zippy Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Am I being naive to assume that speed cameras only catch people that are breaking the speedlimit? In my experience, speed cameras slow the whole traffic flow down to e.g. 40mph in a 50mph zone and 20/25mph in a 30mph zone. Plus the introduction of a speed limit creates a load of unnecessary 'new criminals' (you would be classed as a criminal doing 63 in a 60 zone) plus the associated loss of jobs and family hardship etc. Idiots cause accidents - not speed. So, In your Experience, speed cameras have a calming effect on Traffic......... is that a bad thing? I thought speeding offences led to fines and penalty points. I know many 'hardened criminals' that are holding down full time employment - go figure (some of them even have a few penalty points) If the net result of an all Island speed limit was to save one life at any point in the future, then in my mind there can be no arguement against it. Could anyone tell me honestly why people drive fast ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallybug Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Are the current 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60mph speed limits enforced? If not, would a new 60 (or 70 on the Mountain road) be enforced? I'd much rather the police concentrate on speed enforcement where it really makes a difference (in the 20 and 30mph zones, outside schools, places like that). Speed does not kill (it can't, it's just a rate of motion) - perhaps money would be better spent on traffic cars and officers, pulling people over for dangerous/careless driving (which they can do quite legitimately even on an unrestricted road currently), vehicle defects, things like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Could anyone tell me honestly why people drive fast ? Standard excuses given are that it's an expression of their freedom and to curtail it would be more influence of a nanny state or some bollocks. You can simplify that by saying it's because they can. You can further simplify it by saying it's because they drive fast to give themselves a chubby. Nothing more really, no matter how many words you dress it up in, the only reason is because they get a thrill from it. Presumably to make up for whatever shortcomings they have, when they're tootling along the mountain road at a high speed they feel 'manly'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallybug Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 If the net result of an all Island speed limit was to save one life at any point in the future, then in my mind there can be no arguement against it. Could anyone tell me honestly why people drive fast ? Can anyone tell me honestly at what speed accident victims were driving on an unrestricted stretch of road when they had their accidents? The DoT obviously can't - or don't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Could anyone tell me honestly why people drive fast ? Standard excuses given are that it's an expression of their freedom and to curtail it would be more influence of a nanny state or some bollocks. You can simplify that by saying it's because they can. You can further simplify it by saying it's because they drive fast to give themselves a chubby. Nothing more really, no matter how many words you dress it up in, the only reason is because they get a thrill from it. Presumably to make up for whatever shortcomings they have, when they're tootling along the mountain road at a high speed they feel 'manly'. Sounds about right to me. If you want thrills, go to Jurby. Public roads are for getting to places, not for playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 If the net result of an all Island speed limit was to save one life at any point in the future, then in my mind there can be no arguement against it. Could anyone tell me honestly why people drive fast ? Can anyone tell me honestly at what speed accident victims were driving on an unrestricted stretch of road when they had their accidents? The DoT obviously can't - or don't want to. Very good point, How many accidents happened on a unristricted road? Well i doubt anybody will ever know, But It will be intresting to see what effect a national speed limit has on accidents and the TT. Maybe there should be an all island speed limit trial for a year or so and then people can choose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallybug Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Maybe there should be an all island speed limit trial for a year or so and then people can choose? The UK did a "temporary" speed limit of 70mph after an AC Cobra was clocked at 185mph on the A1, IIRC, back in the late 60s. Temporary things have a way of becoming permanent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Could anyone tell me honestly why people drive fast ? Standard excuses given are that it's an expression of their freedom and to curtail it would be more influence of a nanny state or some bollocks. You can simplify that by saying it's because they can. You can further simplify it by saying it's because they drive fast to give themselves a chubby. Nothing more really, no matter how many words you dress it up in, the only reason is because they get a thrill from it. Presumably to make up for whatever shortcomings they have, when they're tootling along the mountain road at a high speed they feel 'manly'. Complete and utter nonsense ans. Seems to me that there are two types of driver; those of us who enjoy driving and those of you who see it merely as a means of getting somewhere. I derive great enjoyment from driving, riding and flying well. I enjoy the feeling of becoming one with a machine and having it respond to my input. It doesn't make me feel 'manly' to drive fast, OR give me a 'chubby', and for most of my journeys driving WELL is the purpose rather than achieving a particular speed. That said, if the conditions and vehicle are safe, I no doubt occasionally enjoy going faster than you do. I believe that the VAST majority of good drivers/riders are quite competent enough to determine what is an appropriate speed for the prevailing circumstances without those who would prefer a 'compliant population' imposing arbitrary limits. A head on crash at ANY speed is likely to prove fatal, a single vehicle crash into a wall at anything much above 40mph is probably unsurvivable. The whole purpose of a national speed limit is supposed to be improved road safety. The people of the Island have already been consulted and spoken at length, and provided the DoT with a number of eminently sensible means of cutting accidents. It seems that these have - in the main - been ignored in favour of a flawed measure which is simpler to invoke and could provide a source of easy revenue. These points have already been debated on this forum, and we'll have to agree to disagree. But what is before us now is a cynical means by which a Government department seeks to achieve its political objectives (speed limits and speed cameras) by browbeating residents with an unbalanced propaganda campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ade Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Maybe there should be an all island speed limit trial for a year or so and then people can choose? The UK did a "temporary" speed limit of 70mph after an AC Cobra was clocked at 185mph on the A1, IIRC, back in the late 60s. Temporary things have a way of becoming permanent. Good point. If the cross section of the public who are in favour of a speed limit dont get it this time, they will at least have the luxury of knowing that the Government will get their way eventually, public support or not. If the all island limit does come into force, the people who don't want a blanket limit will never have another opportunity to drive faster than 60 or 70mph again. Once it changes, you're never going to get it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 19, 2006 Author Share Posted April 19, 2006 Our *cough* consultation document was waiting for me when I got home today, the first "question" in particular is the worst kind of manipulative bollocks. It's like someone wanting a ban on handguns but starting off by asking: "Do you believe babies should be protected from being killed?" - YES/NO And if you answer YES they're like, "Ahhhh, so you DO want a ban on handguns then, we win!" If you then point out that there's no evidence whatsoever that babies are being killed with handguns, the response is, "But someone somewhere might kill a baby with a handgun some day! And you voted YES anyway, we still win!" I'll be voting YES - NO - NO And needless to say I'll have a few words to put in the COMMENTS box as well. Exactly my point CT, except that if you vote YES - No - No, the YES will be looked on by DoT as being a mandate for them to introduce a speed limit regardless of your other views. You can see the announcement: "The consultation process overwhemingly demonstrated that the vast majority of people on the Island want something done to reduce the accidents on roads with no speed limits, so we are going to impose an all Island speed limit." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Complete and utter nonsense ans. Seems to me that there are two types of driver; those of us who enjoy driving and those of you who see it merely as a means of getting somewhere. You may enjoy driving for the sake of it, and that's great. No one's suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to enjoy driving and demonstrating your skill. What your point neglects, however, is that whilst it's fine to enjoy driving as a form of recreation, roads are not recreational grounds. Roads are an entirely utilitarian construction to facilitate travel and the kind of driving you attribute to Ans, and, as such, it's not unreasonable to expect restrictions being placed upon how people use them, regardless of the purpose of their driving or their skill. Yes, some people are skillful when driving, but that's not an argument to allow everyone including those who fancy themselves as having the same level of skill, or just the plain neglegent to go without restriction. The argument that "speed doesn't kill people, idiots do" is reminiscent of the argument employed by America's pro-gun lobby, and is just as flawed. You can't outlaw idiots, or the unfortunate for that matter. The best that can be done is an attempt to remove the means and circumstances that can result in tragedy, namely speeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 A head on crash at ANY speed is likely to prove fatal, a single vehicle crash into a wall at anything much above 40mph is probably unsurvivable. I'd have to disagree with that Stu. Do you really reckon that two card having a head on while driving around town at, say, 20 mph is likely to be fatal? I'm not in favour of the DOT's propoganda and have just listened to Bruce Hannay struggling to string a coherent sentence together when asked about the "advert" breaking the guidelines. but I don't feel that exaggeration on either side is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 OMG - some people in this thread sound as if they still live in the 1920's, when people thought speeds over 50mph were not survivable, as the human body was not made for such extreme conditions.. FFS - car manufacturers have spend billions on making cars safer at all speeds, and times have moved on as far as technology is concerned, yet the roads and regulations are still the same. The Manx Highway Code still gives the stopping distance for a car from 60mph to 0 as 55m*! 55m - that's from 20 years ago, and any VW Golf stops in around 40 these days, not to mention the many cars over here fitted with high-performance breaks, or electronic systems, such as Mercedes's Brake Assist, or BMW's new LED brake lights, that start flashing when an emergency stop is being carried out, giving the car behind a better chance to react - it all just shows on what outdated rubbish this is all based... And instead of improving the actual road safety, or actively trying to make younger people better drivers (as they have the most crashes), all they can come up with is a piss-poor 'consultation' for a speed limit... Regardles of the fact if you like to drive fast or not, this whole speed limit debate is a farce and a disgrace, as well as a giant waste of your money... *It gives the stopping distance at 55m, + 18m "thinking distance", making for a total of a shockingly outdated 73m - that's actually 1960's standard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 If people feel so strongly about a speed limit being imposed and the way in which this document has been worded, why not ring up your local MHK and make your opinions known. You voted these people in, make them listen to what you want. Don't say they won't give a monkeys because they will, elections are in November. Personally I'm not bothered which way it goes, but I am bothered about the way in which this documents been written and as others have mentioned in the way the decision could be fixed. Just think if a Government department like the D.O.T can stitch something up as important as this, what can we expect next from this or any other Government departments? Someone mentioned nanny state before, after this, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Lets pretend that the DOT brings in a national speed limit, lets say 70mph and makes it provisional for 3 years say. In the last 3 years there were 33 fatal and 210 serious road accidents with 39 people dead and 233 injured. This data group is large enough for you to be able to do a valid statistical analysis and so after 3 years they should be able to do a pretty good comparison and see if there has been any significant change. Now lets say the results are 1, or 2, 3, or 4 lives saved, or 10, 20 or 30 people not getting injured. The challenge for those who don't want speed limits is how many lives would you be willing to sacrifice for your desire for speed? Obviously if there's no improvement then the spped limits should be rescinded again ... but I doubt that will happen. But if there is an improvement ... well just think for a second ... do you really think you should allow people to die and be injured just for the thrill of driving fast for 5 or 6 miles on a 30 mile drive? IMHO the idea that there will be economic effects due to people arriving 2 minutes later etc are totally spurious ... the issue for me in doing this is that it will reduce families being ripped apart by loved ones being killed, handicapped, or injured. I've lost school and family friends to speed ... and had a friend disfigured for life. Who's going to say ... I don't care if after 3 years it shows on average [1,2,3 ... you pick] lives have been saved I want to drive fast. Go on say it if you dare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.