Amadeus Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 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. Still, legislation should go with the time as far as this is concerned - the totally outdated bits of the highway code partly function as basis for this whole argument, and should be reviewed - it definitely ain't 1966 anymore as far as technology is concerned.... As far as bad drivers are concerned: That's where more education comes in, especially for younger drivers who may not take a speed limit as serious as others. As for the poorer performing cars: MOT it is then - or at least the enforcement of existing legislation... 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. Yep, many cars have gotten faster during the years, but they also stop quicker than the slowest car from 30 years ago...and we now have funny things like ABS or stability controls in many cars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacqueline Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I would love to see Island statistics on RTA fatalities in the 60's on the Island. I'm damn sure the yearly figures exceeded the present day fatality totals. And in those days cars didn't go half as fast and there were far fewer of them! Funny that innit. Does anyone know if it's possible to find statistics from that time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Does anyone know if it's possible to find statistics from that time? You can hardly find anything on the Government website. In most cases it looks like we didn't have a government till 2001 - especially if you are searching for Acts/papers etc. It is also amazing how so much IOM research 'dissapears'. One example was a study carried out into TT fatalities by 2 doctors at Nobles in the 1990's - now its gone (from the net anyway). Anyway, like any good citizen you only need the statistics they give you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontiuspilot Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 its no conmsultation its an attepmt to bully us into a single point of view with a highly biased domatic diatribe of factual distortion and in some cases down right lies. its the type of thing Jo Stalin would be proud of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 According to the MR website 'Director of Highways Bruce Hannay has defended a 'withdrawn' advertising campaign on the all-Island speed limit consultation.' ... saying 'he doesn’t necessarily agree the adverts breached guidelines.' even though many people, including the Communications Commission, think differently. 'He says the campaign had achieved its goal.' Why is there not a requirement to withdraw the 'consultation' leaflets as they also do not reflect a balanced view? Surely it is time that the government assured the general public that when it does such 'consultations' they are balanced, audited and designed to guage opinion and actually mean something. These 'consultations' should not represent the subjective views of, what are in effect, paid political lobby groups operating from within government. Unelected civil servants have the right to advise politicians - but not to operate timely parallel campaigns aimed at directly influencing sensitive political decisions. In the UK there is a civil servants 'code' - is there one here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pontiuspilot Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 According to the MR website 'Director of Highways Bruce Hannay has defended a 'withdrawn' advertising campaign on the all-Island speed limit consultation.' ... saying 'he doesn’t necessarily agree the adverts breached guidelines.' even though many people, including the Communications Commission, think differently. 'He says the campaign had achieved its goal.' Why is there not a requirement to withdraw the 'consultation' leaflets as they also do not reflect a balanced view? Surely it is time that the government assured the general public that when it does such 'consultations' they are balanced, audited and designed to guage opinion and actually mean something. These 'consultations' should not represent the subjective views of, what are in effect, paid political lobby groups operating from within government. Unelected civil servants have the right to advise politicians - but not to operate timely parallel campaigns aimed at directly influencing sensitive political decisions. In the UK there is a civil servants 'code' - is there one here? well said Albert, you should right directly to the DOT and the papers and have this published Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Stopping distances are fine to quote when used in relation to straight roads, in good conditions, when the driver has 100% concentration. When it is wet roads and the car starts drifting on a bend they need slight amendments to be taken into account. No matter how many accidents it is claimed 'may' be avoided in the future, I still think the DOT should be asking how many accidents have occured while they mess around with the consultations, spending public money on adverts and bits of paper that could have been allocated to real life road and driver improvements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deejay Denzel Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Typically poorly written Manx Radio item. What " commission " and what is Quentin Gill's role in relation to it ? The commuincications commision who are conforming to Ofcom regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 well said Albert, you should right directly to the DOT and the papers and have this published My writing hand hurts too much - filling in NO NO NO answers on the 4000 consultation leaflets I picked up at the Post Office Not really - but that won't stop others for or against doing it will it? Ah well - that's what dumbocracy is all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 well said Albert, you should right directly to the DOT and the papers and have this published My writing hand hurts too much - filling in NO NO NO answers on the 4000 consultation leaflets I picked up at the Post Office Not really - but that won't stop others for or against doing it will it? Ah well - that's what dumbocracy is all about. *grin* Would be interesting if they eventually got 240,000 votes for and 250,000 against. Wonder what statistics they would show then ... Probably .. "the ballot was invalid as there were more "against" votes than there are people on the Island" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Speed doesn't cause accidents. Bad driving causes accidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Speed doesn't cause accidents. Bad driving causes accidents. ...and don't be frightened of heights...be frightended of floors...cos it's always the floor that gets you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I see there's an ad in the Courier this week against the speed limit and a website here. I wonder who's organising that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I see there's an ad in the Courier this week against the speed limit and a website here. I wonder who's organising that? I think the website is run by forum member : dooahhdoo As its in his signature and i think he mentioned about people joining in a recent speed limit thread. Not sure if he runs the ad's though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Paging dooahhdoo to thread - how is the resistance movement coming along? Not sure. I am not involved with it except for I gave them the go ahead to use the nolimit.org.im website. I did ask last week what the plans were but did not get a reply There is not a lot happening on the No Limit Website at the moment if the number of recent comments/posts on the site are anything to go by. Time is pressing so get your forms in - sorry I meant form of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.