Hangfire Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 how many people would support a limitation on the capacity for the engine size on new drivers? eg 2 years with a maximum of 1 litre engine...... as opposed to limits which are difficult to enforce this one would be easy as they simply couldnt be insured here without adhering to the rules...... or get road tax 1 litres can go above the R plated 50mph speed limit anyway, The laws are already there to stop them but they aren't being enforced, Where is the logic in creating more laws if even a simple one doesn't work. fair enuff but they sure as hell dont get to 50 as quick as an evo does.... (eg daddies car) nor do they get to the heady heights of 120mph..... and their cornering speed is much lower..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 and their cornering speed is much lower..... Theres the first problem idiots in 1.1's going round a corner at more than 40mph. a 1.4 or a 1.6 isn't exactly quick and if the R plate law actually was enforced it wouldn't matter if they drove an Enzo or a corsa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaipyr Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 And I hope Amadeus and Stu Peters (who frequently used Manx Radio to air his anti-speed limit views) can live with their consciences as the number of accidents caused by excessive and inappropriate speeding continues unabated. My anti-speed limit views remain resolute, and my 'use' of Manx Radio to air them has merely been intended to provide a balance to the righteous fervour and expensive propaganda employed by the DoT and others. It's a democracy, we enjoy the right to free speech and I reserve MY entitlement to pass comment in a current affairs format PROVIDING that balance is maintained overall. If you read the local newspapers, you will see that their journalists exercise exactly those same rights for the pro-limit lobby. Neither I nor any of the anti-limit people I've interviewed condones excessive or inappropriate speed - we simply prefer to decide the definitions of those terms ourselves, based on conditions, ability and experience, rather than be limited to a lowest common denominator speed limit determined by an anonymous civil servant. People will continue to be killed and injured on our roads - but don't dare lay the blame on those of us who have opposed a fundamentally flawed course of action. Rubbish - you were forcefully presenting your biased opinions on radio long before the DOT campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Snaipyr - I take it you agree with my other observations if that's the best riposte you have? The DoT has been trying to impose a national speed limit for a long time. If I've offered an opinion, it's generally been in response to nanny-state wooly thinking on either speed limits or smoking bans in public places. For the record, I believe that the sale of tobacco should be banned on the Isle of Man, or if not, that proper areas for smokers be set aside. But that's another dozen threads. If you're for a speed limit, I think you're wrong but respect your right to air an opinion. Hmmmm... something else for us all to consider: Am I catching MCB conspiracy disease? Just check Post #22 in this thread and ask yourself how 'The Enforcer' would have access to the 'actual' figures ahead of their disclosure in Tynwald today. Then read the strapline at the bottom... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneArmedScissor Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 And I hope Amadeus and Stu Peters (who frequently used Manx Radio to air his anti-speed limit views) can live with their consciences as the number of accidents caused by excessive and inappropriate speeding continues unabated. My anti-speed limit views remain resolute, and my 'use' of Manx Radio to air them has merely been intended to provide a balance to the righteous fervour and expensive propaganda employed by the DoT and others. It's a democracy, we enjoy the right to free speech and I reserve MY entitlement to pass comment in a current affairs format PROVIDING that balance is maintained overall. If you read the local newspapers, you will see that their journalists exercise exactly those same rights for the pro-limit lobby. Neither I nor any of the anti-limit people I've interviewed condones excessive or inappropriate speed - we simply prefer to decide the definitions of those terms ourselves, based on conditions, ability and experience, rather than be limited to a lowest common denominator speed limit determined by an anonymous civil servant. People will continue to be killed and injured on our roads - but don't dare lay the blame on those of us who have opposed a fundamentally flawed course of action. Rubbish - you were forcefully presenting your biased opinions on radio long before the DOT campaign. In much the same way that IOM newspapers were forcefully presenting their biased opinions in print long before the DOT campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deejay Denzel Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 If anyone watched Border news this evening they would have seen a feature on a spate of road accidents in the UK part of the region, A national speed limit is not a factor in reducing accidents whatsoever. Even with the accidents we've had here in the last few days, people just need to drive suitably to the conditions. If they don't know what is suitable then they are a danger to us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hangfire Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 there is a simple answer to the fact people dont know what is an appropriate speed for the conditions limit the speed on all roads to the speed at which they could drive safely in the worst possible conditions say 10pmh that would be safe right? oh maybe not if there was a blizzard while deep snow was on the ground how about 5mph as a safe limit? if people arent going to be expected to decide for themselves that is....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsea Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 there is a simple answer to the fact people dont know what is an appropriate speed for the conditions limit the speed on all roads to the speed at which they could drive safely in the worst possible conditions say 10pmh that would be safe right? oh maybe not if there was a blizzard while deep snow was on the ground how about 5mph as a safe limit? if people arent going to be expected to decide for themselves that is....... I dont think I have a marker on the speedometer of my bike for 5mph, and yes before you ask, I do ride it in blizzards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hangfire Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 then you should be limited in speed on your bike if you are irresponsible enough to break the limit in those conditions i think a 5 year custodial sentence is appropriate!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 Snaipyr - I take it you agree with my other observations if that's the best riposte you have? The DoT has been trying to impose a national speed limit for a long time. If I've offered an opinion, it's generally been in response to nanny-state wooly thinking on either speed limits or smoking bans in public places. For the record, I believe that the sale of tobacco should be banned on the Isle of Man, or if not, that proper areas for smokers be set aside. But that's another dozen threads. If you're for a speed limit, I think you're wrong but respect your right to air an opinion. Hmmmm... something else for us all to consider: Am I catching MCB conspiracy disease? Just check Post #22 in this thread and ask yourself how 'The Enforcer' would have access to the 'actual' figures ahead of their disclosure in Tynwald today. Then read the strapline at the bottom... If 'The Enforcer' is as close to DOT as that post would lead you to believe, then perhaps he could have a word with his chums in the Dept of Home Affairs to see if the police could enforce some of the EXISTING regulations designed to improve road awareness and safety! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsea Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 and maybe he could have words to get my 5 year sentence reduced?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 People will continue to be killed and injured on our roads - but don't dare lay the blame on those of us who have opposed a fundamentally flawed course of action. I'm afraid you don't have a right to tell me what to think. You've campaigned against the limit for no other reason than that you like driving fast. You've got to accept the consequences of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 and maybe he could have words to get my 5 year sentence reduced?? Come on, they've given you a pooter, what more do you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsea Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 People will continue to be killed and injured on our roads - but don't dare lay the blame on those of us who have opposed a fundamentally flawed course of action. I'm afraid you don't have a right to tell me what to think. You've campaigned against the limit for no other reason than that you like driving fast. You've got to accept the consequences of that. he has to accept fuck all, you tard. i take it you dont travel over 60mph at the mo anyway (or youre too much of a moron to drive)so a limit wouldnt affect you. why should people who can drive responsibly be discriminated against cos numpties like you have no common sense? oh and whilst youre at it, why dont you blame stu for 3rd world debt??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 These speed limit threads all end up the same, If current laws are enforced then most of these accidents wouldn't happen, Accidents still happen in the UK where there doesn't seem to be a road left without a limit on it yet accidents still happen and thats with more and more speed cameras. Did anyone see BBC1 news that mentioned about the decision?, I liked it when they said "the isle of man still has roads without a limit" and then showed clips of the TT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.