Amadeus Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 The problem I'm having with the idea of a national speed limit is, that the current legislation is not even being enforced properly, and then they come along with a new thing. Do you know how many coppers are on duty on, say, a Friday or Saturday evening? Not that many, and the ones that are, are patrolling the prom or arresting drunks - I doubt there are many looking after the roads... Oh I fully agree, a limit is only a small part of the problem, but it's a start. We need better enforcement, MOT, retests for the elderly, road modifications, there's loads of stuff that can help road safety. None of that negates the fact that even if a limit cuts road deaths by 1 every ten years, its worth it. Agreed, but I think you will find that the Gov will tie up large resources for the limit, so they don't get emberassed when results fail to show. Resources, that could be used better, and should already have been used better in the past. Instead of digging holes and erecting speed cameras (which I am convinced are on the way), they could use that time and money to make the actual roads safer and educate more. And apart from that, the whole issue should have ended with the last consultation. Instead of accepting that most of the people who replied were against it, it was decided to repeat the excercise in such way that the desired result is achieved - why bother asking the public in the first place then? All the time and money for this could have been used better, and could already have prevented accidents - instead, it's being spend on colourful leaflets that form part of a flawed campaign - don't know about others, but it's not exactly how I would like to see my tax money spent.... ...but the inability to enforce existing laws suggests that this whole exercise is little more than a cynical PR project (along the same lines as Operation Centurion)... Arrest fewer people = Fewer arrests on paper = less crime? Incidentally, I find it disappointing that none of the 'potential' (or existing) MHKs who use this forum have actually stated their opinion on whether or not there should be a national speed limit. I di..ups... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Slim - do you honestly think that the Speed limit 'consultation' is unbiased ? Nope, but that doesn't stop me agreeing with the objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 OK. So by your assertion, then you'd probably agree that all video games that encourage violence of any sort should also be banned? Oh don't talk soft. Travelling at high speed is obviously and proven to be dangerous. Playing a video game isn't. There's a direct connection between crashing into a wall at 80 mph and dying, there isn't a direct connection with playing GTA 3 and killing policemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 OK. So by your assertion, then you'd probably agree that all video games that encourage violence of any sort should also be banned? Oh don't talk soft. Travelling at high speed is obviously and proven to be dangerous. Playing a video game isn't. There's a direct connection between crashing into a wall at 80 mph and dying, there isn't a direct connection with playing GTA 3 and killing policemen. But there is acres of research, and court cases, that prove video games are dangerous and incite violence! Aren't you being a bit choosy here in what research you believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 But there is acres of research, and court cases, that prove video games are dangerous and incite violence! Sure, and certification regulations deal with a lot of that, it's not like games or movies are unrestricted. But its not like for like. Speed is dangerous, I dont need research or court cases to know that, if you've got an ounce of common sense you'd understand. Aren't you being a bit choosy here in what research you believe? I'm not believing any research in this case, I'm making my own mind up. If I go fast, it's dangerous. If I play GTA, I dont want to kill prostitutes. Am I missing something obvious here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Am I missing something obvious here? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Am I missing something obvious here? Yes. And that obvious point is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentbob Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Quick Question Are fatalities and incidents from the TT/IOM GP period used by the IOM Gov for these figures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 slim - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Target Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 In response to the postings regarding why we should oppose the speed limit these are my personal opions 1) Speed limits are difficult to enforce After the initial "crackdown" there will be the odd policeman with a speed camera on the mountain road when they get a free hour. A speed limit will slow down the average law abiding citizen (who probably doesn`t travel over 80 anyway) thus decreasing speeds by 5-10mph. It won`t stop Mr Boy Racer who already displays a blatant disregard for limits. The most likely outcome is points and fines for people who find themselves travelling a small amount of the limit on their way home from work. And one day it will also mean the introducing of speed cameras all over the Islands roads - something which has been highly unpopular with many many people in the UK. 2) A speed limit can have the opposite effect Introducing a 60-70mph limit encourages people to travel at that speed. It doesn`t take into account the Mountain in particular, but any road at all, is more dangerous in the wet, ice or fog. Quite often you find yourself in bad conditions on the mountain travelling at 30mph. If its a 70mph limit you can guarantee there will be a car behind you pushing you to go faster. The same may well happen in good conditions - perversly, an older driver who travels at 30mph everywhere may feel he has to travel faster when theres a queue of traffic behind him in a 60 or 70 limit and he is safe to do so ? Better driver education, testing and knowledge rather than speed limits is the answer. 3) Economy For anyone who works comfortably in the Finance sector I`m sure they`re not really bothered, but one of the last remaining tourist industries is going to be devasted by introducing a limit that hasn`t been proven to be successul. This will have a knock on effect with cafes, pubs, hotels and shops - something that effects us all. It also loses several unique aspects of Manx life - something we will never be able to recover even if 5 years down the line we realise the speed limit hasn`t really been all that successful at all. 4) Some roads aren`t safe to travel at high speeds I personally fully support the introduction of speed limits in some areas where travelling at speed is dangerous to residents, pedestrians or traffic and feel the sensible introduction in these areas would negate greatly the need for a national speed limit. 5) The emphasis becomes speed Rather than really cutting down accidents all we are doing is slowing some people down a small amount and all the police emphasis will be placed on speeding. It doesn`t stop dangerous overtaking, cutting corners, cars packed with teenagers fooling around, lack of driver knowledge and lack of respect for the conditions or any of the other dangers which contribute greatly to accidents - more often that not the real causes of crashes. In fact,in the rush to book people for speeding these will probably go even more unnoticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheese Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Can i just add this.... Ive looked at my speed limit survey, and it quotes that 30 of the 39 fatalities were on derestricted roads. Ok, fine, but how many were ACTUALLY SPEEDING ? What speed is deemed to be SPEEDING on a derestricted road? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=^..^= Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nope, but that doesn't stop me agreeing with the objective. No argument that you agree with the objectives - but you are comfortable with the fact that Civil Servants are not presenting a balanced argument for the people to 'vote' on in this instance ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=^..^= Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Can i just add this.... Ive looked at my speed limit survey, and it quotes that 30 of the 39 fatalities were on derestricted roads. Ok, fine, but how many were ACTUALLY SPEEDING ? What speed is deemed to be SPEEDING on a derestricted road? Even the police don't call it excessive speed. There are two categories - "Excessive speed for the conditions" (which could be 120 mph on a dry day or 25 mph in fog) and the other catch all "Failure to judge distance or speed" which is where someone pulls out at from behind a car and into the front of the car coming the other way. They have both been lumped together to give you the total figures you see on the "Vote how we want you to form" They do not supply any figures for "death caused by failing to adhere to a law" for instance failure to wear a seatbelt, exceeding an existing limit, over loading a vehicle or failure to maintain your vehicle correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 It is nearly a year since concerns were raised about speeding cars and red light runners from York Road/Woodbourne Road traffic lights. The problems there were highlighted in the local papers for a couple of weeks with the usual "Something must be done" reporting. It was decided to install a 'red light' camera for which the pole has been there for months. There was smash on the junction just before the pole appeared which required the attendence of several police cars, a police van, fire and ambulance crews. The accident required the diversion of traffic via Derby Road, past the Old Brewery and Ballaquayle Road to St, Ninians. To date the box for the camera has not been added, cars still race through the junction well in excess of the speed limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Quick Question Are fatalities and incidents from the TT/IOM GP period used by the IOM Gov for these figures? I think they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.