unkel

mobpd wrote: »

This struck me also as a banal statement in the ad where it suggests I drive at 80kmh to save 160 euro a year.
I have emailed change.ie to ask for full details of how this saving is calculated as I would imagine it depends on so many variables as to be meaningless (eg type of car, engine size, amount of km driven a year, % of km driven on roads where you can drive at 80km/h etc).
If Change.ie don't provide adequate information then I'll lodge a complaint with the Advertising Standards to withdraw the ad

Let's take the €160 saving in fuel as a given and let's do a simplistic sum. Let's assume that the average driver drives a bit less than 1 hour per day, say 320 hours per year, and let's say that half of these hours can be done at 100km/h (the rest is slower, let's forget about those hours). The person who decides to do 80km/h instead will have to drive for an additional 32 hours (half of 320 hours plus the 25% longer it takes them when only doing 80km/h). Then let's assume someone earns the average industrial wage of say €37k so say roughly €15 net per hour. The loss in time is worth €480.

Net loss €320 (€480 - €160) per year. Oops.

Moral of the story: let's put the foot down, folks

Tipsy Mac

The earth might he warming up but I've yet to see any actual figure that burning CO2 gases is responsible for compared to natural occuring CO2.

challengemaster

Isn't the speed limit 80km/h anyway?

jhegarty

challengemaster wrote: »

Isn't the speed limit 80km/h anyway?

It wasn't the last time I checked, but you never know gaybo is up to.

endplate

But with demand for oil going down worldwide won't that mean that so called greenhouse gas production will drop off as a result so in theory change.ie will be a sham soon and we can go back to the way thing were

Dartz

Climate change driven by CO2 is a fallacy. In fact, it appears to be the other way round. Of course, anyone who mentions this is burned at a carbon-neutral stake by a bunch of eco-looneys with a gleam in their eyes the Inquisition would recognise.

Fuel efficiency is more important than C02 emmissions I feel.... we'll run out of oil long before they ever become an issue. Funny thing is, fuel efficiency and reduced emmissions are often anathema to each other. How else would removing the cat' and remapping the engine improve MPG. Saving fuel saves money. Saving CO2 costs money.

Either way, for every tonne of carbon they don't emit, I'll emit three.

unkel

Dartz wrote: »

anyone who mentions this is burned at a carbon-neutral stake

bazz26

Here is my carbon footprint on Gormley's forehead:

Dartz

Guess this is a forum of carbon-footprint stompers? I've come home

L-M

I filled in my carbon foot print. I came out as low. But of course the greedy fllluckers want me to lower it more. Lol, i'm staying in 1st gear for the next three weeks:D

AugustusMaximus

Nothing drives me more around the bend than slow progress on National Routes and motorways.

Greens need to be hauled out of government for our own sanity.

Dan Boyle (not elected) actually wanted to enforce an 80kph speed limit nationwide.

Motorists in Ireland need to group together and pressurise this government in a more effective manor.

FloorBoard

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

What reasons would you give in your mail to them?

:eek: Hold me by the hand, lead me to the promised land.

Use your imagination. Maybe for an opening gambit "hello change.ie, you clowns should shut up and mind your own business"

cyclopath2001

FloorBoard wrote: »

Use your imagination. Maybe for an opening gambit "hello change.ie, you clowns should shut up and mind your own business"

Or you could put forward rational arguments instead.

Seth Brundle

I don't have leave a carbon footprint - I leave two wide tyre marks!

AugustusMaximus

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Or you could put forward rational arguments instead.

Maybe doing 65 kph (as stated on that website, being a good way to reduce your carbon footprint) mightn't be a good idea on a motorway with other cars around you doing twice that speed.

sdanseo

Sure isn't the most efficient dpeed for most engines around ~56mph (90km/h or so)? Surely they should reccommend that instead?

Gross generalisation based on the little I know so far about engines :P

madaboutcars

sdonn_1 wrote: »

Sure isn't the most efficient dpeed for most engines around ~56mph (90km/h or so)? Surely they should reccommend that instead?

Gross generalisation based on the little I know so far about engines :P

I think that that is true.

I actually decided to see for myself what difference the higher speeds make for your fuel consumption in my mum's Volvo S40 yesterday.

I was coming back from Mitchelstown to Cork so that gave me a good opportunity to test the difference between 100 and 120 kph.

I used the trip computer and set the cruise control to 120 kph and from the start of the Fermoy bypass all the up to about Watergrasshill I got 40 mpg. That included having to stop at the toll and accelerating fairly quickly as I left the toll booth.

Then at around Watergrasshill where the speed limit goes back to 100 kph I reset the trip computer and adjusted the cruise control to keep the car at exactly 100 kph.

Surprisingly I only got 3 mpg more, and it should be noted for a good bit after the change of the speed limit the trip computer was displaying as high as 58 mpg which made me think this was a bit of a walkover for the slower speed limit and that I needed to try somewhere else for my experiment but after a while as we got closer to the Dunkettle roundabout it dropped back fairly quickly.

So by going 20 kph slower I was only getting 3 extra mpg. That was far, far less than I was expecting and it just shows how sad the hippies are because they are making it out that by going that bit faster you fuel efficiency goes WAY down even though in an average size car with a 1.8 litre engine you only lose 3 mpg by doing 120 instead of 100.

For 3 lousy mpg(especially when the higher speed is still going to give you a very efficient 40 mpg anyway) I'll be sticking to the higher speed thank you very much:D!

madaboutcars

A 1.8 litre petrol engine is now a "large" engine:D:D!

What a load of sh!te, 6.0 litres is large even 3.0 litres is large but a bloody 1.8 is at most a small-medium engine size.

I must say I had a good laugh at that one.

Stephen

Tell that to the muppets in government. They think anything bigger than 1.6 litres is large, regardless of how much weight it is pulling.

Flyer1

DJ Hafez wrote: »

It doesn't like that I fly so much every year. I'd say the the calculator would explode if you were a pilot :P

I'm in right trouble so, i'm ehhhh giiiiving up fly..... Nahh screw it, it's too much fun

AugustusMaximus

madaboutcars wrote: »

Then at around Watergrasshill where the speed limit goes back to 100 kph I reset the trip computer and adjusted the cruise control to keep the car at exactly 100 kph.

The speed limit between Glanmire and Watergrasshill has been changed to 120kph for about 4 weeks now.

Only goes to 100kph once you go past the Glanmire interchange.