Why can't we have govt like this?
Discussion
www.manxman.co.im/mecvan/archive/speed_limits.html
The Manx govt weighed up the evidence of what effects a national speed limit would have, realised they would be negligible in terms of cutting road deaths, and voterd against it. Common sense prevails sometimes.
Just wish I lived there.....
The Manx govt weighed up the evidence of what effects a national speed limit would have, realised they would be negligible in terms of cutting road deaths, and voterd against it. Common sense prevails sometimes.
Just wish I lived there.....
Parrot of Doom said:
Nothing to do with the tourism aspects of the TT then......
Like the many performance car oc's that visit, enjoy the mountain section, go back, go back again, then the members go on a family holiday...
There's absolutely no reason why they should put a number on a stick. A transport minister from the mainland maybe, but not an arbitrary number.
chrispy porker said:
Its interesting that some small islands eg Jersey/ Guernsey I believe have very low speed limits. I wonder why the difference with the IOM. Tourism perhaps?
I belieeve in the right of the IOM people & government to decide what is best for them. That doesn't mean of course that it's best for us or that we should adopt their stance.
vonhosen said:
I belieeve in the right of the IOM people & government to decide what is best for them.
Remarkably generous, vh.
vonhosen said:
That doesn't mean of course that it's best for us or that we should adopt their stance.
What's different about the IOM and the UK that makes it ok for
them but not ok for us ?
Facts please, not opinions.
dcb said:
vonhosen said:
I belieeve in the right of the IOM people & government to decide what is best for them.
Remarkably generous, vh.
vonhosen said:
That doesn't mean of course that it's best for us or that we should adopt their stance.
What's different about the IOM and the UK that makes it ok for
them but not ok for us ?
Facts please, not opinions.
I'd have thought that was obvious. It is a matter of fact that their government's risk management strategy in relation to speed, is one of allowing drivers to decide appropriate speed without upper limits, whilst our risk management strategy is not to.
I support our governments current position on that.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th February 21:55
vonhosen said:
dcb said:
vonhosen said:
I belieeve in the right of the IOM people & government to decide what is best for them.
Remarkably generous, vh.
vonhosen said:
That doesn't mean of course that it's best for us or that we should adopt their stance.
What's different about the IOM and the UK that makes it ok for
them but not ok for us ?
Facts please, not opinions.
I'd have thought that was obvious. It is a matter of fact that their government's risk management strategy in relation to speed, is one of allowing drivers to decide appropriate speed without upper limits, whilst our risk management strategy is not to.
I support our governments current position on that.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th February 21:55
Ok VH,
I've read a lot from you supporting the fact that people should respect the law right or wrong, don't disagree with you on this.
Now carte blanche.......
what should the law be on speeds, etc., etc.. I don't want the government line, or your corporate(?) line, what is your personal opinion?
rob_j said:
Ok VH,
I've read a lot from you supporting the fact that people should respect the law right or wrong, don't disagree with you on this.
Now carte blanche.......
what should the law be on speeds, etc., etc.. I don't want the government line, or your corporate(?) line, what is your personal opinion?
Well you've read my opinions then.
vonhosen profile said:
Any views expressed are mine & mine alone. I do not represent my employer or these forums.
vonhosen said:
I'd have thought that was obvious. It is a matter of fact that their government's risk management strategy in relation to speed, is one of allowing drivers to decide appropriate speed without upper limits, whilst our risk management strategy is not to.
I support our governments current position on that.
I may surprise you to learn that I'm with the IoM on this.
The IoM's strategy works without oppressing its citizens or guests, how can our government's oppression be justified when it is demonstrably unnecessary?
vonhosen said:
rob_j said:
Ok VH,
I've read a lot from you supporting the fact that people should respect the law right or wrong, don't disagree with you on this.
Now carte blanche.......
what should the law be on speeds, etc., etc.. I don't want the government line, or your corporate(?) line, what is your personal opinion?
Well you've read my opinions then.
vonhosen profile said:
Any views expressed are mine & mine alone. I do not represent my employer or these forums.
Your position is understood, and i'll respect it though.........
chrispy porker said:
Its interesting that some small islands eg Jersey/ Guernsey I believe have very low speed limits. I wonder why the difference with the IOM. Tourism perhaps?
Have you driven on Guernsey C.P.? Even with no limit there would be very few places suitable to "open her up"
Don't they have tourists here and Jersey?
Edited by esselte on Sunday 11th February 00:00
esselte said:
chrispy porker said:
Its interesting that some small islands eg Jersey/ Guernsey I believe have very low speed limits. I wonder why the difference with the IOM. Tourism perhaps?
Have you driven on Guernsey C.P.? Even with no limit there would be very few places suitable to "open her up"
Don't they have tourists here and Jersey?
They do have tourists, but large numbers aren't drawn there by an obsession with speed & the local economy reliant upon it, as the IOM is with the TT & MGP.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 11th February 00:29
I'd just like to point out that the speed limited roads on the IoM are quite well enforced. The entire island is not speed limit free.
Also, there is a sizeable proportion of the population who hate the IoM TT and want it banned. A collegue of mine lives over there, he loves it all but there is growing resentment at the idiocy of some people who go over there and kill themselves.
One good thing though - very low levels of car theft - after all, where would you go with it?
Also, there is a sizeable proportion of the population who hate the IoM TT and want it banned. A collegue of mine lives over there, he loves it all but there is growing resentment at the idiocy of some people who go over there and kill themselves.
One good thing though - very low levels of car theft - after all, where would you go with it?
Parrot of Doom said:
A collegue of mine lives over there, he loves it all but there is growing resentment at the idiocy of some people who go over there and kill themselves.
He is going to struggle, then isn't he ?
The world is not short of stupid people.
It is sad, but true, that this is Darwin in action.
vonhosen said:
I'd have thought that was obvious. It is a matter of fact that their government's risk management strategy in relation to speed, is one of allowing drivers to decide appropriate speed without upper limits, whilst our risk management strategy is not to.
I support our governments current position on that.
Would you be willing to venture an opinion on the list of negatives,
listed in the IOM report, about enforcing a speed limit ?
For instance, how have the UK removed or reduced those negatives ?
Where are the graphs, charts and spreadsheets which show that
the UK policy is effective and saves lives ?
esselte said:
chrispy porker said:
Its interesting that some small islands eg Jersey/ Guernsey I believe have very low speed limits. I wonder why the difference with the IOM. Tourism perhaps?
Have you driven on Guernsey C.P.? Even with no limit there would be very few places suitable to "open her up"
Don't they have tourists here and Jersey?
Edited by esselte on Sunday 11th February 00:00
No I can't say I have I am afraid, but I used to notice the Jersey Branch Of the Porsche Club used to have to travel to France to use more than 2nd Gear!, or so they said.
dcb said:
vonhosen said:
I'd have thought that was obvious. It is a matter of fact that their government's risk management strategy in relation to speed, is one of allowing drivers to decide appropriate speed without upper limits, whilst our risk management strategy is not to.
I support our governments current position on that.
Would you be willing to venture an opinion on the list of negatives,
listed in the IOM report, about enforcing a speed limit ?
For instance, how have the UK removed or reduced those negatives ?
Where are the graphs, charts and spreadsheets which show that
the UK policy is effective and saves lives ?
You said before you didn't want opinion.
Speed limits & where they are set are a demonstration of maximum acceptable risk through terminal speed. The IOM have decided that they on their little island, are less willing to accept that risk in town than out of town. If they truely believed people were good judges of appropriate speed & could be trusted with it, they'd have no arbitrary limits anywhere. The fact they do have limits is a demonstration that they themselves ultimately don't believe people can. To me that suggests that them having no limits out of town is for other reasons & for that read a political decision to protect tourism etc.
Mec Vannin said:
The statistics reveal that the major single cause of fatalities is exessive speed HAVING REGARD TO CONDITIONS (our capitals).
i.e. People don't choose speed well of their own volition in regard to circumstance.
That is why 'in my opinion' the parameters within which they operate need to be limited. If people always drove at an appropriate speed I'd not be holding that opinion, it's because they don't that I do.
The setting of a limit doesn't guarantee safety on it's own, but it does place a control measure on one factor that can be a contributory factor in both the risk of incidence & severity of outcome.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 11th February 10:59
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff