Blanket 20mph limit across Wales from 2023
Discussion
bigothunter said:
Evanivitch said:
camel_landy said:
Which is precisely why the blanket/default approach doesn’t work… One size does not fit all.
M
M
So have another
monkfish1 said:
Agreed. Speed limits are like a one way ratchet. Down.
No one is going to increase a speed limit in wales or anywhere else. For the simple reason, as soon as a bad accident occurs, it will come straight back to them/ the person who signed it off. Who in their right mind is going to put themselves in that position, never mind a person employed by the council.
Whats done is done.
Exemptions literally increase the speed limit...No one is going to increase a speed limit in wales or anywhere else. For the simple reason, as soon as a bad accident occurs, it will come straight back to them/ the person who signed it off. Who in their right mind is going to put themselves in that position, never mind a person employed by the council.
Whats done is done.
Evanivitch said:
monkfish1 said:
Agreed. Speed limits are like a one way ratchet. Down.
No one is going to increase a speed limit in wales or anywhere else. For the simple reason, as soon as a bad accident occurs, it will come straight back to them/ the person who signed it off. Who in their right mind is going to put themselves in that position, never mind a person employed by the council.
Whats done is done.
Exemptions literally increase the speed limit...No one is going to increase a speed limit in wales or anywhere else. For the simple reason, as soon as a bad accident occurs, it will come straight back to them/ the person who signed it off. Who in their right mind is going to put themselves in that position, never mind a person employed by the council.
Whats done is done.
Whilst im happy to be corrected, there are no instances where it was reduced and subsequently increased again. But you know that right?
monkfish1 said:
No they didnt, as well you know. They allowed the speed limit to remain as it was. There is no interpretation by which this can possibly be described as an "increase".
Whilst im happy to be corrected, there are no instances where it was reduced and subsequently increased again. But you know that right?
You're avoiding the logic. Someone had to make the decision and sign-off the speed limit being greater than the 20 mph default. Therefore, it's exactly the same liability as anyone else increasing the speed limit like your example. Whilst im happy to be corrected, there are no instances where it was reduced and subsequently increased again. But you know that right?
Evanivitch said:
monkfish1 said:
No they didnt, as well you know. They allowed the speed limit to remain as it was. There is no interpretation by which this can possibly be described as an "increase".
Whilst im happy to be corrected, there are no instances where it was reduced and subsequently increased again. But you know that right?
You're avoiding the logic. Someone had to make the decision and sign-off the speed limit being greater than the 20 mph default. Therefore, it's exactly the same liability as anyone else increasing the speed limit like your example. Whilst im happy to be corrected, there are no instances where it was reduced and subsequently increased again. But you know that right?
At no point in the process was the speed limit "increased". It remained as it was. It manifestly is NOT the same liability, as no increase in risk ever took place. The risk today remains exactly as it was before. No one is guilty of increasing any risk.
So the end result of the excercise is that speed limits, and therefore the risks either remained the same or were reduced. NONE were increased.
If you equate that to being an increase, then you crack on. Your twisting of logic to defend the governments position/decisions/actions, i find utterly bizarre.
monkfish1 said:
Im avoiding the logic? Pots and kettles.
At no point in the process was the speed limit "increased". It remained as it was. It manifestly is NOT the same liability, as no increase in risk ever took place. The risk today remains exactly as it was before. No one is guilty of increasing any risk.
So the end result of the excercise is that speed limits, and therefore the risks either remained the same or were reduced. NONE were increased.
If you equate that to being an increase, then you crack on. Your twisting of logic to defend the governments position/decisions/actions, i find utterly bizarre.
At no point in the process was the speed limit "increased". It remained as it was. It manifestly is NOT the same liability, as no increase in risk ever took place. The risk today remains exactly as it was before. No one is guilty of increasing any risk.
So the end result of the excercise is that speed limits, and therefore the risks either remained the same or were reduced. NONE were increased.
If you equate that to being an increase, then you crack on. Your twisting of logic to defend the governments position/decisions/actions, i find utterly bizarre.
How is increasing the speed limit from the default 20mph not an increase? It literally had to be agreed and signed off. Just like any other change in speed limits. Did you want them to put a sign up and then take it down again just to keep you happy?
Evanivitch said:
monkfish1 said:
Im avoiding the logic? Pots and kettles.
At no point in the process was the speed limit "increased". It remained as it was. It manifestly is NOT the same liability, as no increase in risk ever took place. The risk today remains exactly as it was before. No one is guilty of increasing any risk.
So the end result of the excercise is that speed limits, and therefore the risks either remained the same or were reduced. NONE were increased.
If you equate that to being an increase, then you crack on. Your twisting of logic to defend the governments position/decisions/actions, i find utterly bizarre.
At no point in the process was the speed limit "increased". It remained as it was. It manifestly is NOT the same liability, as no increase in risk ever took place. The risk today remains exactly as it was before. No one is guilty of increasing any risk.
So the end result of the excercise is that speed limits, and therefore the risks either remained the same or were reduced. NONE were increased.
If you equate that to being an increase, then you crack on. Your twisting of logic to defend the governments position/decisions/actions, i find utterly bizarre.
How is increasing the speed limit from the default 20mph not an increase? It literally had to be agreed and signed off. Just like any other change in speed limits. Did you want them to put a sign up and then take it down again just to keep you happy?
Either way, no speed limits are going to get increased. Thats a nailed on certainty. Unless the conservatives win power of course
monkfish1 said:
The actual speed limit never changed. Im not sure i can explain it more.
Either way, no speed limits are going to get increased. Thats a nailed on certainty. Unless the conservatives win power of course
At least you've completely contradicted Camel Lady's "blanket" then Either way, no speed limits are going to get increased. Thats a nailed on certainty. Unless the conservatives win power of course
autumnsum said:
Did the world end, then? Or has it all blown over like it did in numerous other places when it all went 20mph (like much of Europe...).
It’s blown over for those of us fortunate enough to be on the right side of the border, but as someone who has extended family who aren’t I can provide an assurance that the daily, every-single-journey, endless annoyance and frustration will be continuing ad infinitum for the poor sods who have to suffer it!autumnsum said:
Did the world end, then? Or has it all blown over like it did in numerous other places when it all went 20mph (like much of Europe...).
Pretty much. The 500,000 signatures have amounted to about 20 people at any protest. The Facebook groups have turned into a anti-Senedd, anti-Drakeford, anti-cyclists hive mind. But have proven that boomer Facebook anger doesn't translate to any action.Southerner said:
It’s blown over for those of us fortunate enough to be on the right side of the border, but as someone who has extended family who aren’t I can provide an assurance that the daily, every-single-journey, endless annoyance and frustration will be continuing ad infinitum for the poor sods who have to suffer it!
100% it’s a total pain in the ass. Confusion caused, half the signs still not up, 20-40-30-20-30-20-40 zones everywhere.Streetlights in a built up area could now mean anything. Uk system of blanket 30 apart from outside schools and dense residential at 20 way more logical.
Meanwhile there’s still naff all police, so you can go for a tear up, should you be so minded, with near impunity.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff