=^..^= Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Is that the limit which was put in place after an elderly lady crossing the road was hit and killed by a car which was unable to stop in time? No. You need to check your 'facts'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Is that the limit which was put in place after an elderly lady crossing the road was hit and killed by a car which was unable to stop in time? No. You need to check your 'facts'. But it's a question, not a statement of fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 Rearrange the following... Research TeamJeremy James Clark Hammond Richard Mayson Damn it, rumbled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 So that's why the Mountain Road is the safest on the Island (albeit seemingly a lot safer since money's been spent and recommended speeds introduced)? In developed countries there've been speed limits and traffic controls in built up areas since god knows when and there's more cars, bikes and peds on the road than ever. Get over it. Me and my gun aren't a problem, it's just all the other mad fools who want to own/ can't fire it straight that are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 This thread does remind me of the late Sir Henry Segrave who set three land speed records and was the first person to hold both land and water speed records at the same time. He worked out logicaly that one of the most dangerous places on a road were crossroads. He therefore developed a technique of accelerating through any of them so that he spent the minimum time possible in the most dangerous place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Is that the limit which was put in place after an elderly lady crossing the road was hit and killed by a car which was unable to stop in time? No. You need to check your 'facts'. Well, it was a question in order to establish 'facts' If you don't mean the limit on the approach to Ballaugh from the south which begins shortly before the turning for the elderly person's complex - which was brought in following a tragic collision - which one do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 There's probably a lot to be said for driving at what YOU believe to be a safe and responsible speed, rather than one set at an arbitrarily low level to account for the worst case driver. I expect they're the reason Windy Corner has a 40mph advisory and Richmond Hill has cost us £3m. Driving at 30mph when you believe that 50 is perfectly safe tends to make you drive on autopilot, lulled into a torpor of easy distraction. I mean, driving through Crosby to Union Mills at midnight on a clear road at such a low speed is a nonsense perpetuated by gullible sheep and tree huggers who resent anybody daring to drive faster than walking pace and believe that the state knows best. The Oz study confirms what I've believed for a long, long time. Strewth Bruce! I was stopped by the police after driving at about 40mph past the St John's arboretum at 11.30 one night. When asked why I had done it I replied honestly, 'Probably because there is nobody else on the road.' They proceeded to test me for alcohol ( no trace) and I had to take my documents up to police headquarters next day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I was stopped by the police after driving at about 40mph past the St John's arboretum at 11.30 one night. When asked why I had done it I replied honestly, 'Probably because there is nobody else on the road.' They proceeded to test me for alcohol ( no trace) and I had to take my documents up to police headquarters next day. I had a similar experience - I was arrested by the police for theft after I picked up a can of soup in the co-op and walked out. When asked why I had done it I honestly replied: "Probably because no one was looking, there were loads of tins and I fancied soup'. I had to go to the police station and court, then pay a fine and costs. Turns out laws have to be obeyed, even if you can't see the harm in what you're doing! Apparently, if you believe a law or the imposition of a law is inappropriate, there is a mechanism for change which begins with your local parliamentary representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Or by influencing and informing public opinion on a forum like this, in the hope that eventually the legislators and enforcers of daft regulations are convinced that it's a time for new thinking, rather than just repeating a flawed mantra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Or by influencing and informing public opinion on a forum like this, in the hope that eventually the legislators and enforcers of daft regulations are convinced that it's a time for new thinking, rather than just repeating a flawed mantra. I think you mean attempting to influence public opinion with fictitious studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Now go ahead and flame me, you people endangering, environmentalist hippy cyclist anti-speed lycra fetishist slow drivers! OK! You fell for it, you nob: http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/motoring/4636745/Speed-scammers-stir-up-media-storm A bogus research company is fooling the media into believing it supports a bid to increase road speed limits throughout Australia. A group calling itself HighRoad Automotive Research — which uses anagrams of Top Gear presenters as authors for a research paper it has published online — suggests that encouraging speeding on our roads makes for better drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The Oz study confirms what I've believed for a long, long time. Roflcopter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IOMRS97 Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 the obviously silly 40mph on the approach to Ballaugh (anyone noticed yet?) Is that the limit which was put in place after an elderly lady crossing the road was hit and killed by a car which was unable to stop in time? No - further out from the village. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 the obviously silly 40mph on the approach to Ballaugh (anyone noticed yet?) Is that the limit which was put in place after an elderly lady crossing the road was hit and killed by a car which was unable to stop in time? No - further out from the village. Not the 40mph at Ballacobb then? She was 81 when she was hit and killed by a Kawasaki motorcycle, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The Oz study confirms what I've believed for a long, long time. Roflcopter. Fair cop Slim. I still believe the basic premise, though this report appears to be a spiffing spoof. I blame Amadeus for a lack of footnote scrutiny. Last time we trusted the Germans they were already heading for Poland... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.