Cret Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Apparently not. After all: I don't see how anybody benefits from this decision. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Seems fairly black & white to me that enforcing existing speed limits more rigorously, increasing the minimum driving age, reducing the booze limit etc will all very likely contribute to safer roads whereas a peabrained new limit wouldn't make any noticeable difference as the majority of the target bad drivers would ignore it anyway. A website I looked at last time someone asked about alcohol/driving on Manxnet stated the limit of 80mg equates that the 'average' person can drink 3 units of alcohol and normally be ok to drive. This is a pint and a half of normal strength lager so being as the new limit is going to be just over half that I'd say if you have a pint then you could be gambling with your license. Add to that the fact that from one person to the next there's quite a variation of how this works out, it's not worth the risk. Normally if I'm driving I'd either have no booze whatsoever, or occasionally a single pint but in light of this I very much doubt I would in future because as Ans has said, your license is worth more than a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Sorry Slim the other measures are positive. What I meant is that there was no reason whatsoever not to impose a speed limit. And yes this is a black and white issue. People will die because the government has capitulated to scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uni Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 If true = party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 People will die because the government has capitulated to scum. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "STEP AWAY from the crack pipe and put your hands on your head!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=^..^= Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 And yes this is a black and white issue. People will die because the government has capitulated to scum. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Another outstanding piece of Declan reasoning. Can I just say that Ans has taken this very well - all credit to him. No objections to speed cameras provided that the Manx govt learns the lesson the UK govt has failed to learn. Speed cameras should not replace the police. A camera does not spot drunk drivers, it does not spot bad driving, it does not spot stupid driving, it does not spot careless drivers and it does not spot cars which should not be on the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 No objections to speed cameras provided that the Manx govt learns the lesson the UK govt has failed to learn. Speed cameras should not replace the police. A camera does not spot drunk drivers, it does not spot bad driving, it does not spot stupid driving, it does not spot careless drivers and it does not spot cars which should not be on the road. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Very true. It'd also make more sense to have a few of them that they move around to surprise people instead of having a few plonked in specific places which people will soon learn and simply slow down briefly as they know a camera is around the corner (thus the cameras achieving sweet FA). They ought to concentrate on mainly using them in 30 zones too, as these are the areas where breaking speed limits is most likely to end in tears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 It'd also make more sense to have a few of them that they move around to surprise people instead of having a few plonked in specific places which people will soon learn and simply slow down briefly as they know a camera is around the corner Something tells me they will have mobile cameras, must of been that little dickie bird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 And yes this is a black and white issue. People will die because the government has capitulated to scum. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Another outstanding piece of Declan reasoning. Can I just say that Ans has taken this very well - all credit to him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What how should I take it "Oh never mind, better luck next time!" And then try not to worry about the victims of this legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=^..^= Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 People aren't scum simply because they don't agree with you. Whats the point in trying to have a reasoned discussion with you ? Myself and other posters have put numerous reasoned points on the other threads ? You can't disprove any of the arguments put forward. The best you can do is to call other people names and repeat the same old scratched record argument without any proof to back up your position. And as you can't be engaged in a sensible debate its not worth me wasting my time with you. My manx forum life is just about to get so much better as I've just spotted the ignore poster feature. Declan - meet kill file... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 My manx forum life is just about to get so much better as I've just spotted the ignore poster feature. But does it work ...?? (PLEASE let me know!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josie Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 Thought I heard someone say something? Must be my imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tree Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 heh. "sorry officer I didnt realise my police camera/radar detector wasnt switched on" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 It is not people who disagree with me that I was calling scum. It was people who drive at excessive speed. Palindrome man claims that people came up with lots of arguements for the opposing the ban - the majority of which were shown to be wrong. In fact they only one we couldn't dispose of was that the speeder's personal freedom was being infringed upon. I can't argue with that, it would have been, but we all give up small personal freedoms for the common good everyday, basically that is what the law is. What really offends him is that I disagree with him, and that the anti-speeding side are unable to counter the simple fact that speeding costs lives, so he is going to stick his fingers in his ears so that he can't hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sock Puppet Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 It is not people who disagree with me that I was calling scum. It was people who drive at excessive speed. Palindrome man claims that people came up with lots of arguements for the opposing the ban - the majority of which were shown to be wrong. In fact they only one we couldn't dispose of was that the speeder's personal freedom was being infringed upon. I can't argue with that, it would have been, but we all give up small personal freedoms for the common good everyday, basically that is what the law is. What really offends him is that I disagree with him, and that the anti-speeding side are unable to counter the simple fact that speeding costs lives, so he is going to stick his fingers in his ears so that he can't hear it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Palindrome man claims that people came up with lots of arguements for the opposing the ban - the majority of which were shown to be wrong. If the Government crack down on enforcing the current speed limits and road regulations like they say they will, then they should be able to point to a drop in deaths and injury. That will most likely give them the platform and the evidence to push for the all Island limit. Think of this more as an interim step and see if it actually makes any difference. After all, as has been said many times before, if they can't be bothered enforcing the speed limits we already have, why introduce more? I'm still pro-limit, but you'll never get the majority to accept it without proving that it has a use first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.