talltimtam
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 225
Can we live with this ???
- Thread starter talltimtam
- Start date
-
- Tags
- live
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
imadoofus
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 2,859
- Car
- This and that.
No. We'll all have to kill ourselves.
Sp!ke
Administrator
You'd think the government have more pressing things to do at the moment rather than instigating more nanny state nonesense like this.....
Unless of course they are just after the scamera revenue.
Grrrrrr
Unless of course they are just after the scamera revenue.
Grrrrrr
Peteee
Member
Yet another Nu Labour money raising scam to nail us drivers
Peteee
Peteee
st4
Banned
I can't. I should spray my regi plates up and wear a balaclava and then I will drive as fast as I like
I can see the logic of reducing speed limits on more twisty rural roads but its not viable to put specs cameras everywhere. Speed limits act as a guide for speed and a 60mph limit up the A9 is fine, but over a B road it might be to fast and mis intrepreted. God knows how but there are some stupid people out there.
Its the nanny state all this reduce speed limits etc so the lowest form of human life can drive safely holding us all back. We are trying to undo Darwinian theory rather than just let it operate freely by nanny stating away.
I am sure SPECs will enforce the new totalitarian limits well, and it won't bring in much money so its about spying and curtailing enjoyment of the roads. Despite that left wing c*** Ken being out of London his car hating thinking has lived on. Pity.
Now its time for some fresh thinking and this would work better.
In ST4s motoring world motorways would be devoid of speed limits apart from minimum ones (but they'd be tests and courses one would need to be able to access these). Adverse weather conditions would see an advisory limit and that might be enforced more actively.
Dual carriage ways would have a speed limit, but enforcement would be pretty laid back. In towns 30 is about fine and enforcement would be active and visible. Not some spy van taking your picture, but visible cops.
Roads that were good driving roads, (A82 up glen coe) would have limits but would be completely enforcement free. (no big brother state in ***'s country) for drivers who pay VED, VAT etc to enjoy.
Driving is one of lifes great pleasures and we should fight more to protect driving as we know it rather than lie down and take this carbon this global that cr4p, safety this, camera that sh**.
With all the money we give them, they should listen to what we want. Instead of bailing out banks they should be building motorways, upgrading roads with the aim to raising speed limits and cutting back on enforcement.
I can see the logic of reducing speed limits on more twisty rural roads but its not viable to put specs cameras everywhere. Speed limits act as a guide for speed and a 60mph limit up the A9 is fine, but over a B road it might be to fast and mis intrepreted. God knows how but there are some stupid people out there.
Its the nanny state all this reduce speed limits etc so the lowest form of human life can drive safely holding us all back. We are trying to undo Darwinian theory rather than just let it operate freely by nanny stating away.
I am sure SPECs will enforce the new totalitarian limits well, and it won't bring in much money so its about spying and curtailing enjoyment of the roads. Despite that left wing c*** Ken being out of London his car hating thinking has lived on. Pity.
Now its time for some fresh thinking and this would work better.
In ST4s motoring world motorways would be devoid of speed limits apart from minimum ones (but they'd be tests and courses one would need to be able to access these). Adverse weather conditions would see an advisory limit and that might be enforced more actively.
Dual carriage ways would have a speed limit, but enforcement would be pretty laid back
. In towns 30 is about fine and enforcement would be active and visible. Not some spy van taking your picture, but visible cops. Roads that were good driving roads, (A82 up glen coe) would have limits but would be completely enforcement free. (no big brother state in ***'s country) for drivers who pay VED, VAT etc to enjoy.
Driving is one of lifes great pleasures and we should fight more to protect driving as we know it rather than lie down and take this carbon this global that cr4p, safety this, camera that sh**.
With all the money we give them, they should listen to what we want. Instead of bailing out banks they should be building motorways, upgrading roads with the aim to raising speed limits and cutting back on enforcement.
trapperjohn
MB Enthusiast
New thinking for government. Abolish speed limits outside of built up areas, then we go faster and use more fuel and HMG collects more taxes on said fuel. Oh sorry, is that too obvious, not green enough?. Govt just wants to stick to tally vans, an data tags, and black boxes, an spies in skies. Gets coat and heads for Aus.
trapperjohn
MB Enthusiast
Cancel Aus. Im headin for whereever *** rules. Would like to take my eyes off the speedo and watch my drivin just now and again.
st4
Banned
Easier said than done. Ozz is going PC Brigade and CO2 this and that too
We give that bunch of clowns led by that clown brown a sizable proportion of our money to spend on us and our infrastructure. And they come up with this.
Appalling.
The A1 from London to Edinburgh isn't motorway all the way. It should be, and our limits on these roads should be as fast as possible whilst still being safe. There would be some casulties along the way, but there will be at 50mph as the human body wasn't designed to move at greater than 10mph.
A roads having a 50mph limit enforced by a big brother state camera system is out rageous. Why not electonically tag everyone like convicted pedo's, its the same thing.
Something has to be done about this lot, how do I run for PM.
Dryce
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
- Messages
- 10,957
- Car
- ..
Stinks.
And what makes it worse is that if you put in unsuitable limits without enforcement it degrades driver behaviour towards limits in general.
Just had a quick google and it seems a the research behind this is based on the fact that the average speed on the type of A road in question is 48mph and the risk of a accident increases substantially as your speed increases above this.
Based on this brief research the idea seems totally flawed to me as I can think of plenty of A roads where (without thrashing the car out of the corners), I can easily reach the current NSL on the straights, but am unlikely to exceed 48mph average because of bends, junctions and other hazards.
Based on this brief research the idea seems totally flawed to me as I can think of plenty of A roads where (without thrashing the car out of the corners), I can easily reach the current NSL on the straights, but am unlikely to exceed 48mph average because of bends, junctions and other hazards.
st4
Banned
You'd think that would be pretty obvious and doing 60 on some bits of the roads that have this limit around here is suicidal, such is the nature of visibility, road surface (the council likes to spend its money on outreach and equal oppotunities officers rather than the roads
) and corners. Still on the straight sections 60mph or even more is safe).This has nothing to do with safety, its about curtailment of enjoyment and its to do with the underlying socialist thinking of this government. Remember Broon and Darling are Marxists and by god it shows.
This was brought in following the 1970's fuel crisis as a means of reducing fuel consumption - it was so deeply unpopular that it only lasted a short while before the limits were restored to previous levels .
The national speed limit itself was introduced by politicians in the mid 1960's when they felt they 'had to be seen to be doing something' in response to concerns about crash statistics . The limit was introduced as 'an experiment' and remained a 'temporary' speed limit for many years . Perhaps 'experiment' should be substituted with 'knee-jerk reaction' ?
I am not sure that it was ever proven that the introduction of the national speed limit had any significant effect on crash statistics ; on the contrary , it certainly had the effect of lowering the standards of driving on previously 'de-restricted' roads due to some people taking the self-righteous attitude that 'I'm travelling at the maximum permitted speed , so I don't need to move over for you' thus breeding a whole generation of 'road hogs' .
In relation to speed and safety , the following words from 'Roadcraft' are relevant : " Speed is frequently looked upon as something dangerous in itself , but it is dangerous only if used in the wrong place or at the wrong time ... What to a novice may be a dangerous speed is not neccessarily so to a more experienced driver .The choice of speed must be related to the driver's ability , the type , condition and limitations of the vehicle and the prevailing road and traffic conditions , bearing in mind that the safe speed for any given section of road may vary from minute to minute as circumstances alter . Statutory speed restrictions in respect of areas and classes of vehicles assist in reducing instances of dangerous high speed but legislation by itself is not sufficient for on many occasions the maximum permitted speed will be too fast for safety . Remember the onus is always on the driver to select a speed appropriate to the conditions , for example , although 30 mph may be permitted through a shopping area to drive at that speed at certain times of the day might be positively dangerous ."
The introduction of a 50mph limit , enforced by AVERAGE speed cameras is likely to have little effect on the roads with the worst crash statistics , due to the fact that , having to slow down in many places for bends , junctions and other traffic , you will still be able to attain peak speeds well in excess of the proposed limit without taking your AVERAGE speed above it . With so many cars now being equipped with trip computers , it will be easy for those who wish to , to exploit this 'loophole' .
Whilst this proposed limit may have laudable objectives , it will fail because of the reasons I have set out above , and I predict that crash statistics will not change significantly ; it may reduce the severity of injuries sustained in some cases due to reduced speeds of impact , but the majority of crashes occur because someone was not following the rules and in these cases it will make no difference . What the reduction in limits will mean for law-abiding drivers is an increase in journey times , fatigue on longer journeys which will now take even longer with a temptation to spend longer at the wheel in order to reach a destination ( thus risking more fatigue related crashes ) , more frustration for drivers behind slow moving vehicles ( the drivers of which will feel even less of an obligation to move over to allow faster traffic to pass ) ; increased risk taking goes with frustration , then there is the 'spin off' for the government of increased speeding fines for people who stray over the new , lower limit .
Of course , that last point has little to do with the proposal .
The national speed limit itself was introduced by politicians in the mid 1960's when they felt they 'had to be seen to be doing something' in response to concerns about crash statistics . The limit was introduced as 'an experiment' and remained a 'temporary' speed limit for many years . Perhaps 'experiment' should be substituted with 'knee-jerk reaction' ?
I am not sure that it was ever proven that the introduction of the national speed limit had any significant effect on crash statistics ; on the contrary , it certainly had the effect of lowering the standards of driving on previously 'de-restricted' roads due to some people taking the self-righteous attitude that 'I'm travelling at the maximum permitted speed , so I don't need to move over for you' thus breeding a whole generation of 'road hogs' .
In relation to speed and safety , the following words from 'Roadcraft' are relevant : " Speed is frequently looked upon as something dangerous in itself , but it is dangerous only if used in the wrong place or at the wrong time ... What to a novice may be a dangerous speed is not neccessarily so to a more experienced driver .The choice of speed must be related to the driver's ability , the type , condition and limitations of the vehicle and the prevailing road and traffic conditions , bearing in mind that the safe speed for any given section of road may vary from minute to minute as circumstances alter . Statutory speed restrictions in respect of areas and classes of vehicles assist in reducing instances of dangerous high speed but legislation by itself is not sufficient for on many occasions the maximum permitted speed will be too fast for safety . Remember the onus is always on the driver to select a speed appropriate to the conditions , for example , although 30 mph may be permitted through a shopping area to drive at that speed at certain times of the day might be positively dangerous ."
The introduction of a 50mph limit , enforced by AVERAGE speed cameras is likely to have little effect on the roads with the worst crash statistics , due to the fact that , having to slow down in many places for bends , junctions and other traffic , you will still be able to attain peak speeds well in excess of the proposed limit without taking your AVERAGE speed above it . With so many cars now being equipped with trip computers , it will be easy for those who wish to , to exploit this 'loophole' .
Whilst this proposed limit may have laudable objectives , it will fail because of the reasons I have set out above , and I predict that crash statistics will not change significantly ; it may reduce the severity of injuries sustained in some cases due to reduced speeds of impact , but the majority of crashes occur because someone was not following the rules and in these cases it will make no difference . What the reduction in limits will mean for law-abiding drivers is an increase in journey times , fatigue on longer journeys which will now take even longer with a temptation to spend longer at the wheel in order to reach a destination ( thus risking more fatigue related crashes ) , more frustration for drivers behind slow moving vehicles ( the drivers of which will feel even less of an obligation to move over to allow faster traffic to pass ) ; increased risk taking goes with frustration , then there is the 'spin off' for the government of increased speeding fines for people who stray over the new , lower limit .
Of course , that last point has little to do with the proposal .
The G.F.P
MB Enthusiast
they wont take me alive
they need to reduce the 30mph in built up areas to 20mph and that would be worthwhile but wont make any money so wont happen
simple way to get them to make 30's into 20's is to stand the politicians infront of a car and let them get run over at 30 and do 1 a day until they lower it
until it affects them morons they dont do anything about it
they need to reduce the 30mph in built up areas to 20mph and that would be worthwhile but wont make any money so wont happen
simple way to get them to make 30's into 20's is to stand the politicians infront of a car and let them get run over at 30 and do 1 a day until they lower it
until it affects them morons they dont do anything about it
20 mph is fine outside schools , busy high streets with lots of pedestrians and residential streets with children playing , but is too low for general application in all built up areas .
Commonsense should prevail according to circumstances .
Commonsense should prevail according to circumstances .
My POGO Alert already calculates on a real time basis my average speed when going through a SPECS average speed camera section of road.
Dryce
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- May 17, 2006
- Messages
- 10,957
- Car
- ..
No. They need to enforce the existing 30 so that people don't treat it as a 30 limit in which they will do 35-40.
All that happens in an unenforced 20 is that people treat it is a 20 limit in which they do 30.
How about some pedestrian education to stop them becoming road kill allong with the speed enforcement?
st4
Banned
Yes, and maybe advisory limits on rural road are better.
Did some driving in spain once and there were so many more speed limit signs and changes, you could be travelling on an A road with 100kmph limit. This would change to a 70kmph limit for a twisty section and progressively down to 30kmph for a roundabout. None of these were enforced by a spy box, but they didn't need to be as they were credible and were representative of what was a safe speed for the road.
My point is that regular limit changes shouldn't be there to enforce 3 points and nab a sneaky £60 but there to advise car drivers what may lie ahead, and because they were just signs it was believable they were there as a guideline, not heavy handed submission which our marxists in westminister pursue.
I'd like to see more "guideline" signs if we have to cater for the dumbo's out there, but more relaxed enforcement and more road building.
st4
Banned
heaven forbid, car drivers who pay tax are bottom of the pile in broon land
Speed limits alas are there are guidelines, people should be able to judge what speed to drive when and where. If not they shouldnt be driving
