stookie Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 I don't see how IAM will change a young person's attitude of over confidence - if anything it will make it worse! And I think the most vulnerable group of road users is motorcycles, not cars, isn't it? We need: APPROPRIATE speed limits that drivers can respect Annual roadworthiness testing, similar to if not the same as the MOT Regular driver testing - eyesight and mobility at least every 5 years Better laid out and surfaced roads Restrict drivers to type of car REGARDLESS OF AGE without the passing of a relevant test - ie, drivers can drive faster cars only if they can show they can control them properly Introduce 'assymetrical' speed limits (limit different depending on direction of travel) for places like Richmond Hill (higher limit going up than down) Introduce 'off-peak' limits that differ according to the time of day to cater for ebbs and flows in traffic I'm sure clever people can think of more good ideas without draconian b*llocks! The difference in emissions a car produces at different speeds will depend on how the car is being driven, how well maintained it is/when it was last serviced, what gear is being used, whether the car is running on the correct fuel, whether the tyres are correctly inflated for the load and what condition they are in, whether the windows are open, whether there is a roof rack on or heavy load in the boot, the road surface and gradient, wind direction, what the car was designed to do in the first place, etc etc. In fact, there is no simple answer as has been implied that going faster = greater emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Introduce 'assymetrical' speed limits (limit different depending on direction of travel) for places like Richmond Hill (higher limit going up than down) Not sure if you are aware of the public footpath that comes out on the 'up' side just around the bend - I was with a group of walkers when some young idiot with R plates in a black car with air dams attempted to do 70 around the bend - luckily he didn't kill anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggle Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 Not sure if you are aware of the public footpath that comes out on the 'up' side just around the bend - I was with a group of walkers when some young idiot with R plates in a black car with air dams attempted to do 70 around the bend - luckily he didn't kill anyone This also could have happened with a taxi or police car or any car. The R plated driver (with his air dams, black paint etc etc) was already restricted to 50mph by law which would prove that some people ignore speed limits. Introducing higher or lower limits wouldn't change this. What needs to be addressed here is the positioning of the footpath. I suppose it was fine when the fastest thing around that bend was the morning mail carriage. To address the comment regarding speed limiters on cars. If one was to have a limiter fitted to restrict the car to a speed of 50mph for example, accidents would still happen. The crash sites would move to areas where 50mph would not be a suitable speed to travel. Education is the only way to create safer roads, if people can't be educated and prove they are safe, don't let them drive. Stookie has some good ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 exceeding the speed limit or going too fast for the conditions were reported as a contributory factor in 26 per cent of all fatal accidents Stop gloating, Amadeus! Don't see anything for Amadeus to gloat about there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 possibly the choice of a 50mph limit here reflects the lack of visibility around the bend and braking distance - I agree that Manx roads are in general poor and some are totally unsuitable for the loads imposed on them, but unlike for example Shetland which has used its oil money to provide extremely good roads, there is generally no free space adjacent to the current roadway on which to build a new road (eg Crosby, Glen Vine etc on the Peel road would be better bypassed but how ?) Some current speed traps (Ballamodha straight) could easily be slowed by the construction of roundabouts to force a speed limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 I suspect that the real truth is, and I don't expect the petrol heads to agree with me, that road safety is a combination of the driver and his/her skills, competence and state of health and mind, the vehicle and its design and safety for those in it and those it may hit., the roads and their construction location and maintenance together with signing and other safety matters and speed. I am not anti speed. I am in favour of doing what we can to make the roads safer. I would be the first to accept that the UK has the safest roads of any industrialised society, it may also have the busiest. I accept that deathe and injuries have fallen consistently. I am happy, and I think competent to drive at a motorway in UK at 70. They are designed for that. my car(s) are modern, well maintained and serviced. I go further than that I am happy to see the limits raised to but only if we can make the roads less congesteed and get some lane discipline. The US experience after introducing a 55mph national limit was that the death toll fell substantially. That does not prove that speed kills or causes accidents, It shows thta speed has an effect on the outcome of accidents. There was not, as I understand it a big change in the overall number of accidents. The experience when it was removed and the States allowed to set their own maxima was the opposite. Not many more accidents but more serious consequences and deaths. The most quoted UK safety tests, oft ridiculed by the speedsters, do not show caustion speed = accidents. They do show that type of road = accidents and that for any one type of road speed = more serious consequences. So what is the answer here. We do not have motorways. We have about 800 yards of dual carriageway. The mountain road is not a straight road but has many bends, blinf spots. It only has a carriageway in oneeach direction, no overtaking lanes. Why should we think it is of a standard to be safe at any speed? the question then becomes wgat speed. it issn't a question of civil liberties or human rights, even the petrol heads recognise, well most of them, that there has to be regulation. The rest of our roads are even less well provided to cater for speed, with frquent bends, blind spots and junctions. In fact the UK studies found minor country roads the worst. they are more dangerous at 20 mph in terms of accidents than motorways, and the accident rtae double at 40. Mortality rates are a different thing. They are in fact low. Through roads in built up areas show a similar risk but the accident rates do not increase at the same rates, there is another factor, pedestrians Distributor roads in built up areas show a different pattern again and finally residentail streets. Yes our present sped limits are sometimes in wrong place and at the wrong speed. But may of our roads are of such qulaity and lack of refinemant and facilityt that they should be restricted more. I'm all in favoyur of no one under twenty five being alowed a car on the roads with a cc of more than 1000, or within 2 yeras of 1st passing the test, whatever age. I have no qualms about regular re testing and addirtional training for youngsters and old alike. We should have an MOT and a much stricter one than across We then come to enforcement. I have no problem with speed cameras, red light cameras etc to enforce, as long as the revenue goes into road safety and education, including rehabilitation and responsibility training for drink drivers. I kow it sounds grim, but is we can avoid several 100 accidents, 5 or 6 deathe a yera and 40 or 50 seerious injuries a yera I foir one think that taking an extra minute or two to arrive is worth it. There is a choice, a motorway fro Douglas to Peel and from Ramsy to the airport and Port Erin, but then threr are environmental factors as well. Tynwald could sit in the middle of the St Johns Spahgetti Junction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexMcC Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Last year the fire service came into sixth form in SNHS and showed us a hard hitting presentation about the dangers of speed, I reckon about 5-10 out of 80 went out during the presentation. It was shocking enough, featuring an impaled man, what (i think, it was a messy photo) of someone minus a head? (not sure...) and some photos of motorcycle accedents including a guy who had the front of his face ripped off, leaving his tounge.... I think that went straight to some peoples heads, but there are still some pillock drivers in my year group - especially those who passed after that presentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lard Posted September 30, 2006 Author Share Posted September 30, 2006 especially those who passed after that presentation. I would have passed-out after that presentation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Last year the fire service came into sixth form in SNHS and showed us a hard hitting presentation about the dangers of speed, I reckon about 5-10 out of 80 went out during the presentation. It was shocking enough, featuring an impaled man, what (i think, it was a messy photo) of someone minus a head? (not sure...) and some photos of motorcycle accedents including a guy who had the front of his face ripped off, leaving his tounge.... I saw that presentation, It definetly made me think twice about everything now, Simple things like lose things in the car, Flying around at tremendous speed, Causing more damage than the actual crash, 1 person actualy passed out! and about 6 left the room! The motorcycle one was terrible, It was apparently caused by an ill fitting helmet and then the speed. The taxi driver being flung around inside the car, As a car went into the back of his taxi and because he wasn't wasn't wearing a seat belt. This presentation was just before lunch, Totally put me off eating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 Undercover probe reveals the 'buckets of money' made from speed cameras http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...c=NEWS&ct=5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 Forum search reveals that has already been posted in a topic that wasn't two week dead. http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php...st&p=191850 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 Undercover probe reveals the 'buckets of money' made from speed cameras http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...c=NEWS&ct=5 As usual, you're too slow - clickey edit: balls - too slow for ans me is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 As usual, you're too slow - So are you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 As usual, you're too slow - So are you! Nope, this time I was quicker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted October 15, 2006 Share Posted October 15, 2006 Press release from Safe Speed (www.safespeed.org.uk): Apparently Department for Transport have issued a statement in response to the Mail on Sunday 'Speed Camera Scam' article, claiming that they have 'clear proof' that speed cameras are helpful to road safety. Safe Speed could not be clearer - they have no such thing. Even the evidence for an improvement 'at speed camera site' is equivocal due to a large error source known as 'regression to the mean'. After years of ignoring this error, DfT admitted it was highly significant in the small print of their '4th year report'. Department for Transport have neither investigated nor considered the side effects of speed cameras on road safety. To neglect the side effects in 1993 when speed cameras were first introduced was negligent. To maintain the position now - when clearly they must be highly aware of the wide ranging side effects - is virtually fraudulent. Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: "So Department for Transport 'denies' the conclusions in the Mail on Sunday article. I say Department for Transport are 'in denial' about the abject failure of their road safety policies." "If speed cameras had 'worked' as a road safety device we should have expected road deaths and hospitalisations to fall faster than before. But that is the opposite of what has happened. Road deaths and hospitalisations are not falling significantly at all." "Department for Transport must now face the truth. Speed cameras are 21st century snake oil. They certainly do not save lives. In fact they have damaged the very foundations of road safety by feeding false priorities and distractions into the place were road safety exists; into the minds of road users." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.