Another Consultation

[Amadeus]

According to the interview on mandate this morning, 85% of all drivers are considered to be law abiding and well behaved on the road - interesting...

[Albert Tatlock]

- Following too closely

- Unsafe overtaking

- Improper lane changes (including driving on the wrong side of the road)

- Alcohol/drugs etc.

- Lack of attention

- Reckless driving

- High speed chases (e.g. 2 cars racing)

- Erratic speeds

- Driving too fast for conditions (not above the limit)

- Driving faster than existing limits

- R plates etc.

- Vehicle in poor condition

 

...Have you emailed them to the DoT?

No I haven't - but please feel free.

 

(I forgot to mention junctions and animals - and there are probably others issues/causes too).

[Albert Tatlock]

...the costings are estimated to be around £60,000 for non-fatal and about £2,000,000 for a fatal accidents.

In the recent press release from the DOT it says: "I believe therefore it is important to make the public aware that the costs of the campaign and consultation process are significantly less than the cost of 1 average road traffic accident and will be met by the Road Safety Initiative Budget."

 

That could be a high average.

 

How many bad drivers might have been pulled over and how many lives might have been saved if the same amount was given to the police to operate just one extra traffic car? Or used to fund compulsory attendance at a police education programme for those caught breaking driving laws?

 

Given that we we have already had one consultation, surely this money could have been better spent.

[Amadeus]

So when do they send out the actual forms? It said 'beginning of April'.....

[Juan Kerr]

The root of the issue would seem to be this. When you see a "No Limits" sign (White circle, black slash) in the UK that means that the maximum speed limit restriction applies which is 70. I understand that when this took effect in the UK the legislation was never adopted here so "No limit" means no limit.

 

Rather than have a CONsultation why didn't somone have the bright idea of just adopting the UK legislation and stick a maximum 70 limit on through the back door to "harmonise" the Manx system with the UK. It sounds better than an all Island limit or "restrictions" and its only 10mph more than the 60mph limit everyone is debating.

 

This could have been slipped through quite easily, so why are we going through the process where we are pretending to be consulted, when the argument is about a limit 10mph less than the maximum limit in the UK.

 

Its crazy.

 

The issue is 10mph

 

Why not just go for parity with a system that has been in place in the UK for decades.

[Albert Tatlock]

The root of the issue would seem to be this. When you see a "No Limits" sign (White circle, black slash) in the UK that means that the maximum speed limit restriction applies which is 70. I understand that when this took effect in the UK the legislation was never adopted here so "No limit" means no limit.

The UK national speed limit is 70 only on motorways. The UK national speed limit everywhere else is 60. If they go for parity, then as we don't have motorways, this means that the maximum speed on the island would therefore be 60.

[slinkydevil]

The UK national speed limit is 70 only on motorways.

 

just to be pedantic - also on dual carriageways, sorry

[Amadeus]

Came across this video about teenage drivers on Google, and although it refers to young drivers in the US of A, it's still interesting:

 

Teenage Drivers Risks (Google Video)

 

The magazine mentioned at the end of the video can be found here

 

As young drivers seem to be the ones that are more involved in accidents over here than any other age group, maybe involving the parents more is one way to go - I certainly like some of the points mentioned there (although having your dad in the passenger seat for 50 hours must be a nightmare for some )