Consultation

[VinnieK]

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when an emergency stop is being carried out, giving the car behind a better chance to react - it all just shows on what outdated rubbish this is all based...

 

That some kind of cars have a shorter stopping distance is no argument for not having a speed restriction or lowering the guidelines on stopping distance. This kind of argument has come up in two guises so far:

 

1. Some cars have lower stopping distances than is taken into account.

2. Some drivers are very good and will never have an accident.

 

This is faulty reasoning. No legislation is ever written around the 'best case scenario' - if it were, the legal system would be completely and utterly dysfunctional, since by nature it is the worst case scenarios that result in accidents that may otherwise be avoided. It doesn't matter if there are some great drivers out there with brilliant cars, it is the poorer drivers, the more irresponsible drivers, drivers who have over estimated their abilities, and the just plain unlucky drivers who do the damage, and it is with them in mind, and poorer performing cars that the law is and should be formulated, and even then it's always better to err on the side of caution.

[manxchatterbox]

StuP says"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".

 

and the OG says "have just listened to Bruce Hannay struggling to string a coherent sentence together when asked about the "advert" breaking the guidelines"

 

so the Communications Commission have agreed its an unbalanced "advert" and the DoT have had to withdraw the adverts....

 

not surprisingly MR putting out alot of load spin on the DoT being at fault whilst keeping quiet about their part as the Government mouth piece being involved in the dissemination of the unbalanced propoganda....aren't MR supposed to consider questions of bias before broadcasting, or does "self regulation" go out of the window if money is involved......

[ans]

Can you stay out of real threads where adults are having a proper discussion please? Thanks in advance.

[=^..^=]

Between 2003 and 2006 a considerable number of deaths on the islands roads were caused by drivers or passengers not obeying existing legislation.

 

People have been killed in overloaded vehicles, vehicles that are un-roadworthy, are being driven over existing speed limits, killed by failure to adhere to seabelt legislation, by drink driving, and by unlicensed drivers.

 

1. Do you believe that existing traffic legislation that would prevent fatailities on the islands roads is being enforced (No/Yes) ?

 

2. Would you be prepared to see more police on the roads to help prevent fatalities (No/Yes) ?

 

3. Would you be prepared to have speed cameras in existing speed limits (No/Yes) ?

 

Bottom line. People are still going to die as long as we drive cars.

 

Anyone asking for a speed limit is saying "I want to stop the deaths as long as it doesn't inconvinience me"

 

If you look at the stats enough people die in speed limit - ffs people have died at junctions in 30 zones

 

If you say that "if a speed limit saves one life then its worth it" then I say "Stop driving - its the only way you can gurantee to save lives"

 

Question four should have been.

 

Are you prepared to give your car up to save lives ?

[manxchatterbox]

Question four should have been.

 

Are you prepared to give your car up to save lives ?

 

 

Or

 

Are you prepared to never go out in case you get knocked down by a bus/hit by a falling aircraft or frog or fall into an open ditch?? life is all about accepting risks...if you want to be wrapped in cotton wool then check yourself into a suitable hospital with padded walls..

[TerryMcCann]

Question four should have been.

 

Are you prepared to give your car up to save lives ?

 

 

Or

 

Are you prepared to never go out in case you get knocked down by a bus/hit by a falling aircraft or frog or fall into an open ditch?? life is all about accepting risks...if you want to be wrapped in cotton wool then check yourself into a suitable hospital with padded walls..

 

I never thought I would say this but.......

 

I agree with manxchatterbox.

 

I feel dirty now I'm going for a shower

[Gladys]

Leave it running for me Terry, I had the same thought!

[Chinahand]

Gladys you're taking things to extremes ... I didn't think you were a black and white person.

 

Don't try to devalue the debate by saying if you value life stop driving. The issue is what reasonable measures be introduced which do not inconvenience people, but which save lives.

 

The fact that 77% of fatal accidents occurred in areas with no speed limits isn't something you should devalue. That is a stark statistic. Yes people do die in 30 zones, but far, far fewer than those who are dying in unregulated areas.

 

The point I made was that introducing a 70mph restriction would inconvenience almost nobody apart from people who are just looking for speed for speeds sake and will save lives. As we are comparing a thrill with a life I know where I stand. Banning cars will not mean comparing a thrill with a life and so I do not consider it worthy of debate.

[ade]

Just in case any of you here have MCB on the "ignore user" option as discussed in another thread, Manx Radio have reported that the Department of Transport have been ordered to pull the adverts regarding the consultation of a possible speed limit.

 

From Manx Radio:

 

Adverts for the Department of Transport's all-Island speed limit consultation have been withdrawn.

 

Described as one-sided propaganda by critics and defended as hard-hitting by DoT officials, the commercials sparked a row as to whether the department was trying to influence people’s views instead of simply listening to them.

 

Rushen MHK Quintin Gill says they’ve been pulled because they were overtly biased and breached the commission’s code on advertising.

 

He explained the department would have to rewrite publicity material to ensure it meets the required standards.

 

Bit late I think, possibly proven by the fact that they have already caused so much debate.

[simon]

Typically poorly written Manx Radio item.

 

What " commission " and what is Quentin Gill's role in relation to it ?

[Gladys]

Ooh, yet again China, point taken.

 

I have to say on the question of a national speed limit, truly I do not think I will be affected, my little C3 diesel has never reached 60mph, mainly because I am invariably carrying the kids somewhere and, also, because I do not feel confident that I could handle speeds over that on most of the roads I use here. (I used to do alot of motorway miles across, and would happily clog it, sans kids, in the Vauxhall Omega I used to have.)

 

However, I am against the speed limit for the following reasons:-

 

1. There really is some dreadful driving over here and the reason for that, IMHO, is that the ordinary rules of the road (forget about a speed limit) are just not enforced. I have seen some manoeuvres that would never be contemplated in the UK because of the fear of prosecution. I just cannot remember the last time I saw a police car sitting at hot spots watching. By that I do not mean Windy Corner and other accident black spots, but places where awful driving is evident almost every minute of the day. If the police were to sit at these places and start pulling bad drivers over, then perhaps there would be more awareness.

 

My personal bete noire is the roundabout just by the old Lord Street bus station. Drivers insist on entering the roundabout when their exit is clogged, blocking the whole roundabout, which has to be bad driving, and this is outside a police station for God's sake! The others are stopping on zig-zags, double parking (which is a Manx speciality), pulling over on double yellows to answer the mobile, non-disabled parking in disabled bays, etc. etc. The list could go on of the inconsideration the average Manx driver has.

 

Now, if these ordinary regulations were enforced, then perhaps that would improve the driver awareness over here. But, at the moment, it just seems you can get away with the shoddiest driving, unless you have the misfortune of hitting someone!

 

2. Following from the last point: enforcement? The "consultation" paper says that the police will enforce the speed limits to "the best of their abilities" WTF does that mean? The existing regulations aren't enforced, even in Douglas, right outside the police station!

 

3. The current consultation document is biased and, no doubt, will result in the appropriate numbers of "Yes" in the first box to vindicate what is already in mind, and that, to me, is the biggest, most cynical, manipulation of statistics in the run up to the election that Mr B should publicly apologise for. He has neither the courage of his convictions to say that a speed limit is essential, so impose it, nor the bravery to stand for the next election without saying it was the will of the people and the decision was out of his hands!

 

All that said, of course, as would anyone else, I would prefer no more deaths on the road. But as MCB said, it is a fact of motoring and of life! But let's do it in a proper, unassailable way, making sure that the existing regulations work before introducing more that will just underline the lack of real determination to make the IOM roads safe!

[LoneWolf]

The fact that 77% of fatal accidents occurred in areas with no speed limits isn't something you should devalue. That is a stark statistic. Yes people do die in 30 zones, but far, far fewer than those who are dying in unregulated areas.

It is a stark statistic but it doesnt necessarily lead one to the conclusion that the deaths were related to excessive speed. Neither does it lead one to conclude there is no correlation between excessive speed and fatal accidents. It does suggest strongly that all factors related to accidents outside built up areas should be examined for strong positive correlations with fatal accidents.

The point I made was that introducing a 70mph restriction would inconvenience almost nobody apart from people who are just looking for speed for speeds sake and will save lives.

We dont know if introducing a blanket speed limit would save lives. I would say it is perhaps intuitive that it might reduce accidents but there is no evidence to say that will or will not be the case.

Some of the Island accident black spots are located outside built up areas, and therefore the speed limits, but are on roads where a blanket speed limit of 70 mph would still allow folks to drive at reckless speeds for the conditions. Try taking Blackboards corner at 70 mph. [ I didnt mean this literally folks!] There are, arguably, other locations where a speed limit would simply not be appropriate and would have no impact on accidents or fatalities at all.

Maybe the best approach is to apply traffic calming measures at those places where serious accidents tend to occur and to leave well alone in places where a speed limit would make no difference.

[Chinahand]

Lonewolf ... your valid queries are precisely the reason I believe the speed limits should be provisionary for 3 years. Then there will be statistics to show how effective they are ... and we can all stop arm waving at each other!

 

I'm not convinced by your claim there are places where a speed limit would make no difference ... who knows that ... your arm waving!

 

You can't put speed bumps on the mountain road ... I know your not suggesting that, but what other traffic calming methods are there that would be more effective than a simple speed limit?

[LoneWolf]

Lonewolf ... your valid queries are precisely the reason I believe the speed limits should be provisionary for 3 years. Then there will be statistics to show how effective they are ... and we can all stop arm waving at each other!

 

Agreed about the arm waving. I would like to see a more sophisticated analysis of the reasons for accidents outside built up areas. If a blanket speed limit is imposed and speed is not the reason for the fatal accidents we would have wasted a lot of time and, arguably, allowed more fatal accidents to occur without addressing the causes.

 

I'm not convinced by your claim there are places where a speed limit would make no difference ... who knows that ... your arm waving!

 

To be fair I did qualify it with an "arguably" ! I would use the same logic as above. Without a more detailed analysis as to the cause of fatal accidents at different locations it just isnt possible to say whether a speed limit at any particular location would save lives or not.

 

You can't put speed bumps on the mountain road ... I know your not suggesting that, but what other traffic calming methods are there that would be more effective than a simple speed limit?

 

I agree. Provided the necessary analysis has been undertaken and excess speed has been identified as the major cause of accidents at a particular location or stretch of road then reducing the speed of traffic at those locations would be an effective measure.

[Slim]

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.

 

FFS - car manufacturers have also 'spend' billions on making cars faster, and times have moved on as far as car perfomance is concerned, and yet the roads and regulations are still the same.