Rural roads - low limits in the pipeline

[mybrainhurts]

As we know, government has instructed local authorities to come up with a list of roads on which low limits will be imposed.

Based on the assertion that you are three times more likely to be hurt on a rural road.

The Think campaign that urges us to slow down on rural roads is regularly aired on TalkSport Radio...

And the justification for spending oodles of £ on this campaign...?

323 killed last year...

It would be nice to see this at zero, but is it possible to reduce such a tiny number?

I suggest it is a credit to us that the figure is so low.

I have to wonder why, if government is so concerned for our welfare, it is not spending similar amounts of cash in areas of mass casualaties, such as the thousands who die from infections contracted in hospitals each year.

[tigger1]

And how many pensioners will die this winter because they can't afford the gas bill?

[dcb]

tigger1 said:

And how many pensioners will die this winter because they can't afford the gas bill?

Ten or twenty thousand folks die in the UK each year of
the cold.

Rather makes global warming something to look forward to, doesn't it ?

Also makes the speeding debate [3 thousand deaths] a bit
pointless.

Let's not forget that about 100K a year die of smoking related
problems.

[jasandjules]

And the 50,000 MRSA cases a year.

But hey, they cost money, not make it...

[rich 36]

*AHEM*

Badgers & Little (mixey) Bunnies,
squashed innocently crossing rural roads









'Oh the Faunallity'

[Nic Jones]

[redacted]

[vim fuego]

mybrainhurts said:

As we know, government has instructed local authorities to come up with a list of roads on which low limits will be imposed.

Based on the assertion that you are three times more likely to be hurt on a rural road.

The Think campaign that urges us to slow down on rural roads is regularly aired on TalkSport Radio...

And the justification for spending oodles of £ on this campaign...?

323 killed last year...

It would be nice to see this at zero, but is it possible to reduce such a tiny number?

I suggest it is a credit to us that the figure is so low.

I have to wonder why, if government is so concerned for our welfare, it is not spending similar amounts of cash in areas of mass casualaties, such as the thousands who die from infections contracted in hospitals each year.

no there will be a natural rate, as in nature (albeit this is a man made object being driven about)

its a lot like unemployment.

The goal of many governments is to reduce to "zero" well it just never happens because there is always someone unemployed.
Whether they are just moving jobs, just lost their job etc, unemployment will probably never get below the levels currently experienced with only very slight fluctuations downwards; obviously the figures can go up significantly.

The figures we’ve got for road deaths will probably never get any lower, regardless of speed, we'll always be able to kill ourselves and 3000 + seem to be able to do it so perhaps, like a lot of nature, that is just the natural rate – but its too pc to suggest it.

Road deaths are the thing that kills us off, it used to be disease but now its vehicles.

I think the reasonably static figures suggest this

3500/60 000 000 = 0.005% thereabouts of the population which, as the population increases, will decline if the rates stay static - so road deaths are declining in a quirky way (as a percentage of the population)

[7db]

dcb said:

tigger1 said:

And how many pensioners will die this winter because they can't afford the gas bill?

Ten or twenty thousand folks die in the UK each year of
the cold.

Most of these tend to be what is referred to by health professionals as "harvesting" -- ie people who were close to death in some sense and the cold makes that occur more quickly. Typically the natural death rate falls afterwards.

There's no such effect for road deaths -- the deaths are all "extras" - often younger people.

From a strictly utilitarian point of view (which I couldn't counsel anyone to adopt) it's better to save a person with 60 years (many of them highly economic) than one or two cancer-riddled 80 year olds.

[safespeed]

vim fuego said:

The figures we’ve got for road deaths will probably never get any lower, regardless of speed, we'll always be able to kill ourselves and 3000 + seem to be able to do it so perhaps, like a lot of nature, that is just the natural rate – but its too pc to suggest it.

That's equivalent to saying: "We can't build safer cars. We can't engineer out problem roads. We can't get better at post crash care."

And therefore it's totally wrong.

I also believe that there's MASSES of room for improvement in drivers.

[andmole]

7db said:

dcb said:

tigger1 said:

And how many pensioners will die this winter because they can't afford the gas bill?

Ten or twenty thousand folks die in the UK each year of
the cold.

Most of these tend to be what is referred to by health professionals as "harvesting" -- ie people who were close to death in some sense and the cold makes that occur more quickly. Typically the natural death rate falls afterwards.

There's no such effect for road deaths -- the deaths are all "extras" - often younger people.

From a strictly utilitarian point of view (which I couldn't counsel anyone to adopt) it's better to save a person with 60 years (many of them highly economic) than one or two cancer-riddled 80 year olds.

And if the 80 year old is your gran?

[mybrainhurts]

While we're at it, let's not forget more people die in the UK from accidents in the home than on the road....RoSPA figures.

We're doing exceedingly well with road safety, aren't we?

[james_j]

Nic Jones said:

Even if they do bring in these lower limits they'll be unenforcable so you, me and everyone else who can think independently will carry on driving as they do now at a speed they feel comfortable and safe at which is often well above the artificially low speed limit.

There's a lot of stupid limits that I know are unenforcable around where I live that I pay no attention to at all, ie a 40 limit between 2 villages that I have heard from the horses mouth that they cannot enforce it as there is no straight long enough to clock you on.
Only chance of being caught is actually by being followed by the police.

Total joke.

Spot on. Even more stupidly low limits means even more limits to ignore. More income potentially for camera businesses and weekend overtime pay for BIB I expect. I just spotted a "casualty reduction" ( ) BIB (?) van this morning looking for a nice place to park up. What a way to earn a living.

[V8 Archie]

andmole said:

And if the 80 year old is your gran?

You've lost the considered argument, so here comes the irrelevant emotional blackmail. Are you a memeber of Brake?

[small]Not trying to be aggressive, just illustrating a point.[/quote]

[Major Bloodnok]

vim fuego said:

The figures we’ve got for road deaths will probably never get any lower, regardless of speed, we'll always be able to kill ourselves and 3000 + seem to be able to do it so perhaps, like a lot of nature, that is just the natural rate – but its too pc to suggest it.

There probably is a "natural rate" (black ice, natural hazards, heart attacks at the wheel...) but I doubt it is anywhere near 3,000+.

[dilbert]

mybrainhurts said:

As we know, government has instructed local authorities to come up with a list of roads on which low limits will be imposed.

Based on the assertion that you are three times more likely to be hurt on a rural road.

The Think campaign that urges us to slow down on rural roads is regularly aired on TalkSport Radio...

And the justification for spending oodles of £ on this campaign...?

323 killed last year...

It would be nice to see this at zero, but is it possible to reduce such a tiny number?

I suggest it is a credit to us that the figure is so low.

I have to wonder why, if government is so concerned for our welfare, it is not spending similar amounts of cash in areas of mass casualaties, such as the thousands who die from infections contracted in hospitals each year.

They did, but like this idea it won't work. The difference is that this idea makes money for them.

[Mad Moggie]

7db said:

dcb said:

tigger1 said:

And how many pensioners will die this winter because they can't afford the gas bill?

Ten or twenty thousand folks die in the UK each year of
the cold.

Most of these tend to be what is referred to by health professionals as "harvesting" -- ie people who were close to death in some sense and the cold makes that occur more quickly. Typically the natural death rate falls afterwards.

There's no such effect for road deaths -- the deaths are all "extras" - often younger people.

hypothermia can affect any age group and the elderly can get run over. My sister's best pal's dad was aged 80. He died when struck by a car overtaking a bus as he crossed a pelican last year. The lad driving this car was high on cannabis at lunchtime by the way.

These elderly who die of the heat and the extreme cold.. self sufficient to all apearances.. proud .. not accepting handouts - but cut down on the heating and are certainly not cancer ridden nor about to die otherwise. Those in that situation - you find being cared for in hospices and old folks/nursing care homes. (the latter case should be "cared" for as the "care" they sold their homes to purchase requires some shopping around for on the part of the relatives. Some of it - shall we say tacfully - a bit "lacking" - but at least not freezing.

7db said:

From a strictly utilitarian point of view (which I couldn't counsel anyone to adopt) it's better to save a person with 60 years (many of them highly economic) than one or two cancer-riddled 80 year olds.

as said "cancer riddled would nore than likely be in a hospice - and one hopes they retain their dignity there.

[Mad Moggie]

As for the roads around here... some are NSL .. probably likely to remain so as reasonable record despite Steve's muddled attempts to undermine it with his cam vans..


Other narrow twisties - might be NSL - but no one actually does this speed on them Oddly enough they travel at a SAFE speed which is not the speed limit - nor even over it

However - impose this safe speed limit adopted by choice as a lolly - and automatically people will be pinged blipping over it

Responsibility and treating people as "grown ups" - works far better then

[andmole]

V8 Archie said:

andmole said:

And if the 80 year old is your gran?

You've lost the considered argument, so here comes the irrelevant emotional blackmail. Are you a memeber of Brake?

Not trying to be aggressive, just illustrating a point.

No, not a member of brake, just someone with a 69 yr old mother, someone who lost his father to cancer at the age of 71, 8 years ago, and someone who used to run a post office, where many of the customers where over 70, and several of which "died off" every winter.

I have not lost the considered argument, since I wasn't even taking part in it, I was just commenting that some people may have found a certain post a wee bit insensitive. I am not even saying that it was insensitive, just that some people may have found it so.

However I find your accusation that I am a member of BRAKE highly insulting, as you will find on threads that I contribute to regularly that my arguments are considered, reasoned, carefully constructed so as to avoid misunderstanding, and hopefully grammatically correct.

I fully understand the arguments about placing value on human life depending on factors such as age and usefulness. However I cannot agree with them, but that is merely my personal view. I would like to point out however that a certain Austrian with a moustache in the 1930's held not entirely dissimilar views about the value of one human life versus another. A hell of a stretch in terms of logical argument I accept, but I can't help but remember the phrase "The thin end of the wedge".

We should put our money and effort into saving the maximum number of lives. That, from looking at the figures, does not appear to be the rabid speed enforcement that we have now.

Edited by andmole on Sunday 26th November 00:40

Edited by andmole on Sunday 26th November 00:42

[Globulator]

mybrainhurts said:

And the justification for spending oodles of £ on this campaign...?
323 killed last year...

I'm glad to see the government is caring about this - safety must be paramount and even one death is a death too many.

I'm sure it is a sign that the government might be prepared to pay for a decent fire service too, to pay for safe train tracks, to pay for food education in schools, for NHS hospitas so they do not have to close and/or lay of staff, for removing VAT on fuel and upping winter warmth payments, oh, and save the country lane driver from himself.

Oh - maybe our nanny state spent all that money when it started two wars and killed over 100 of our finest soldiers and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent countrymen in the middle east. How many speeding fines pay for a new tank?

Yes, obviously this is a government that cares for our well being...

[andmole]

Globulator said:

mybrainhurts said:

And the justification for spending oodles of £ on this campaign...?
323 killed last year...

I'm glad to see the government is caring about this - safety must be paramount and even one death is a death too many.

I'm sure it is a sign that the government might be prepared to pay for a decent fire service too, to pay for safe train tracks, to pay for food education in schools, for NHS hospitas so they do not have to close and/or lay of staff, for removing VAT on fuel and upping winter warmth payments, oh, and save the country lane driver from himself.

Oh - maybe our nanny state spent all that money when it started two wars and killed over 100 of our finest soldiers and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent countrymen in the middle east. How many speeding fines pay for a new tank?

Yes, obviously this is a government that cares for our well being...

You know, reading that, anyone might come to the conclusion that you were a tiny bit cynical.