Increase Speed Limits - Online Petition

[renault12ts]

With the increase in speed (coupled with the natural increase in attentiveness) balance the equation?

This is really out of our realms to be honest and not what I am proposing at all. I would much rather leave the nitty gritty detail to the experts to report back to our government. I am proposing a reform of our circa 40+ year old legislation. Which, may I add, was based on facts and figures that were (perhaps) true at the time.

If you concentrate to your maximum, no matter the speed, then reaction times are the same.

Your suggestion would have us asleep at the wheel at 30...which would be very dangerous in a busy town.

This thread seems to have drifted a lot.

I think an increase might be good...but not a big one. As has been said, with the limit at 70, 80 is acceptable. But if the limit was 80...would 90 be acceptable?

 

[renault12ts]

Really? I thought people were saying that they pay more attention to the road at greater speed?

That's the problem. I do not think this algorithm is something that can be solved overnight by people who simply aren't experts. Therefore, as stated before, I am merely bringing this matter to the attention of the media and government.

The government should then commission trails / investigations in to the effects of increasing speed limits prior to forming their opinion on whether a reform is necessary or not.

I'm sure that these studies have been done.

 

[MoAMG]

So you misread misunderstand my post then have the audacity to stamp "fail" on it?



Again, confusing attentiveness/concentration/alertness with reaction times, reaction times are a fixed constant, you cannot improve that, not even with coffee. They're individual to a person and are the reason some drivers only ever climb so high in formula 1. You can learn all the advanced racing techniques in the world, but once you've reached the limit of your own reaction times, there's not a lot you can do to improve it.

We're just going in loops here of your refusal to accept scientific, neurological facts and keep reverting your ignorance and speculation.

I'm assuming you're going to tell me that there's "absolutely no need" for something now aren't you, and use offence to dodge the point again as always.

I would not let someone with your intellectual ability (or lack thereof?) offend me. I am simply astonished at your natural ability to find ways to hash words together to sit in your favor, so I’ll leave it at that.

I will agree to disagree on this matter forthwith; however, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not conceding any arguments.

For the sake of our sanity, could everyone please stick to the topic at hand.

Thank you.

 

[MoAMG]

I'm sure that these studies have been done.

I'm not talking about 40 year old studies. I am championing for new studies, using modern techniques and equipment. Besides, I'm sure this wouldn't dig too much in to their pie of billions that they make out of the various taxes.

 

[John Jones Jr]

Besides, I'm sure this wouldn't dig too much in to their pie of billions that they make out of the various motor related taxes and fines.

Let's be a bit more specific

 

[219]

Besides, I'm sure this wouldn't dig too much in to their pie of billions that they make out of the various taxes.

Would that be a Desperate Dan Cow Pie ?

 

[cb1965]

I highly doubt any of these studies have been done as what is the incentive for any government to do them? They aren't affected by any issues on the roads and care not a jot about the average person. Plus why would they want to upset the apple cart when it comes to fines and taxes from the motorist. On the contrary they are busy finding ways to get yet more money out of us.

Still while most of the population blindly believes they are acting in their interests or doesn't give a damn one way or the other nothing is likely to change!

 

[Giantvanman]

I'm not talking about 40 year old studies. I am championing for new studies, using modern techniques and equipment. Besides, I'm sure this wouldn't dig too much in to their pie of billions that they make out of the various taxes.

There are modern studies already in existence. I made reference, sorry, hinted, to them earlier.
And they have to be accurate, relevant and provable otherwise defence barristers' experts would have a field day. As it is, all they can do is try to manipulate the numbers in the defendants favour but what they don't do is try and refute some utterly thorough science and research.

You keep harping on about "40 year old studies" but you haven't said which studies (which may still have validity in whole or part today) or which part of these studies you have read and disagree with.

To which studies or part thereof are you referring?

..

 

[MoAMG]

Let's be a bit more specific

Very true...

 

[Dryce]

And that's why 70 mph was a reasonable limit to have back then...

Well there are reasons that it is still a reasonable limit today.

My recollection is the motorways were much emptier and free flowing. We didn't seem to encounter sudden queues of stopped traffic as frequently as we do today - and cars accelerated less quickly so there was less 'jostling' in denser traffic.

Ahhhhhhh - the good old days - when a 0-60 under 14 seconds was considered to be quick.

 

[MoAMG]

There are modern studies already in existence. I made reference, sorry, hinted, to them earlier.
And they have to be accurate, relevant and provable otherwise defence barristers' experts would have a field day. As it is, all they can do is try to manipulate the numbers in the defendants favour but what they don't do is try and refute some utterly thorough science and research.

You keep harping on about "40 year old studies" but you haven't said which studies (which may still have validity in whole or part today) or which part of these studies you have read and disagree with.

To which studies or part thereof are you referring?

..

I haven't read any studies but one can only assume that any sane person/government would have carried out some trails in to various speeds prior to setting the NSL at 70? Am I missing something here? Perhaps assuming what a sane person/government would do here is not something I should be doing...

 

[Dryce]

I'm not talking about 40 year old studies. I am championing for new studies, using modern techniques and equipment.

Be careful what you wish for.

My suspicion is that such studies could be used to justify the exact opposite of what you want.

 

[renault12ts]

I'm not talking about 40 year old studies. I am championing for new studies, using modern techniques and equipment. Besides, I'm sure this wouldn't dig too much in to their pie of billions that they make out of the various taxes.

I'm also sure they are not 40 years old.

 

[MoAMG]

Be careful what you wish for.

My suspicion is that such studies could be used to justify the exact opposite of what you want.

Then so be it!

This is my point exactly, I am not for or against increasing the speeds as such. I am more for revising our currently outdated legislation.

The heading is only meant to be an eye-catcher for the casual reader... :bannana:

 

[MoAMG]

I'm also sure they are not 40 years old.

How old are they then?

 

[renault12ts]

My petition:

Increase road speed limits in line with advances in car safety.

Then so be it!

This is my point exactly, I am not for or against increasing the speeds as such. I am more for revising our currently outdated legislation.

The heading is only meant to be an eye-catcher for the casual reader... :bannana:

My first quote is from your first post...it seems to suggest you are for an increase.

 

[whitenemesis]

Then so be it!

This is my point exactly, I am not for or against increasing the speeds as such. I am more for revising our currently outdated legislation.

The heading is only meant to be an eye-catcher for the casual reader... :bannana:

That bit certainly worked!

 

[Giantvanman]

I haven't read any studies but one can only assume that any sane person/government would have carried out some trails in to various speeds prior to setting the NSL at 70? Am I missing something here? Perhaps assuming what a sane person/government would do here is not something I should be doing...

So the whole basis of your argument is that, having NOT read ANY research you decide that because it could be old research, by definition it must be irrelevant. Put your mind at rest; there has been CONSIDERABLE research over recent years and it is an ONGOING process where the science is refined and improved upon.

"Am I missing something here?"; may I suggest an open mind and a willingness to do some research/legwork before trying to embark on what you thought would be a popular cause? Just saying, no offence intended.

 

[MoAMG]

That bit certainly worked!

It worked too well I think! Haha

 

[MoAMG]

So the whole basis of your argument is that, having NOT read ANY research you decide that because it could be old research, by definition it must be irrelevant. Put your mind at rest; there has been CONSIDERABLE research over recent years and it is an ONGOING process where the science is refined and improved upon. "Am I missing something here?"; may I suggest an open mind and a willingness to do some research/legwork before trying to embark on what you thought would be a popular cause? Just saying, no offence intended.

No offence taken.

That may be so, but why are the government failing to update the legislation in line with new research? In any case, there seems to be a breakdown in communication somewhere along the line...