Amadeus Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 It says in the Examiner that there will be another public consultation about the national speed limit - big question: Why ?? I thought there was one already, and the results were clear - is this an excercise in "repeat until you reach desired result"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Sometimes politicians are required to make difficult decisions. By publicly stating that he doesn't favour a National Speed Limit, but would be prepared to introduce one if evidence showed that it would save lives, Mr Braidwood way of thinking is admirable as he is putting the public before himself. However, in the time that it takes to come to a decision there could be lives lost. or serious injuries that may have been avoided. Such a decision is a big one and it should be made on factual evidence, evidence which is (or should be) readily available to hand. Delaying the decision to gather more "emotional" opinions is not an admirable way of acting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ade Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 My personal opinion is that it's a complete waste of money. However as I recall, Shimmins last thing he did was to promise that there would be another consultation after a period of time, to see if lots of yellow signs around the Island did any good to reduce accidents / fatalities. Braidwood stepped in and held by that promise, so there is to be another consultation, whether we like it or not, because according to his 'figures' the accident rate has actually gone up since the signs were originally erected. So signs go up, accidents go up. Logical conclusion? Put more signs up....hmm However I think he states in the Examiner that even if everyone says 'no' to the speed limit, it doesn't neccesarily mean that the subject won't come up again. So to sum up, I agree with you Amadeus, it appears to be a case of keep chipping away until they get what they want. At least every home in the Island will get to respond this time. I will be genuinely interested to see which way opinion has swung - if everyone can be bothered to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CableGuy Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 I think it is always going to be an awkward political hot potato this one. Granted most people have been used to derestricted roads and being able to take their car/bike for a fast spin around the mountain, but given the recent costings put forward on how much non-fatal and fatal accidents cost the government are looking it at a financial viewpoint also. John Shimmin did say it would be reviewed if speeds and or accidents didn't decrease which they haven't. Whilst there is a lot of evidence to show that most accidents happen at lower speeds, the higher the speed the more likely it is that the accident will be fatal - and the costings are estimated to be around £60,000 for non-fatal and about £2,000,000 for a fatal accidents. Everyone has their own viewpoints and really I am not bothered either way if the limit comes in or not, some people want a limit and others don't. At least Phil Braidwood is willing to garner public opinion from everyone rather than just making a decision on his own. When I lived in the UK the government made decisions whether the public liked it or not so at least they are asking. And given that it is less than a year to the elections at least he is making decisions unlike others who prefer to shirk any big political topics and vote based on what is likely to make them more popular when the election day arrives. Just my 2 pence worth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 - and the costings are estimated to be around £60,000 for non-fatal and about £2,000,000 for a fatal accidents. Good job I can only afford a non-fatal accident. I think it is a case of trying again until they get what they want. They need to hold a referendum (as they should do on other things such as smoking restrictions etc.) because most of these so called 'consultations' are so statistically unsound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CableGuy Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Technically if they are sending a questionnaire to every home then it is a referendum - so we will have to wait and see. At least its a democratic way of doing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Technically if they are sending a questionnaire to every home then it is a referendum - so we will have to wait and see. At least its a democratic way of doing things. A referendum is controlled, auditable and accountable. A heck of a difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardvark Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Delaying the decision until the election is over is not an admirable way of acting. I fixed your post for you. Although the point you made was good I think there may be another agenda here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneWolf Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Maybe it will be an expensive exercise but this time every household will be sampled. Presumably the Government has little or no faith in its statisticians. Otherwise a normal sample would have done the trick. I do wonder how much faith Govt places in the other surveys it undertakes from time to time. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc2wolf Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 A referendum is controlled, auditable and accountable. A heck of a difference! Hmm, three things that many MHK's wouldn't know anything about when applied to them. My view is still that a speed limit is a waste of time. Speed isn't the killer, cr@p driving is. Untill the Powers-That-Be stop trying to ram the totaly pointless sticking plaster of a speed limit down our throat's and start getting some of the obviously dangerous drivers off the road (using existing laws), then you will see no difference in the fatalities/injuries. Just an increase in the donations (via "speeding" fines from safe drivers) to the "Old MHK's Retirement Chest". Got to agree with Amadeus here, this is an exercise in democracy, third world style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 I voted yes. Maybe the Government will forget to fix this one and we will finally get the speed limit the majority want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc2wolf Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 I voted yes. Maybe the Government will forget to fix this one and we will finally get the speed limit the majority want. I beg to differ, the majority of people who are informed, safe drivers DON'T want a speed limit. The majority of people want safer roads and that is a different thing all together. The only "fix" will be if a speed limit is introduced against all logic and informed opinion, as I suspect some in government would like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 - and the costings are estimated to be around £60,000 for non-fatal and about £2,000,000 for a fatal accidents. Where do you get those costings from CableGuy and which costs are included (medical assistance, social support, family and bereaved compensation, carers' support, cost of investigation and ensuing litigation)? The lore always was that in terms of cost, it was cheaper for someone to be killed outright than to be left severely disabled. Not that I am advocating either, but we had a similar statistic some time ago which turned out to refer to the per mile cost of road versus rail construction measured against death versus injury on each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Delaying the decision until the election is over is not an admirable way of acting I did consider the possibility of the legislation being held up until after the next election. Despite Mr Braidwood's "admirable" stance, the cynical side of me can not imagine such a law being passed in September or October. *If* I am right in thinking that changes to the Road Traffic Act would require 3 readings in the house, that means that the amendments would have to be ready by June/July to beat the Summer recess. If it went to the house in September, 3rd reading would be November at the absolute earliest. I'm all for public input into the smooth running of a democracy. I seem to recall being in favour of the notion when a couple of years ago it was announced that Government was going to become more open and answerable to the public. However, I can not recall as many public consultations prior to the announcement as there have been since. There are times when Government have to bite the bullet and do what is right, irrespective of public opinion. I happen to think that we have weak policy makers which is evident from their lack of desire to make a firm decision on any subject. When it comes to life/injury saving matters, I don't recall a public consultation about whether lead should be removed from paint or British beef being banned from Europe, or even footballs being banned from school playgrounds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splink Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 I voted that it would be a waste of time and money. But that is only if people's minds have not changed and I think it the ratchet effect whereby the more that certain politicians keep pressing, the more people will change their thoughts. With all the young idiots on the road these days (and yes of course it is me getting older) and with faster cars available to all, for a few hundred quid and the crowded roads - then I find my mind changing towards a blanket sensible speed limit. The only "fix" will be if a speed limit is introduced against all logic and informed opinion, as I suspect some in government would like. Those in Government will now be testing their resolve. We know the ones who support a speed limit. Will we see them in Tynwald in 8 months time? Probably. the times they are a changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.