Jay Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I have spent a considerable time driving in both the U.K and abroad (europe) over the last 12 months, and believe me, those speed cameras slow everyone down! Whether they are real cameras or dummies, they sure do a good job in reminding people to lay off the throttle. As you said, whether the budget will allow for the wide spread use of such measures over here remains to be seen. If it proves to be as successfull on the IOM (If/when such measures are taken over here) remains to be seen, but surely, if one life was saved by the introduction of a properly enforced speed limit, wouldn't it be well worth it? It's interesting though dont you think, that there have been no alternatives suggested to the proposed speed limit, is there one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirdick Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Tear up all the roads and install a system of high speed vacuum tubes ala Futurama. Hmm perhaps not (although it would be cool). Dummy cameras could work in places, as long as they didn't rely on them too heavily and people didn't wise up to them being dummies. Perhaps use some kind of rotation scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 if one life was saved by the introduction of a properly enforced speed limit, wouldn't it be well worth it? It's interesting though dont you think, that there have been no alternatives suggested to the proposed speed limit, is there one? Again I agree that yes that would make it worthwhile, but as I say I'm fairly sure that the resources would only be available to enforce this in very limited areas and that in turn could quite conceivably lead to more accidents in other areas rather than less for the reasons I've explained, and no-one has yet been able to say here why that's not going to happen. Of course if it was enforced everywhere then there wouldn't be a problem as anyone driving recklessly would be caught no matter where they were but that's not a realistic possibility. Yes it is an interesting point, and no I don't have alternative suggestions although I think that trying to educate drivers more by some means would be a starter for ten. I'm in the fortunate position of not having to come up with better suggestions, and I don't envy those who have to come up with the ideas, I just don't think this is necessarily the right way to improve things merely because at first glance it would seem to offer a safety benefit. I really don't think things are that straightforward sadly. At least this is being discussed in a civilized manner now though! (And sorry if I appear to be very dogmatic about this issue!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I am not suggesting something as being the ideal solution, but it at least is a start in the right direction. {snip} It's interesting though dont you think, that there have been no alternatives suggested to the proposed speed limit, is there one? First bit... For the proposals to become law, they have to go through 3 readings in the House of Keys and be bounced off the heads of CoMin. When legislation is being introduced or altered the process offers plenty of oppotunity to make amendments to the original proposal. Despite the way some may read me, I am NOT opposed to speed cameras... I am opposed to the necessary waste of time and money (our taxes!!) involved in introducing new laws when the existing laws are more than capable of dealing with the sort of motorists (cars and bikes) that much of this thread is aimed towards. Nobody (unless I have missed it) has advocated being allowed to drive like an idiot. Physics tells us that a crash at 100mph into a brick wall will do more harm than the same incident at 20mph. As has been correctly pointed out on previously, 2 cars coming together head on, each doing 50mph will end up in quite a mess. So what limit? 10mph? Does anyone have a link to the *actual* figures regarding road deaths on the Island, or can recall any *facts* from reports? I'm wondering how many were single vehicles leaving the road and how many involved 2 or more cars, perhaps in head on situations. I have said that complacency, ignorance and darn right selfish attitudes are some of my suspected reasons as being the primary cause of accidents. The impact from speed, I would suggest, is the secondary factor in most accidents. The speed of the vehiles dictates the mess left behind, but with my limited intelligence, I would still say that there are other factors that are being ignored by most in this thread (on both sides of the arguement). You all realise that the speed cameras set to photograph cars doing 70 on a 60 road will still let cars pass doing 69mph in fog that permits 10 yard visibility? Speed is only one factor, Laws exist that can ban drivers for bad driving. Why is the current lack of "enforcement of the laws" being forgiven or at least ignored by so many who are otherwise displaying strong opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I'm fairly sure that the resources would only be available to enforce this in very limited areas and that in turn could quite conceivably lead to more accidents in other areas rather than less for the reasons I've explained, and no-one has yet been able to say here why that's not going to happen. So, it seems the only obstacle could be the cost of several dozen speed cameras, no idea how much it would come to but I still maintain that the result would be well worth it. Without such measures I'm incilined to agree with you that without blanket coverage it could possibly lead to accidents in other areas. I can't think of an alternative either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 At least this is being discussed in a civilized manner now though! (And sorry if I appear to be very dogmatic about this issue!) You're like a dog with a bone! Let it drop now eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Again I agree with you Jay but I don't think several dozen would quite cut it to be honest by a long way. This may only be a small island but when you add up the mileage of all the roads (sure someone must be able to conjure up a statistic for it) it amounts to a helluva distance and unless it's all covered (without huge gaps in between cameras where people can still go like loonies) then the areas not covered could get real nasty. Anyway, I think I've sort of got my point across now so people will be pleased to know I'll shutup now (for the time being) and leave everyone else to crack on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 At least this is being discussed in a civilized manner now though! (And sorry if I appear to be very dogmatic about this issue!) You're like a dog with a bone! Let it drop now eh? Just have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 You all realise that the speed cameras set to photograph cars doing 70 on a 60 road will still let cars pass doing 69mph in fog that permits 10 yard visibility? Why is the current lack of "enforcement of the laws" being forgiven or at least ignored by so many who are otherwise displaying strong opinions? I dont have an in depth knowledge into the workings of speed cameras, but I do know that they are effective, ie they serve to reduce excessive speeding, foggy or not. As for the 'lack' of law enforcement being ignored or forgiven, that maybe worthy of another topic, perhaps relating to a shortage of police officers. The single most important point as I see it is the reduction of deaths and serious accidents, in my opinion the introduction of speed cameras is one way to combat it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uni Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Why are people complaining about deaths in the TT,and using that as an excuse?, who gives a damn - the riders know the risks and choose to put there lives on the line. I wouldn't blame the DoT or anyone for some looney flying round at 170mph on two wheels that died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Its not the speed limits thats the problem its the amount of cars on the roads, the road system here on the Island can not cope. Why not double the insurance premiums that would help keep some of the idiots of the roads, Also have a congestion charge on cars in the Douglas area. In some parts of the US its illegal to travel as a single person in the car, car share. I would also like to see the age limit for driving raised to 18. The mountain road in the morning is worse than TT, every morning we have loads of idiots racing over the mountain just to get a parking space in Douglas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 Why are people complaining about deaths in the TT,and using that as an excuse?, who gives a damn - the riders know the risks and choose to put there lives on the line. Because nobody is talking about the races? Anyone else riding outside of a closed road circuit like an idiot is putting other people at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minnie Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 I don't particularly know much about cars and engines, and I'm probably gonna sound like a typical dumb woman here but maybe drivers under a certain age should be limited to the sort of car they can drive ie don't let an inexperienced 16 year old who's just passed their driving test drive around in a 2.0 litre all singing, all dancing, fuel injected, blah blah blah, Citroen Saxo that goes like xxxx off a shovel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 That's a misconception though. It's not just young kids in their high powered cars, it's the mid twenties executives a couple of years out of university with a bit of cash to spash on a fast motor, the middle aged divorcee out to recapture his youth and pull the ladies, the man who took early retirement and treated himself to a performance car with his pension lump sum bonus.... In short, it's everyone, and targetting one specific group of people only serves to increase the arrogance of the other groups as it's 'not their fault'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted July 7, 2004 Share Posted July 7, 2004 NO PERSON SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DRIVE A CAR UNTILL THEY HAVE PAST A TEST ON A BIKE. ITS THE SAME ANSWER EVERY TIME WE HAVE AN ACCIDENT BETWEEN CAR AND BIKE, THE CAR DRIVER ALWAYS SAYS I NEVER SEEN HIM. A BIKE RIDER WAS KILLED ON THE MOUNTAIN THIS TT, HE WAS NOT SPEEDING HE JUST HIT AN AMBULANCE THAT WAS GOING THE WRONG WAY. MY ROAD BIKE WILL DO 180+ STRAIGHT OUT OF THE CRATE, I CAN CONTROL THE BIKE AT THAT SPEED BUT I CANT CONTROL THE IDIOTS IN THE CARS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.