RE: Government nixes speed limit hike
Discussion
vandereydt said:
(By the way : same thing with the anti-tabaco laws; sigarette-taxes generate so much money that they don't want people to stop smoking, the anti-tabaco laws is just a "smoke-screen" to keep the leftist and the green voters happy.)
I'm not surprised.... All my cigarettes for the last three years came from Belguim. I bet your chancellor loves it. Us Brits pop over there for the day, pay our tax into your economy and then get treated back home.
Hey ho, I didn't make the law, I just exploit it
huge said:
At least Mr Ladyman (I assume he's from Bangkok?)has agreed to some interaction,too often this Government just do what they want and to hell with public opinion.I doubt you'll get anywhere Ted,as the response to the 80mph debate proves,but maybe,just maybe this is the start of some meaningful dialogue for a change.I live in disillusioned hope.
According to TG on sunday, the Ladyman has points on his license and so surely it would be hypocritical of him to have a go about speeding?
puggit said:
What we need is variable speed limits that also go up when conditions allow. Most of Europe goes up to 80mph in good conditions now, and no it doesn't require a sodding computer to tell us that, its just a sign. Most people are capable of detecting if its raining or not...
Indeed - the French have a 130km/h speed limit in the dry, and 110km/h speed in the wet.
How do you tell the difference between dry and wet? The law states that if you need to use your windscreen wipers then it's wet.
Holy cow - some common sense! Won't catch over here though - freedom of though is on it's way out!
Top idea, and if you are using Rain-X then no need for the wipers.....(Unless it's that spitting rain that soakes you through :-)
Ian
This is a typical response of a government that places all its effort on maximising revenue regardless of the mood and requirements of the British motorist. We all know that most drivers are capable of driving safely at higher speeds and have vehicles which are perfectly safe at 80mph. No big brother nanny state argues that there are a few drivers out there who cannot operate at this speed therefore they ban it for everybody. If motorway driving was taught to learner drivers as part of their driving tuition we could all enjoy high speed motoring with no difference in accident rates. I advise these government clowns to go and spend a week on a German Autobahn. Speed is not the hazard. Incompetent driving is the big danger at all speeds.
THE MAIN PROBLEMS AS FAR AS I SEE IT ARE:-
- TOO MUCH TRAFFIC
- SPEED DIFFERENTIALS IN DENSE TRAFFIC
- A LACK OF COUTESY TOWARDS OTHER ROAD USERS, ILLUSTRATED BY AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR (THIS IS BECOMING A BIGGER PROBLEM IN SOCIETY GRENERALLY, I BELIEVE, FUELLED PARTLY BY TOO MANY PROPLE!)
- THE ABOVE COMBINED WITH MORE INCOMPETENT DRIVERS, MANY OF WHOM ARE FROM OVERSEAS, WHO INADVERTENTLY DRIVE DOWN STANDARDS (EVEN OUR AMERICAN FRIENDS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS)
ITS JUST A BL***Y UNMANAGEABLE MESS. THERES NO WAY THE SPEED LIMIT WILL BE RAISED, BUT IT IS GOOD TO HEAR INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS EXERCISING COMMON SENSE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY SCAMRERS DO NOT HAVE A DICSRETION OPTION, AND AS HAS BEEN SAID, WHAT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTINUE ROBBING US, AND BLOWING OUR HARD EARNT MONEY ON THEIR POLITICAL ADJENDA.
WHAT ABOUT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF DRIVER QUALIFICATIONS( MAYBE THREE LEVELS, REPLACING THE CURRENT ADANCED DRIVER STANDARD), WITH PEOPLE CAPBLE OF ATTAINING HIGHER STANDARDS BEING ABLE TO DRIVE AT HIGHER SPEEDS WHERE APPROPRIATE. THIS COULD BE MANAGED MORE EFFICIENTLY BY MACHINE THAN MAN. IF YOU DROVE INAPPROPRIATELY, YOUR DRIVER LEVEL WOULD BE REDUCED ACCORDINGLY. THE GOVERNMENT COULD MAKE MONEY WITH SUITABLE FEES FOR THE MORE ADVANCED STANDARDS, AND POSSIBLY PENALISE THESE PEOPLE MORE, IF THEY DIGRESS??
- TOO MUCH TRAFFIC
- SPEED DIFFERENTIALS IN DENSE TRAFFIC
- A LACK OF COUTESY TOWARDS OTHER ROAD USERS, ILLUSTRATED BY AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR (THIS IS BECOMING A BIGGER PROBLEM IN SOCIETY GRENERALLY, I BELIEVE, FUELLED PARTLY BY TOO MANY PROPLE!)
- THE ABOVE COMBINED WITH MORE INCOMPETENT DRIVERS, MANY OF WHOM ARE FROM OVERSEAS, WHO INADVERTENTLY DRIVE DOWN STANDARDS (EVEN OUR AMERICAN FRIENDS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS)
ITS JUST A BL***Y UNMANAGEABLE MESS. THERES NO WAY THE SPEED LIMIT WILL BE RAISED, BUT IT IS GOOD TO HEAR INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS EXERCISING COMMON SENSE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY SCAMRERS DO NOT HAVE A DICSRETION OPTION, AND AS HAS BEEN SAID, WHAT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTINUE ROBBING US, AND BLOWING OUR HARD EARNT MONEY ON THEIR POLITICAL ADJENDA.
WHAT ABOUT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF DRIVER QUALIFICATIONS( MAYBE THREE LEVELS, REPLACING THE CURRENT ADANCED DRIVER STANDARD), WITH PEOPLE CAPBLE OF ATTAINING HIGHER STANDARDS BEING ABLE TO DRIVE AT HIGHER SPEEDS WHERE APPROPRIATE. THIS COULD BE MANAGED MORE EFFICIENTLY BY MACHINE THAN MAN. IF YOU DROVE INAPPROPRIATELY, YOUR DRIVER LEVEL WOULD BE REDUCED ACCORDINGLY. THE GOVERNMENT COULD MAKE MONEY WITH SUITABLE FEES FOR THE MORE ADVANCED STANDARDS, AND POSSIBLY PENALISE THESE PEOPLE MORE, IF THEY DIGRESS??
...The speed limits are the problem, but it's a catch 22.
Higher speed limits would be better, but would mean less fines and that's the only reason.
If it was a safety issue, then there would be variable speed limits [possibly based on]
Driver experience
Type of vehicle
etc etc.
All of which can be held on driver license / vehicle registration / Tax information... But it will never happen.
Part of the problem is that our speed limits are as out-dated as the vehicles they applied to when they were introduced.
I wont go into what is obvious, but there is a great difference in travelling at 70mph in a new car, compared to an old sh***er that's just scraped an MOT, courtesy of a Mig welder and a tub of filler - but both vehicles are designated as "safe" to travel at equal speed - it's pathetic.
Gallen (BPH)
Higher speed limits would be better, but would mean less fines and that's the only reason.
If it was a safety issue, then there would be variable speed limits [possibly based on]
Driver experience
Type of vehicle
etc etc.
All of which can be held on driver license / vehicle registration / Tax information... But it will never happen.
Part of the problem is that our speed limits are as out-dated as the vehicles they applied to when they were introduced.
I wont go into what is obvious, but there is a great difference in travelling at 70mph in a new car, compared to an old sh***er that's just scraped an MOT, courtesy of a Mig welder and a tub of filler - but both vehicles are designated as "safe" to travel at equal speed - it's pathetic.
Gallen (BPH)
Mondayo was worried about Mr Ladyman appearing "hypocritical".....it is New Labour were talking about here !!!
ps Manek,there doesnt appear to be an alternative to argument,however futile, but good luck anyway from everyone who cares about future road use
>> Edited by huge on Wednesday 25th May 17:23
ps Manek,there doesnt appear to be an alternative to argument,however futile, but good luck anyway from everyone who cares about future road use
>> Edited by huge on Wednesday 25th May 17:23
medicineman said:
I believe Italy has faired ok with its 90mph limits.
I'm sure I read some research that said without limits most drives will settle at a speed between 80 and 85 mph.
Can you refer us to that research? It sounds interesting.
It is my guess that even if we had no overall speed limit on motorways, or better still no NSL at all, I honestly doubt if many people would drive much faster than they already do. The only difference it would make to me is that I would be relieved of the possibility of getting done for speeding. There would be no change in the level of safety.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
V8 Archie said:
WTF does 'NIXES' mean?!
dictionary.com said:
nix
1) n. Mythology A water sprite of German mythology, usually in human form or half-human and half-fish.
2) n. Nothing.
3) adv. Not so; no.
4) tr.v. nixed, nix·ing, nix·es To forbid, refuse, or veto: Congress nixed the tax hike.
5) n.a quantity of no importance; "it looked like nothing I had ever seen before"; "reduced to nil all the work we had done"; "we racked up a pathetic goose egg"; "it was all for naught"; "I didn't hear zilch about it" [syn: nothing, nil, nada, null, aught, cipher, cypher, goose egg, naught, zero, zilch, zip]
I think Manek is implying that the government are slippery sub-humans who aren't about to kill their pathetic golden goose.
Pistonheads its an education
A
Angry Harvey said:
The fact is that you can (safely) fit more vehicles into a given length of road if the speed-limit is lower. The reason for the variable limits on the M25.
Interesting, I've always thought the opposite. For example, lets assume that there is a hypothetical motorway or 100 miles with only one junction at either end. On average 1 motorist joins the motorway every minute.
If I travel the 100 miles in 1 minute (hypothetically remember), I will have the entire motorway to myself. The next motorist to join will also have the entire motorway to themselves and so on. For any given minute, there is only 1 car on the motorway.
If I travel the 100 miles in 60 minutes, I will be sharing the motorway with up to 59 other cars.
If I travel the 100 miles in 600 minutes, I will be sharing the motorway with up to 599 other cars.
I'm not sure I've explained this very well and I know that different speeds and multiple entry/exit points are big factors but surely there's some logic in there somewhere? Assuming a constant rate of people joining the motorway, the faster they leave the motorway, the emptier it gets.
Obviously, the emptier a motorway gets, the less chance you have of crashing into another car! Hence it's dangerous to travel at less than 150mph?
Or something.
Ian A.
IPAddis said:
Angry Harvey said:
The fact is that you can (safely) fit more vehicles into a given length of road if the speed-limit is lower. The reason for the variable limits on the M25.
Interesting, I've always thought the opposite. For example, lets assume that there is a hypothetical motorway or 100 miles with only one junction at either end. On average 1 motorist joins the motorway every minute.
If I travel the 100 miles in 1 minute (hypothetically remember), I will have the entire motorway to myself. The next motorist to join will also have the entire motorway to themselves and so on. For any given minute, there is only 1 car on the motorway.
If I travel the 100 miles in 60 minutes, I will be sharing the motorway with up to 59 other cars.
If I travel the 100 miles in 600 minutes, I will be sharing the motorway with up to 599 other cars.
I'm not sure I've explained this very well and I know that different speeds and multiple entry/exit points are big factors but surely there's some logic in there somewhere? Assuming a constant rate of people joining the motorway, the faster they leave the motorway, the emptier it gets.
Obviously, the emptier a motorway gets, the less chance you have of crashing into another car! Hence it's dangerous to travel at less than 150mph?
Or something.
Ian A.
Adding to this, theoretically it should make no difference, if everybody followed the two second rule the number of cars on a measured section of the motorway in a given time would increase at lower speeds because they would be closer together, however this is cancelled out by the fact that each car is on the motorway for less time the faster you go so the throughput should remain constant. Simple really, 3 cars every two seconds (assuming 3 lanes) whatever the speed.
>> Edited by kevinday on Thursday 26th May 18:52
government said:
The Department has no desire to see the comparatively good motorway road safety record compromised by increasing the speed limit
I think you got the Sir Humphrey Appleby answer.
I.e. We haven't thought about it - here is the standard answer to the question.
Nice to see the Tory party putting the boot in on the issue in Parliament though.
eein said:
I'm amazed people think that to make people drive to a higher standard the limits need to be increased! Do you hoestly belive that the people sitting in the middle lane, or people not signalling are doing so because they think the speed limit is too slow or coz they feel there are too many rules?
No, they're doing it because they're not thinking. And an artificially low speed limit encourages them in their mindless approach to driving.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff