Richmond Hill Mayhem And Slaughter

[Frances]

I'm sure that explanation would give much comfort to their parents

[feelslikeitshould]

When are you muppets going to learn ! Speed does NOT kill ,SHIT driving kills !

 

I'd say it was, lack on concentration and general muppetness causes accidents and speed kills. I really don't see how you can argue that speed doesn't kill. There was an interesting article on the tv about speed limits outside schools and the forces exerted on a child when hit by a car at 30mph compared with 40mph. I can't remember what it was called or even when it was on, 2007 sometime....But it was very informative and definitely makes you think as it demonstrated quite effectively how the extra 10mph can almost certainly kill a child.

[Albert Tatlock]

There was an interesting article on the tv about speed limits outside schools and the forces exerted on a child when hit by a car at 30mph compared with 40mph. I can't remember what it was called or even when it was on, 2007 sometime....But it was very informative and definitely makes you think as it demonstrated quite effectively how the extra 10mph can almost certainly kill a child.

That's why there are speed limits by schools, which no one on here would disagree with ...and why kids don't play on main roads. Not many people get killed in accidents between stationary cars, so of course any speed over 30mph (sometimes far less) kills by definition - what is meant is that speed is not the major contributory factor in accidents, it's bad overtaking etc. etc. etc.

[Frances]

the impact energy goes as the square of the speed - thus the 10mph extra 30-40 mph = 33% increase in speed = approx 2x 1/3 more energy (16:9) - hence majority of children survive (albeit injured) a 30mph impact - very few survive 40mph - in France there is a compulsory 30km/h outside of schools usually with a ferocious speed bump to ensure the point. - the impact energy at 20mph is less than half that at 30mph.

[oldmanxfella]

Why is it, that people who oppose the speed limit and cite an inability to have it enforced are very often the exact same people who are vocal about their opposition to the introduction of speed cameras.

 

And if the speed limit wont actually make any difference as some claim, then let's just introduce it already.

 

That's a good point. Its accepted that in the UK more often than not speed camera's are more about raising revenue than they are about policing speed and on a small Island like this I'd much rather see good pro active policing than cameras - purely because they'd only stick a few cameras up in obvious places and people would slow down for them for 10 seconds and continue to drive like total twats 100 yards further down the road. They really would serve little purpose here at all - they would end up a token gesture that looks like something is being done so they are a political solution not a practical solution to the problem.

 

Its the same with the all island limit. If you have no police cars patrolling the roads its a waste of time because people will just drive over the limit as the odds of being caught are still so low. So again whilst politically someone can stand up and say they've done something by bringing the limit in its not actually going to reduce the death or accident toll.

 

Consider this:

 

Would a speed camera have stopped the death of a lad on a country track at 2:00 am in the morning?

 

Would an all Island limit have stopped someone in a quick motor overtaking on a straight road at 80 mph if there was no chance of being caught?

 

I actually doubt that in either situation a camera or a speed limit would have any effect on the outcome because neither do anything to stop bad driving.

 

I for one don't want to be treated like some imbecile who has to be restricted by law just because some people can't drive in a responsible way. The real, and only, solution is to get police cars out on the roads otherwise any other measure is purely a political solution to a problem that will not go away.

[wideload]

1) All drivers must retake test every five years ( which must include an element of driving at speed)

 

2) All drivers must display r plates and follow the 50mph speed limit , unless they have proven they are good drivers by doing the IAM course and getting an advanced driving licence (again taken every five years)

 

3) Stop fucking around with 2-3 year bans for pissed drivers and drivers who have been proven to be a danger, you caught drink/reckless driving 20 YEAR BAN, there is no excuse.

 

4) Drivers over the age of 60 must take a driving/reaction time/vision test every year

 

5) Any R plate driver caught breaking the 50 mph limit gets a ten year ban.

 

6) Any driver of a vehicle over 2 tones ( I’m looking at soft roaders and vans here) must have an advanced driving licence.

 

7) Breaking any posted speed limit, (with a 5mph margin for speedo error) 1 year ban for every 2 mph over limit.

 

8) Mobile Phone usage while driving = 5 year ban

 

9) Causing death by dangerous driving = lifetime ban

 

10) Using an un-roadworthy vehicle = 1-10 ban depending on condition

 

 

Stop this pussyfooting around fines and national speed limits, bad driving is the cause of most accidents and as such the government should bring in some serious measures to improve the quality of driving on the road.

 

I know you will always get fuckwits but hopefully some of the above suggestions should filter them out or at least make them think twice.

[keyboarder]

6) Any driver of a vehicle over 2 tones ( I’m looking at soft roaders and vans here) must have an advanced driving licence.

 

 

What, like the ice cream man?

[keyboarder]

When are you muppets going to learn ! Speed does NOT kill ,SHIT driving kills !

 

That reads like a line from an Airplane movie. It's akin to saying men don't penetrate women, penises do.

[Albert Tatlock]

6) Any driver of a vehicle over 2 tones ( I’m looking at soft roaders and vans here) must have an advanced driving licence.

 

 

What, like the ice cream man?

[grant]

Just a suggestion; perhaps all those who are opposed to a speed limit should prove their worth by taking this course -

 

 

I believe it costs £85 nowadays.

 

Mine cost me £24.00. Lonan, this thought has just crossed my mind. Iv'e never, ever seen one of those badges on the grill of a taxi!

[Hermes]

Hi

 

I work for the emergency services and I would like to know when anyone in government is going to do anything about the horrific death and accident rate associated with Richmond Hill? I heard someone wanted to straighten it out, but isn't this going to add to the speeding-related carnage?

 

-- Edited by Mod - first think, then post ---

 

H

 

Well, Mod.... I thought before I posted, and I have no qualms about standing by my assertion. I suspect you have less insight than me into the issues and suggest that you stay away from the argument until you have any understanding of definitive evidence in the matter. Richmond Hill is a major accident blackspot and in need of a political intervention to deal with the issue. Put up or shut up.

[Tempus Fugit]

I think the answer to Richmond Hill is to re-work the corner, as that seems to be where most of the trouble starts.

Now they have demolished the house widen the bend, add camber and move the end of the 'outside lane' back to just above the horses home, and on the downhill lane open the radius but with a separation zone and add camber, add a run-off gravel trap on the outside to stop the ricochet off the wall, add texture to the road surface to make it more grippy but also make it noisy to drive on so vehicles would slow down, (and if that lot doesn't work to calm things down add a chicane using the grass patch just above Richmond House).

 

A bit of lighting would help too, and has been said before, get rid of the blinding sign at the bottom, no longer serves any purpose if it's too bright to read and distracts attention.

[Cambon]

1) All drivers must retake test every five years ( which must include an element of driving at speed)

 

2) All drivers must display r plates and follow the 50mph speed limit , unless they have proven they are good drivers by doing the IAM course and getting an advanced driving licence (again taken every five years)

 

3) Stop fucking around with 2-3 year bans for pissed drivers and drivers who have been proven to be a danger, you caught drink/reckless driving 20 YEAR BAN, there is no excuse.

 

4) Drivers over the age of 60 must take a driving/reaction time/vision test every year

 

5) Any R plate driver caught breaking the 50 mph limit gets a ten year ban.

 

6) Any driver of a vehicle over 2 tones ( I’m looking at soft roaders and vans here) must have an advanced driving licence.

 

7) Breaking any posted speed limit, (with a 5mph margin for speedo error) 1 year ban for every 2 mph over limit.

 

8) Mobile Phone usage while driving = 5 year ban

 

9) Causing death by dangerous driving = lifetime ban

 

10) Using an un-roadworthy vehicle = 1-10 ban depending on condition

 

 

Stop this pussyfooting around fines and national speed limits, bad driving is the cause of most accidents and as such the government should bring in some serious measures to improve the quality of driving on the road.

 

I know you will always get fuckwits but hopefully some of the above suggestions should filter them out or at least make them think twice.

 

YAY! WIDE LOAD FOR PRESIDENT!!!

 

1, Why a retake every 5 years? When 95% of people are not the problem why penilise them? Mandatory rekae after a ban I agree with.

 

2, Why? IAM does not really teach you to drive at speed and does not teach you how to control skids.

 

3, If you look at the accident statistics from the 11 year study undertaken by the IOM government, pissed drivers are not the problem. More serious collisions and fatalities were caused by sober people hitting parked cars and people driving with animals lose in the car.

 

4, How many over 60s are the cause of serious collisions? Very few. Read the statistics.

 

5, A 10 year ban for breaking the speed limit? That is stupid. A test retake would be better

 

6, No, not an advanced test, which can be taken in a Fiat Panda, but a licence taken in an appropriate vehicle, as with an HGV test.

 

7, Again, no. Retake the driving test.

 

8, mobile phone useage in cars should be banned altoghether and jammers installed in all cars so a phone does not work while the engine in running.

 

9, Cause death by dangerous driving should carry a jail sentence and a driving test retake.

 

10, This one I am almost in favour of except that a car can have a serious fault and the person not know about it. For example, how often do YOU check the condition of the brake hoses, pads and cylinders? Probably never. It is done as part of a service. Banning someone for something they do not know is ridiculous. However, having routine and regular road side checks and confiscating serously unroadworthy vehicles is the way forward.

[Chinahand]

Erm - I realize this is a sensitive issue - and I can't find one of the recent Richmond Hill topics - so I remind everyone to think before they post.

 

But this is a matter of public record and has been of significant interest: so click here for more.

 

Contradictory evidence at hearing

 

A court in Douglas heard some dramatically contradictory evidence when member of the Legislative Council Eddie Lowey took the stand, at his trial this afternoon.

 

Mr Lowey said he allowed about three feet on his near side when he overtook a parked Vauxhall Corsa, in the Douglas bound carriageway.

 

He also said he first became aware that his car had hit a man - Chris Walmsley, who was standing alongside the parked vehicle - when he heard a 'thud'. He immediately performed an emergency stop.

 

However, evidence from experts for both the prosecution and defence showed that Mr Lowey's car clipped the rear of the parked vehicle before it hit

Mr Walmsley.

 

Linda Watts, prosecuting, put it to Mr Lowey that he misjudged his overtaking manoeuvre, and couldn't have allowed three feet clearance between his car and the Corsa.

[John Wright]

I have to say that I do not underrsatnd why it is not compulsory to have warning triangles and to put them out and to make car occupiers who are out of their car and in the road because of a breakdown wear high visibility vests

 

As for the 11 points aqbove and analysis

 

First giving long sentences only encourages people to chat and drive disqualified and no insurance. Its education and not punishmenst that will sort the mess out.

 

Second, whilst I agree that anyone disqualified must take their test befiore getting a new licence I think we have to examine some of the assertions.

 

As ever with statistics you can prove anything. The test has to be against miles covered. If that test is applied to age groups and population groups, including older drivers and drink drivers.

 

1. Why not a driving awareness training day every ten yeras, if you are OK, carry on, f not you are refferred for a further training and re test

 

2. I am not convinced of the benefits of Police or IAMs tests, but I do believe that strictly imposed and sensible mandatory speed limits, properly enforced will have an effect on cvasulaty rtaes arising out of accidents

 

3. The banning periods are long enough all ready, it is the lack of proper training and ongoing training that is the problem. It may be that we should have residential as well as practical courses, especially for young riusk takers and drinkers

 

4 Despite driving ferwer miles at slower speeds it is afact that per mile the elderly are involved in more accidents (i specifically am not attaching blame) I think if we have refresher courses every io yeras it shouldthen be at 60, 65 and 70 with 72, 74 and 76 before going annual

 

5. R platers, no need for long bans. No car over 1000cc, no modifications, no passengers other than front seat, but as they should be most aware dtrivers I suggest it is appropraite they should lose licence for 6 months on 6 penalty points

 

6 Weight of vehicle. The present limit is 3.5 tonnes. It is an EU figure. I have no problem with a two tonne limit with need for extra test to add additional categories. I drive a 730kg Smart and a 4 tonne motor home. My licence covers me up to 7.5 tonnes

 

7 Speeding. !st offence written warning if not more cthan 10 above limit, 2nd offence speed awareness training day, 3rdand 4th offences penalty points, 4th offence second speed course 5th offence ban. If the speed ios more than 10mph above then heavier points/fine and longer course. If 30mph above ban as now

 

8 Mobile phone usage is difficult, certainly with no hands free it is a distarction and must be due care, but what about crisp packets, pop can, sat nav, watching a screen and not the road, manual tuning of the radio. We either allow in limited circumstances or not at all. This needs thought about what is alowed and what not.

 

9 causing daeth, inevitably alreday carries a long ban, if not prison.

 

10. Constructionand use, well it depends what it is.