RE: 80mph limit will cost £1bn say campaigners
Discussion
What a bunch of feckless idiots. I just read their press release and it's the usual fact-less, scaremongery I've come to expect from Brake.
They state that stopping distances will be increased, but still state the old Highway Code stopping distances for 70mph that we all know are miles off these days... no idea how they "calculated" the 80mph figure, presumably just by adding a factor to the 1960's original. This just shows how little fact they apply to arguements and just use scaremongery instead.
Some very valid comments on this thread too, perhaps we should e-mail a link to the Grubberment to get some common sense comments across in balance
I did notice their FaceBook site link too, but wouldn't want to get PH into trouble
So, where's the "Yes to 80" campaign homepage, other than www.pistonheads.com?!
They state that stopping distances will be increased, but still state the old Highway Code stopping distances for 70mph that we all know are miles off these days... no idea how they "calculated" the 80mph figure, presumably just by adding a factor to the 1960's original. This just shows how little fact they apply to arguements and just use scaremongery instead.
Some very valid comments on this thread too, perhaps we should e-mail a link to the Grubberment to get some common sense comments across in balance
I did notice their FaceBook site link too, but wouldn't want to get PH into trouble
So, where's the "Yes to 80" campaign homepage, other than www.pistonheads.com?!
70->80 limit would reduce the number of people braking from 80(ish) to 70 on motorways when a traffic cop/camera is near. Less braking on motorways means less potential accidents.
The total cost and carbon footprint involved would be insignificant compared to that involved in killing m*****f*****s in foreign countries. If you want to protest a leading cause of death, waste, destruction and spending of taxes then lobby against the killing of m*****f*****s.
If people want to drive at 70 when the new limit comes in, they can do so.
The total cost and carbon footprint involved would be insignificant compared to that involved in killing m*****f*****s in foreign countries. If you want to protest a leading cause of death, waste, destruction and spending of taxes then lobby against the killing of m*****f*****s.
If people want to drive at 70 when the new limit comes in, they can do so.
I think we may be missing the point.
The proposal is to increase the limit only on roads where there is a variable speed limit in place.
How often do you reckon you will see the 80mph speed limit posted?
Isn't it more likely that the posted limit will be less than 70mph most of the time?
As a motorist, approving of this proposal in current form is like turkeys voting for Christmas.
As far as I can see this is a campaign to get onside those who would normally oppose the introduction of variable limits, by stealth.
Some here have requested an informed response be composed to refure BRAKES rubbish. I will again point out the Association of British Drivers (ABD) has been doing this regularly for many years, and there is also tons of specific info on http://www.safespeed.org.uk/ the late Paul Smiths website, who comprehensivley destroyed the anti-speed bridgade, pro speed cameras, with rigorous mathmatical analysis of published data. TRL report estimated that speed is only a major contributory factor in accidenst between 4% - 7%. Considering this report came out years before speed cameras, one wonders why they were ever introduced. Go Figure.
Egbert Nobacon said:
The bigger question is why is Brake allowed to classify itself as a charity and reap the tax benefits associated with that status - when in reality it's just a political pressure group trying to assert the warped views of a few onto the majority ?
Nail! Head! Whack!Egbert Nobacon said:
The bigger question is why is Brake allowed to classify itself as a charity and reap the tax benefits associated with that status - when in reality it's just a political pressure group trying to assert the warped views of a few onto the majority ?
this! I had no idea they enjoyed charitable status!How about we start a minority interest group to have their charity status revoked? Or have PH given charity status
bass2rez said:
VR6 Turbo said:
juansolo said:
VR6 Turbo said:
can we launch a DNS attack on their website?
I think you mean a denial of service attack rather than a DNS attack. Unless you mean to aggressively resolve their IP address...DannyScene said:
We can't but we can launch a DOS attack 
ETA: b
ks should've read the whole thread first, someone already said this 
Look I am no internet hacker type. but yeah what he said 'DOS attack' ETA: b
ks should've read the whole thread first, someone already said this VR
As Garlick has said, please keep some perspective on all this, we don't want to cause problems for ourselves.
buzz_killington by dannyscene, on Flickr
Only Jokin
jetpilot said:
In the skim reading of their site i detect slight over reaction to the proposed 80mph, one of the words they used for reason against was "inhumane"! LOL
That's the trouble. Through their spin and propoganda they have inferred a direct corrulation between the speed limit and the number of casualties and deaths on the road.
Once they've shouted loud enough, and shown some random pictures of bent automobiles, and children with sad faces and dirty teddy bears, it'll become FACTS in the eyes of the general population.
"the costs to health and emergency services could hit £62.4m, carbon costs would total £180.4m, and £766.6m in fuel costs." These costs are said to be to "society".
I don't understand these numbers. If you poke around here http://noto80.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/noto80-1... it seems that the carbon cost is based on an environmental cost of £82/tonne of CO2. Still don't understand what the environmental cost it. That seems to swap one meaningless label for another.
The emergency services cost is a cost to central or local govt, which has to come out of taxation, ie costs to the consumer.
The fuel costs are also costs to the consumer. Of the £766m quoted, £492m goes straight back to the Exchequer in tax. So more than enough to pay the £62m of emergency services costs and £180m of CO2 costs.
So a more accurate headline would have been that it will cost *drivers* £274m (766-492), *assuming* those drivers aren't already driving between 70 and 80 now, and go on to do so in the future.
They might as well just make stuff up next time.
I don't understand these numbers. If you poke around here http://noto80.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/noto80-1... it seems that the carbon cost is based on an environmental cost of £82/tonne of CO2. Still don't understand what the environmental cost it. That seems to swap one meaningless label for another.
The emergency services cost is a cost to central or local govt, which has to come out of taxation, ie costs to the consumer.
The fuel costs are also costs to the consumer. Of the £766m quoted, £492m goes straight back to the Exchequer in tax. So more than enough to pay the £62m of emergency services costs and £180m of CO2 costs.
So a more accurate headline would have been that it will cost *drivers* £274m (766-492), *assuming* those drivers aren't already driving between 70 and 80 now, and go on to do so in the future.
They might as well just make stuff up next time.
IanO said:
We drive 95 billion miles on trunk roads and motorways each year. If we did that at 80mph rather than 70mph we would save 170 million hours, which at minimum wage of £6.08 is just over £1bn value in the economy.
I reckon 170 million hours is ~250 lives a year we're losing because of the 70mph limit.Speed rarely kills, it is dicks in their Diesel stboxes (oh, okay any car- I just have a pathological hatred of the aforementioned) not leaving proper reaction/braking distance and banking on its cosseted stopping power that does Generally people not paying attention to the act of driving and the conditions are the general issue in most problems I see on the roads. If you take Lemmings crashing into each other out of the equation then it should be a nice little revenue generator for the government
tboxes (oh, okay any car- I just have a pathological hatred of the aforementioned) not leaving proper reaction/braking distance and banking on its cosseted stopping power that does Generally people not paying attention to the act of driving and the conditions are the general issue in most problems I see on the roads. If you take Lemmings crashing into each other out of the equation then it should be a nice little revenue generator for the governmentEdited by billzeebub on Monday 21st May 13:06
The 70 limit is fine, but a proper de-limit at 'quiet' times should be brought in.. If we increase to 80, people will feel its ok to drive at 90 (in the same way that everyone does 80 now )and there will be a larger differential between slower/old drivers/new drivers/joining traffic
Make people think for themselves rather than increasing this meaningless limit.. Even 70 in itself is a dangerous speed, but there are times when 100mph+ is safe, the problem is that if you set a rule people will blindly stick to it and if there isn't a rule they will think its OK to do what they want.. If you were to remove all speed limits on all roads people would think for themselves and judge by road layout and condition.. And if someone does drive like a cock and is found to have abused that freedom then the penalties should be super harsh..
The other problem with increasing speed limits for numpties is that on average people are very poor at planning ahead and will often pull out from a slow lane to over take a slower car without correctly judging the closing speed of a car in the 'fast lane'.. Also, when you get a numpty driving at 80+ in an overtaking lane who then slams on his brakes and tries to squeeze in between traffic to make his exit junction!
Make people think for themselves rather than increasing this meaningless limit.. Even 70 in itself is a dangerous speed, but there are times when 100mph+ is safe, the problem is that if you set a rule people will blindly stick to it and if there isn't a rule they will think its OK to do what they want.. If you were to remove all speed limits on all roads people would think for themselves and judge by road layout and condition.. And if someone does drive like a cock and is found to have abused that freedom then the penalties should be super harsh..
The other problem with increasing speed limits for numpties is that on average people are very poor at planning ahead and will often pull out from a slow lane to over take a slower car without correctly judging the closing speed of a car in the 'fast lane'.. Also, when you get a numpty driving at 80+ in an overtaking lane who then slams on his brakes and tries to squeeze in between traffic to make his exit junction!
Edited by tejr on Monday 21st May 13:07
Everyone knows the defacto speed limit already is 80. So most of "the cost" is nonsense.
Brake like the Greens are actually quasi communists, and of course they oppose a rise in the speed limits, but only becuase they don't believe in private car ownership or personal freedom/responsibility - nanny (only nanny) knows best.
We should have variable speed limits based upon road condition and traffic density, say 80 empty-ish & dry, 60 tanking down and heaving, this I already do based upon the use of my right foot, but I'll concede that the growing infestation of stupidity amongst the population is a concern.
Brake like the Greens are actually quasi communists, and of course they oppose a rise in the speed limits, but only becuase they don't believe in private car ownership or personal freedom/responsibility - nanny (only nanny) knows best.
We should have variable speed limits based upon road condition and traffic density, say 80 empty-ish & dry, 60 tanking down and heaving, this I already do based upon the use of my right foot, but I'll concede that the growing infestation of stupidity amongst the population is a concern.
Any waste of money will occur due to pointless surveys and consultations about what might happen with people left right and centre trying to skew meaningless and irrelevant statistics and justify it. I don't think anything would result at all, they are only legalising a speed which many people drive at already so it won't change the nature of motorway driving one jot. This is a simple proposal. Pick a section of motorway and stick a sign up saying it is to be trialled at 80 and if anyone doesn't feel comfortable with that, they don't have to use it. Then monitor it and see what happens.
PS, I am a fan of variable speed limits. Around Birmingham they certainly help to keep traffic moving more efficiently than before and in my experience they are pretty good at returning to NSL when conditions allow. Much better than stop start for 30 mins to drive at 40mph for 5 mins.
PS, I am a fan of variable speed limits. Around Birmingham they certainly help to keep traffic moving more efficiently than before and in my experience they are pretty good at returning to NSL when conditions allow. Much better than stop start for 30 mins to drive at 40mph for 5 mins.
Got to be careful, given BRAKE's predisposition to interpret banter on here as a death threat to their leader Mary Williams.
Here goes, then, serious hat on...
BRAKE...idiotic entity, whose activists understand nothing about road safety, driven by the age old socialist personality defect of needing to control the lives of their fellow human beings.
Some of their policies are potentially dangerous and they should all be behind bars to protect society from their excesses.
Here goes, then, serious hat on...
BRAKE...idiotic entity, whose activists understand nothing about road safety, driven by the age old socialist personality defect of needing to control the lives of their fellow human beings.
Some of their policies are potentially dangerous and they should all be behind bars to protect society from their excesses.
This is a grossly over inflated estimate. This assumes (rather incorrectly) that the majority of people already stick to the 70mph limit. The outside lane will almost always move at 80mph+ anyway, and very often I find myself doing 80/85 in the outside lane (in keeping with the flow of traffic) and still getting flashed to move over (normally by BMW drivers, but that' a rant for another day).
Furthermore, just because they raise it to 80mph, does not mean that everyone will now travel at 80mph on the motorway. There's plenty of people that potter along on the inside lane at 55/60 already, and I'm sure they will continue to do so.
Furthermore, just because they raise it to 80mph, does not mean that everyone will now travel at 80mph on the motorway. There's plenty of people that potter along on the inside lane at 55/60 already, and I'm sure they will continue to do so.
I subscribed to Brake a few years ago when managing a Fleet of Vehicles.
I did not renew my subscription when I realised that they were very selective in what data they use (remember the only 7% of accidents are related to excess speed furore...............they didn't mention that one, at least HM Government was downright dishonest enough to change 7% to 70% and then move the whistleblower out of the DoT!!).
Some US states reverted back to 60 & 70 mph when their accident rates went up after the 55mph limit was introduced (still too fast for most yank tanks to cope with safely methinks!!).
I think rather than getting Brake etc to falsify any more data, why not ask the countries who have higher limits (eg most of Europe) what their accident etc rates are and compare with ours?
Finally, I like the German/Isle of Man way - high or no limits, but anyone driving like a tw*t (too fast/slow/poor lane discipline etc) gets the book thrown at them - I'm sure in IoM thay have a 'driving furiously' or suchlike offence!
This might happen though, this Gov't (cr*p as it may be) is not averse to ignoring 'do gooders' - they have finally said you don't get extra tax allowances if you are over 65 - mainly cos by then you won't have a mortgage/children at home AND the current 65ers probably have a half decent pension as well!
I did not renew my subscription when I realised that they were very selective in what data they use (remember the only 7% of accidents are related to excess speed furore...............they didn't mention that one, at least HM Government was downright dishonest enough to change 7% to 70% and then move the whistleblower out of the DoT!!).
Some US states reverted back to 60 & 70 mph when their accident rates went up after the 55mph limit was introduced (still too fast for most yank tanks to cope with safely methinks!!).
I think rather than getting Brake etc to falsify any more data, why not ask the countries who have higher limits (eg most of Europe) what their accident etc rates are and compare with ours?
Finally, I like the German/Isle of Man way - high or no limits, but anyone driving like a tw*t (too fast/slow/poor lane discipline etc) gets the book thrown at them - I'm sure in IoM thay have a 'driving furiously' or suchlike offence!
This might happen though, this Gov't (cr*p as it may be) is not averse to ignoring 'do gooders' - they have finally said you don't get extra tax allowances if you are over 65 - mainly cos by then you won't have a mortgage/children at home AND the current 65ers probably have a half decent pension as well!
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff