Slim Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Some people who die on the roads kill only themselves no one else involved, if you choose drive on the roads you run the risk of meeting someone comitting an offence who endangers you Superb. Lets use that approach with gun laws. So based on what you're saying, everyone should be allowed to carry and use guns. It's therefore up to the individual if he wants to take the risk of going outside to get shot? Why should road users lives be put at risk because some people want the freedom to go 90mph on roads that clearly cannot take that speed. Roads are a utility, a facilitator of transportation, not a leasure activity. If you want to race, go to a track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Some people who die on the roads kill only themselves no one else involved, if you choose drive on the roads you run the risk of meeting someone comitting an offence who endangers you, and of course drugs are against the law, but people who feel the need, continue to take them. If you have to put up with "health and safety" much at work you will know what a pain in the arse it can be, nanny state gone too far already. There are always going to be risks in life, having no speed limit is part of what makes us as an island unique, part of our heritage you might say. If you dont like it go live in Jersy So we all have to put up and shut up because there are people who want to drive around as if they are Michael Schumacher? Will you all have the same opinion when your child/mother/father etc has been killed by some idiot who drives too fast and has a complete lack of respect for the law and others' safety on the roads. We'll all stay indoors shall we in case we run into someone like this?! That'll solve the problem. Health and safety measures are put in place for that reason............for your health and safety! You may think it's a pain in the arse until you're harmed by someone ignoring these measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uni Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Slim did you ever go over 70mph in your mx5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave the Cardboard Box Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 As for reducing the drink driving level – another ill researched piece of knee-jerk reaction. Research has shown that with four or five pints of Okells, you drive much better, the risks you take have more élan and style. The problem is lager. Just the very fact of drinking the stuff is an indication of reduced brain function. With four or five pints of that, cognitive driving becomes near impossible. So the solution is to ban lager. And insurance. You drive much more carefully when your car is not insured. Honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Uni: sure I did. Doesn't that make me more able to offer an informed opinion on the subject? I did try to adhere to speed limits though, "cluck, cluck, cluck, bak-ark" eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddy Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I've got real beef with insurance dodgers. Nearly every bloody week I read about a South African in the paper pretending they didn't think they needed it because they don't at home. I'm glad to see they are "saying" they will be making more of an effort to stop this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Some people who die on the roads kill only themselves no one else involved, if you choose drive on the roads you run the risk of meeting someone comitting an offence who endangers you Superb. Lets use that approach with gun laws. So based on what you're saying, everyone should be allowed to carry and use guns. It's therefore up to the individual if he wants to take the risk of going outside to get shot? Why should road users lives be put at risk because some people want the freedom to go 90mph on roads that clearly cannot take that speed. Roads are a utility, a facilitator of transportation, not a leasure activity. If you want to race, go to a track. Think you missunderstood me there slim, there are laws in place at the moment yet people choose to ignore them, guns are tightly controled by the law but people do still get shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I didn't misunderstand you at all. Do you think if guns were legal the number of shootings would stay the same? Do you think if drugs were legal the amount of people taking them would stay the same? I dont! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I certainly don't advocate everyone driving around at breakneck speeds and do not consider myself to be any kind of michael schumacher. I agree there are plenty of idiots out there that need to be cracked down on but my point being that I don’t believe a limit will have any positive effect on the problem drivers who are the very reason things like this even have to be considered. I've already pointed out why I think this speed limit could realistically have a very dangerous side effect and if someone can explain exactly why this will not happen then please come forward and do so. I’m not interested in responses like’just because’ etc, but I quite accept that I could be wrong and thus would welcome sensible, mature & constructive comments to point out errors in my rationale. Consider the following (quite likely to happen) situation: Suppose the 50mph limit currently in place is extended to going all the way between Douglas & Ballasalla. Now at present there are countless people who show no regard for this speed limit and drive probably at more than double that in places like Santon for instance where it’s open and they think that they can easily get away with it. At the moment, they can and largely do so, mainly because that 50 limit is not really enforced apart from the occasional police car parked somewhere along there in an effort to show a ‘deterrent’. Now suppose they stick up speed cameras along there meaning that going over 50mph equates to a ticket. Period. Barry* in his escort who really wants to go fast no matter what will choose to go one of the other routes down south i.e. Old Castletown road, through St Marks, or through Foxdale & down the Ballamodha. Compared to the main Douglas to Ballasalla road, all of the alternatives are FAR more unsafe for going at silly fast speeds due to the reasons I’ve previously mentioned about the state of the roads and what you cannot see lying ahead round blind bends etc. Now bear in mind that Barry IS going to go drive dangerously (and there are plenty of them about) he will now end up doing so on a road where an accident is just waiting to happen a lot sooner. I’d rather Barry wasn’t on the road at all as he’ll be a risk to everyone else wherever he drives, but that’s not realistic sadly. So whilst he is, I would much rather be able to see him coming a mile off on the main road than have to be extra paranoid that every time I go via a countryside route I might get a rusty mk3 escort through my windscreen round the next bend! Wouldn’t you? I’d see this as a very unwelcome thing and consider it to be a much more dangerous situation than we have at present. The ONLY reason that this might not happen as far as I can see would be if there were patrol cars & speed cameras situated on all our roads rather than just the main ones. That’s never going to happen on account of manpower & cost so it seems logical that this kind of scenario will only become much more commonplace. Anyone feel free to disagree with me by all means but please try and explain why this is not a likely scenario because I cannot see any reason why this thing won’t become far more common if the Barries are forced to choose between instant fines/points or backroads where there are none/less, especially being that there are already a large umber of near misses going on all the time on these back roads. I’m merely trying to play Devil’s advocate even if it is inevitable that limits are coming, I haven’t actually seen any realistic arguments about how speed limits are going to improve things when we already know that the dangerous people who cause the accidents are fully likely to ignore them anway. If this is the case then how are they going to help? Discuss. *Barry is a fictional character based on the sort of inconsiderate, dangerous drivers that commonly cause accidents. No offense to any careful drivers called Barry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 So we all have to put up and shut up because there are people who want to drive around as if they are Michael Schumacher? Will you all have the same opinion when your child/mother/father etc has been killed by some idiot who drives too fast and has a complete lack of respect for the law and others' safety on the roads. We'll all stay indoors shall we in case we run into someone like this?! That'll solve the problem. Health and safety measures are put in place for that reason............for your health and safety! You may think it's a pain in the arse until you're harmed by someone ignoring these measures. thats just the point people who dont respect the law are not going to obey an new speed limit when they already disregard existing ones. as for "health and safety" this it taken from the government web site The fundamental purpose of a scaffold is to allow work at height to be done in safety. Every scaffold that is available for use needs to be able to prevent users falling. Guardrails, toe boards and similar barriers should be provided whenever someone could fall 2 metres or more. These should be strong and rigid enough to prevent people falling to the ground. The main guardrail must be a least 910mm above platform height. Additional guardrails may be needed required where there is a risk that persons might fall between the main guardrail and the toe board or where persons might fall over the main guardrail (such as a roofer falling from the eaves). Ensuring that the gap between any gap between any guardrail and toe board is less than 470mm will significantly reduce the risks of persons falling through the edge protection. Guardrails and toe boards are also required at stop ends. Tynwald hill is just a tad over 3m high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Tynwald hill is just a tad over 3m high. Wot?????!!!!! From road safety mesaures to the height of Tynwald Hill! For goodness sake! And I've just been slammed for saying something earlier that was apparently stupid and unconstructive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 By the way Minnie, when I referred to Michael Schumacher in my post that wasn't based on you metioning him as I've only just refreshed this & read that! Just in case you got the wrong idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 By the way Minnie, when I referred to Michael Schumacher in my post that wasn't based on you metioning him as I've only just refreshed this & read that! Just in case you got the wrong idea! Hey, it's obviously pick on poor Minnie day. I'm a big girl, I can take whatever you bullies throw at me................as Minnie runs off to cry in the corner! B****x to the lot of ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Pick on Minnie day? PICK ON MINNIE DAY ?????!!!!???????? xxxxxx! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I was being nice as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.