Darling does not deny motorway speed crackdown
Discussion
On the Today programme at about 7:40 this morning, Alistair Darling was asked whether it was true that police will crack down on motorway speeding in order to reduce CO2 emissions. He did not deny it but went on about how the law is the law and the police should enforce it for safety reasons. He also (deliberately) initially misunderstood the question so as to be able to state that the 70 limit is not going to be reduced.
So, we can now expect cameras on every motorway bridge, police cars blocking every hard shoulder, to ensure we all stick to 70mph. For road safety of course. Nothing to do with failing to meet self-imposed and worthless CO2 emissions targets (and of course will have almost no impact on this anyway). They must think we're all stupid.
So, we can now expect cameras on every motorway bridge, police cars blocking every hard shoulder, to ensure we all stick to 70mph. For road safety of course. Nothing to do with failing to meet self-imposed and worthless CO2 emissions targets (and of course will have almost no impact on this anyway). They must think we're all stupid.
Peter Ward said:
They must think we're all stupid.
Dunno, but they do know we are very docile.
As a matter of practical policing, whatever the politicos say,
many coppers on this forum have indicated that you are unlikely
to get a speeding ticket for anything under 90 mph.
As for Co2 emmissions, IMHO that's just a load of old nonsense.
Don't drink the water, they put something in it.... it makes you forget!
But honestly, most people think c02 is so bad. My brother's university lecturer (you'd expect him to be intelligent) believes the whole global warming arguement and C02 is bad, even though our geography teacher at school with thousands of hours reading up on it, and been in the job for years, and very intelligent, says totally different.
So, one uni lecturer does no personal research or reading into the figures and facts, and just reads bullet pointed, biased, opinionated junk from politicians and greenpeace etc, and thinks he knows what he's talking about.
Anotherof his lecturers (a bright one) even said that government don't want wishy washy answers or "were not sure", they want yes or no, action or inaction, so they appear strong, and to be doing something.
It's all policy for the sake of policy.
Much like "state of fear", our government are giving us a problem to be at war with, to take our minds of other matters like taxes and how crap the government are. They give us terrorism and global warming to distract us and keep us occupied... they justify their own existence by making us thing we need them for protection!
Dave
But honestly, most people think c02 is so bad. My brother's university lecturer (you'd expect him to be intelligent) believes the whole global warming arguement and C02 is bad, even though our geography teacher at school with thousands of hours reading up on it, and been in the job for years, and very intelligent, says totally different.
So, one uni lecturer does no personal research or reading into the figures and facts, and just reads bullet pointed, biased, opinionated junk from politicians and greenpeace etc, and thinks he knows what he's talking about.
Anotherof his lecturers (a bright one) even said that government don't want wishy washy answers or "were not sure", they want yes or no, action or inaction, so they appear strong, and to be doing something.
It's all policy for the sake of policy.
Much like "state of fear", our government are giving us a problem to be at war with, to take our minds of other matters like taxes and how crap the government are. They give us terrorism and global warming to distract us and keep us occupied... they justify their own existence by making us thing we need them for protection!
Dave
dcb said:
They must think we're all stupid.
Dunno, but they do know we are very docile.
Thats exactly what they count on.
In South Africa the train drivers went on strike.
The people waiting for the trains burned 3 stations to the ground.
Now thats consumer empowerment.
Plotloss said:
They must think we're all stupid.
Dunno, but they do know we are very docile.
Thats exactly what they count on.
In South Africa the train drivers went on strike.
The people waiting for the trains burned 3 stations to the ground.
Now thats consumer empowerment.
How about employing a few Somalians to RPG some of the Scamera Vans ?
- (only kidding of course )Mr Whippy said:
Don't drink the water, they put something in it.... it makes you forget!
But honestly, most people think c02 is so bad. My brother's university lecturer (you'd expect him to be intelligent) believes the whole global warming arguement and C02 is bad, even though our geography teacher at school with thousands of hours reading up on it, and been in the job for years, and very intelligent, says totally different.
So, one uni lecturer does no personal research or reading into the figures and facts, and just reads bullet pointed, biased, opinionated junk from politicians and greenpeace etc, and thinks he knows what he's talking about.
Anotherof his lecturers (a bright one) even said that government don't want wishy washy answers or "were not sure", they want yes or no, action or inaction, so they appear strong, and to be doing something.
It's all policy for the sake of policy.
Much like "state of fear", our government are giving us a problem to be at war with, to take our minds of other matters like taxes and how crap the government are. They give us terrorism and global warming to distract us and keep us occupied... they justify their own existence by making us thing we need them for protection!
Dave
Well I've read your comment twice and it still doesn't come across clear..?
So do you believe in the concept of global warming or not? And if you do, is it in your view down to human activity or a natural climatic development that would happen anyway?
jazzyjeff said:I know the question wasnt directed at me, but it was pretty bloody cold around here ten thousand years ago, north of the midlands was ice hundreds of metres thick. In medieval times it was bloody warm, a few degrees warmer than it is at present, we havent got as warm as it was then yet. Is the climate changing? of course it is. Are we changing it? I doubt it, our contribution is infinitessimally small, and even if we were, what's with the King Canute routine? It's not like we can go back to the trees in the short term.
So do you believe in the concept of global warming or not? And if you do, is it in your view down to human activity or a natural climatic development that would happen anyway?
jazzyjeff said:
Don't drink the water, they put something in it.... it makes you forget!
But honestly, most people think c02 is so bad. My brother's university lecturer (you'd expect him to be intelligent) believes the whole global warming arguement and C02 is bad, even though our geography teacher at school with thousands of hours reading up on it, and been in the job for years, and very intelligent, says totally different.
So, one uni lecturer does no personal research or reading into the figures and facts, and just reads bullet pointed, biased, opinionated junk from politicians and greenpeace etc, and thinks he knows what he's talking about.
Anotherof his lecturers (a bright one) even said that government don't want wishy washy answers or "were not sure", they want yes or no, action or inaction, so they appear strong, and to be doing something.
It's all policy for the sake of policy.
Much like "state of fear", our government are giving us a problem to be at war with, to take our minds of other matters like taxes and how crap the government are. They give us terrorism and global warming to distract us and keep us occupied... they justify their own existence by making us thing we need them for protection!
Dave
Well I've read your comment twice and it still doesn't come across clear..?
So do you believe in the concept of global warming or not? And if you do, is it in your view down to human activity or a natural climatic development that would happen anyway?
Sorry if it didn't make sense Jeff, was more a commentary of whats going on than my opinion.
This exercise of slowing down cars a little bit on motorways to reduce C02 output is akin to farting into a hurricane hoping that it'll make a difference.
No, the hurricane's happen for a known scientific reason, much like the global cycles of hot and cold over the years, we can't effect them, we might be able to slow it down or speed it up very slightly, but it makes no difference.
In fact, our actions may ultimately make things worse, we know so little about how the planet will react.
It's good imho for governments to think about the way we effect our environment, but to bring out legislation like this is just so ridiculous it makes me weep that our country is run by such people.
As someone mentioned, coal mine fires in Asia seem to produce enough C02 to make the point of speed on motorways totally invalid as per global C02 output goes.
What hope is there for the human civilisation when our actions are reduced to the lowest levels of idiocy by politicians!
So good one UK populace, for voting in complete and utter tw4ts! Your blinkered uneducated fooked up sad little lives of misery are safe with BLiar!
Thats my opinion
Dave
What a bunch of hypocritical to$$ers this govt are......
Its their usual horseplay for the moral high ground. We see this time and time again. Insufficient safety evidence for cameras? No problem; we'll call it 'CO2 emissions reduction'
Crack down on m'way speeds to save the planet, my fat behind.
Who just agreed to doubling the capacity of Heathrow?
From a personal perspective, a strict 70 limit is a mare; in reality we'll all mope along at a glacier-like 60 in the fast lane.
It adds 1.5 hours to my trip if I want to see my folks in Cardiff. 3 extra hours driving over a weekend alters the whole proposition; I won't see them so often.
Thanks Darling.
Its their usual horseplay for the moral high ground. We see this time and time again. Insufficient safety evidence for cameras? No problem; we'll call it 'CO2 emissions reduction'
Crack down on m'way speeds to save the planet, my fat behind.
Who just agreed to doubling the capacity of Heathrow?
From a personal perspective, a strict 70 limit is a mare; in reality we'll all mope along at a glacier-like 60 in the fast lane.
It adds 1.5 hours to my trip if I want to see my folks in Cardiff. 3 extra hours driving over a weekend alters the whole proposition; I won't see them so often.
Thanks Darling.
Amazing isn't it - the railway networks are slower than they have been for years because of a lack of gov't investment, now the roads are being slowed down artificially because of a lack of public spine!!!
Just how much more crap do they want to heap on the motorist? And WHY are they doing it? The reasons they come out with are so obviously bullsh** they've got to have another agenda...but what?!?
Just how much more crap do they want to heap on the motorist? And WHY are they doing it? The reasons they come out with are so obviously bullsh** they've got to have another agenda...but what?!?
Plotloss said:
They must think we're all stupid.
Dunno, but they do know we are very docile.
Thats exactly what they count on.
In South Africa the train drivers went on strike.
The people waiting for the trains burned 3 stations to the ground.
Now thats consumer empowerment.
In South Afica that could have just been pure coincidence.
Hang ona minute, Darling was asked the question amd answered no. He didn't bring it up, I'd like to know why her was asked the question and what the politics of that person are.
Lets face it the government benefits from increased fuel consumption, hence the fact that new roads and traffic systems have to calculate in loss of income where it reduces congestion.
Lets face it the government benefits from increased fuel consumption, hence the fact that new roads and traffic systems have to calculate in loss of income where it reduces congestion.
Just a suggestion 
But how was the global warming on Mars caused? Those little martians must be using fossil fuels too?
I understand that CO2 emissions from vehicles account for less than half of one percent of the total global emissions.
As has been said, it's basically a governmental conspiracy to justify taxes.
Has anyone seen the new adverts on Sky, something about doing your 20% to save the planet from climate change! Unbelievable!
>> Edited by deeps on Monday 14th November 22:43
I understand that CO2 emissions from vehicles account for less than half of one percent of the total global emissions.
As has been said, it's basically a governmental conspiracy to justify taxes.
Has anyone seen the new adverts on Sky, something about doing your 20% to save the planet from climate change! Unbelievable!
>> Edited by deeps on Monday 14th November 22:43
Whether you support it or not the law is the law on fox hunting but I do not see them cracking down on that, a bit more difficult perhaps, take a bit too much effort. Not blaming the BIB, the government only seem to have the courage of their convictions when things are relatively easy to pursue.
Motorway Speed Crackdown 'to Cut Emissions'
The Government is considering rigidly enforcing motorway speed limits.
The Government is reportedly set to crack down on speeding motorway drivers in a bid to curb the country's greenhouse gases.
According to a report in The Guardian, officials have acknowledged that any move to force the millions of motorists who currently break the 70mph speed limit to slow down would be "politically sensitive".
But they say it would cut significant amounts of carbon dioxide pollution, as engine efficiency falls quickly beyond 70mph.
The proposal is one of dozens of new measures outlined in a confidential government review of its policies to tackle climate change.
The review was ordered in September 2004 because ministers were struggling to meet their pledge to cut UK emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent by 2010, a commitment restated in this year's Labour election manifesto.
It was drawn up Environment Minister Elliot Morley, who is in charge of climate change at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The idea is being discussed by the cabinet committee on energy and the environment, which is expected to publish a revised version early next year.
According to the newspaper, the review document says: "The Government needs to strengthen its domestic credibility on climate change.
"The revised programme must therefore set out a comprehensive and ambitious package of policies to deliver the manifesto commitment and achieve our domestic goals. We must not underestimate the scale of the challenge.
"We need to do about 75 per cent more in around half the time."
The review lists possible measures to eliminate an extra 11 to 14 million tonnes of carbon pollution each year, which is described as the Government's "carbon gap", including stricter enforcement of the 70mph speed limit.
The Government is considering rigidly enforcing motorway speed limits.
The Government is reportedly set to crack down on speeding motorway drivers in a bid to curb the country's greenhouse gases.
According to a report in The Guardian, officials have acknowledged that any move to force the millions of motorists who currently break the 70mph speed limit to slow down would be "politically sensitive".
But they say it would cut significant amounts of carbon dioxide pollution, as engine efficiency falls quickly beyond 70mph.
The proposal is one of dozens of new measures outlined in a confidential government review of its policies to tackle climate change.
The review was ordered in September 2004 because ministers were struggling to meet their pledge to cut UK emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent by 2010, a commitment restated in this year's Labour election manifesto.
It was drawn up Environment Minister Elliot Morley, who is in charge of climate change at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The idea is being discussed by the cabinet committee on energy and the environment, which is expected to publish a revised version early next year.
According to the newspaper, the review document says: "The Government needs to strengthen its domestic credibility on climate change.
"The revised programme must therefore set out a comprehensive and ambitious package of policies to deliver the manifesto commitment and achieve our domestic goals. We must not underestimate the scale of the challenge.
"We need to do about 75 per cent more in around half the time."
The review lists possible measures to eliminate an extra 11 to 14 million tonnes of carbon pollution each year, which is described as the Government's "carbon gap", including stricter enforcement of the 70mph speed limit.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff