Declan Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 But the point is there should be speed limits and they should be enforced. Part of the problem is that there is a culture of anything goes on our roads - certainly that is one which has gone out through TV shows like Top Gear, and this misconception is the one conveyed to visitors. We need to challenge this perception, and make a stand. By introducing an all Island Limit and enforcing it - the perception will change. To say that there is no need for a speed limit because people won't obey it is daft. That arguement could be made about any law. If people didn't speed there would be no need for a speed limit. Simillarly, people still drink drive, but despite the greatly increased number of cars on the roads fewer do than did before and immediately after it was banned. So a speed limit won't be a pancea, it won't stop all excessive speeds or cure bad driving, but it will be a positive step towards a safer environment on our roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Sirdick: If there was no limit, he'd have been doing 80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Wrong side of the road and being hit head on At Kirk Michael at 7.30 in the morning while on the way to work. Ans you have deleted part of this post, please read those of Cret and Declan, what is the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uni Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 A quote from Unisol "Well I wasn't asked, was anyone else?" The point of the Road Safety Initiative Proposals is for people to express their opinions. From the introduction "This document sets out the Department’s aims, objectives and proposals for road safety, and seeks views on them by 31st August 2004. All comments should be submitted in writing to: Road Safety Initiative Committee, Department of Transport, Highways Division, Sea Terminal Building, Douglas, Isle of Man. IM1 2RF " If you hold strong views -write and write to your MHK if enough people express the same viewpoint some notice might be taken!! Fred Somewhere it said 85% to introduce it, I wasn't asked for or against was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 My apologies Unisol,a slight misunderstanding,I actually meant that by there actions,according to the published figures,85% of people were going less than 70 mph on the mountain road and hence,presumably would not be bothered by a 70 mph limit. Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uni Posted July 13, 2004 Share Posted July 13, 2004 S'ok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 According to IOM Online John Shimmin has admitted that important information was missing from the consultation document and the relevant details will soon be made available. Transport Minister John Shimmin confirmed extra information, including accident statistics, ages of casualties and locations of fatal crashes, will be released in response to public demands. No date is stated for the extra informaton, but with only a few days to the closing date for replies, I hope it is sooner rather than later. If it turns out that 80% of fatal crashes occur in existing restricted speed areas, it won't remove the arguement for a national speed limit, but I would suggest that it will put it into a better perspective. If you 'do the maths' with the existing quoted figures, the number of fatalities occuring is 0.95% of all 'reported and recorded' incidents. This new information will go some way to giving a much clearer picture of the breakdowns and really should have been included in the original report. On a side note, on Manx Radio last week, (I think it was) Roy Gough who read from a news clipping about a certain J. Shimmin trying to bring in a speed limit back in the 1990s. He lost by 1 vote. Anyone who thinks that as the Minister responsible, he will back out of now introducing the limit is in for a shock. It's a forgone conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 The "Further Statistics" can be found here (pdf document). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 Head on collission with both cars going at the (proposed) speed limit would mean a closing speed of 140mph....(good at maths aren't I) So if the majority of the fatalities involve head on collisions we really need a speed limit of about 10mph... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 Head on collission with both cars going at the (proposed) speed limit would mean a closing speed of 140mph....So if the majority of the fatalities involve head on collisions we really need a speed limit of about 10mph... My main gripe with the original document was that it gave top line figures, with no breakdown or method of comparing figures within the different tables. The "further Statistics" give indication of 6.5 fatal accidents per annum over the previous 10 years, but still way short of being an "informative" document. Any replies to the consultation are going to be either "in my opinion" (which will be thrown out as being unsubstantiated) or based on "grey figures". It is impossible to form a genuine impartial responce with the information supplied. Whatever the method of recording the incidents, this should have been the information supplied, not a half hearted, incomplete summary. Ex teacher? Must do better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tee Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 simple answer to speeding a nice cheerfull sign.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=^..^= Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 Any replies to the consultation are going to be either "in my opinion" (which will be thrown out as being unsubstantiated) or based on "grey figures". It is impossible to form a genuine impartial responce with the information supplied. Whatever the method of recording the incidents, this should have been the information supplied, not a half hearted, incomplete summary. I'd quite like to see figures for % roads with speed limits and % of miles travelled on roads with speed limits - without that they are meaningless figures which could be used by anyone to prove anything. As we all know all 14 of the deaths in 2000 happened in accidents where speed was not a contributing factor in the accident so it is irrelevant where they were and even with speed limits there would probably still have been 14 dead... Co-incidentaly I saw a program within the last year where they proved with the use of crash test dummies that two cars each travelling at 60 mph in a head on crash didn't actually produce the equivalent of a 120 mph crash. With advances in crumple zones etc the forces involved were still only the equivalent of a 60 mph crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 simple answer to speeding a nice cheerfull sign.... My favourites were the ones I was in Ireland last year that were in a sequence something like - "Slow" "Slow Down" "Slower" I was half expecting to see a "Slow down you fecker!" next Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 I wonder if they'll introduce this: Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tee Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.