Quite how a statistic is comparable to emotion I don't know. I also don't know what percentage of those deaths were caused by people doing 60mph rather than 50, I would presume not many.
Still, doesn't bother me, 99% of the roads I have to drive don't have cameras and are never patrolled by police so it hardly matters if you 30mph or 80mph.
Everyone breaks the national speed limit anyway, I'm sure most people think it means go as fast as you want.
It will most likely result in lots more people getting done and fined, I'm no conspiracy theorist but perhaps it has something to do with the recession, its an easy way to raise money after all.
One thing's for sure, it certainly wont achieve its aparrent aim of reducing the number of road deaths, people will still drive dangerously fast regardless of what number you slap on the round sign at the side of the road.
I'd like to see what proportion of those 3000 deaths were caused in areas where the speed limit was over 50mph, as opposed to in 30mph zones in residential areas, where most deaths occur and which won't be affected by a national 50mph limit.
Well done Mr.Brown eg the bloke who look's like a sad face drawn on someone's scrotum.
How about you sort our f*cked up economy out instead of reducing the speed limit by 10mph that will do s*it all as all the boy racer's will still break the speed limit regardless
Edit: reading this back I do belive I may have unleashed some hidden bitterness here about how crap Labour are!
Speed isnt the problem, its people who drive too fast for the conditions or more importantly, the road itself that is the problem.
Going fast on a deserted, completely straight motorway is no problem, but trying to do the same thing on a busy road during rush hour, plus retarded attempts at overtaking or finding cars going very slowly is what causes these deaths that people talk about.
There is the very occasional mechanical failure, such as a puncture or something that can cause accidents, but i dont honestly believe that speed can be blamed for accidents really, people slamming their brakes on when they suddenly notice a speed camera is far worse.
Speed is NOT the #1 killer on our roads. Most |-deaths-| are caused by either lack of attention, poor judgement or the like.
You know what would save lifes? Improving driver skills and hazard awareness. Frankly, the current driving test is a piece of piss. I'm assuming it's basically the same as the bike one.
Hazard perception blah blah - Practical is driving about on majoritively 30mph roads where few deaths occur.
People have no confidence in their driving and the ability of the car, so what I propose is something that I believe Finnish drivers have to do. Compulsory track and skid-pan training and testing. You should be able to control a drift (obviously not to the limit of what you'd see, for example, on Top Gear, just enough so you instinctively counter steer and apply slight throttle), take corners at speed, as from what I see, most accidents are where people give up midway. Had they not have applied the brakes, not bothered steering or etc, they would have made whatever corner.
Then again, the 70mph limit was set back in the 1950's/60's. In comparison to Europe, our miserly 70mph limit is much lower than the preferable 80mph limit, as modern cars can probably stop from 80mph faster than your Morris Minor could from 40.
Frankly, it wouldn't effect me. I'd still do 70mph down the A4 and 85mph motorways/dual carridgeways. I keep up with the majority of traffic, which I believe would flout this preposterous decision.
**** this country.
Average speed cameras? Are you having a ****ing joke? Really, I'll take my skills and my taxes to Australia or America, Germany, or Kenya.
No, wait - it's monumentally stupid - the roads 'round here are usually wide and clear (visibility wise) enough to do 70 safely
I say that compulsory retests are what we need - 99% of crashes are just from stupid people (i.e. the guy who nearly drove into me head on on a ONE WAY STREET)
EDIT - Again 'round here everythings quiet enough to do 60 or 70 on country roads without issue, but the principle is what annoys me - as pretty much EVERY day I see someone do something monumentally stupid
The banking collapse was more to do with the banks poor management of money and multi million dollar bonuses than the government. Plugging holes in the roads, however..
Then again, the average pothole repaired in England last year cost £67 (IIRC) and surely if funds were tight you could find Yurshi Kowalski to do the same job, to the same, if not better quality, for half the price, without stopping for a cup of tea every 10 minutes.
Yeah, but currently I hear all our banks are being nationalised, and are having millions of taxpayer's money shoved into them to keep them afloat. Surely speeding fines can be put to good use as well.
Mmmhm, but these banks often seem to forget that. They charge us £35 for going overdrawn by £0.02, yet forget that if it wasn't for our (the taxpayer's) money, they would be unlikely to have food on their table.
Speeding fines aren't the answer. Would you pay more attention IF you either had a £60 and 3 points, or paid the £60 and in turn had a 1 day driving training course and 0 points. None of these rubbish you have from the DSA, but a real fun, education and thought-provoking day's theory and practical training on things such as perception, how speed alters your braking/cornering and etc.
The point system should be abolished and driver training should be replaced. Speeding by a given percentage, say.. 60% would mean disqualification insantly, otherwise it'd be on a case by case basis.. would work better IMO.
2. This will increase journey times thus making businesses less efficient and less productive. I know businesses who are now on the edge of being bankrupt will be pushed over the edge by this
I know I'm alone here, but I'd be in favour of banning cars altogether. They're awful, noisy, dirty, smelly things, killing our planet and destroying all that is good. They should cut the national speed limit as much as they can, and charge drivers as much they can for driving their dumb smog machines. There is no justification or reason to own a car, and if you think you have one, you're deluding yourself. As I say, I know I'm making myself the worlds least favourite forum member here, but if cars were banned tomorrow, I know I'd sleep well at night. Yeah, I love motoracing, but in the long run I'd rather have a planet than a race track.
Originally Posted by Jim Fitzpatrick, the roads minister
There will be some in the driving lobby who think this is a further attack and a restriction on people’s freedom ... But when you compare that to the fact we are killing 3,000 people a year on our roads, it would be irresponsible not to do something about it.
I don't know who that is, but he's not very smart. I drive fast and crazy every single day, I haven't died, nor has anyone else.
It has nothing to do with the speed limits. It has to do with this
- Stupidity, is the main one.
- Eating, doesn't mix.
- Drinking a beverage, doesn't mix.
- Playing with your cellphone (If that's illegal already, is here)
- Fixing your hair.
- Playing with the radio.
- Road rage.
- Looking at a map.
- Cars that aren't maintained properly.
It has to do with attention, nothing with speed. Yes speed does also give you more room to react in a bad situation. But it wont prevent very many accidents.
Another thing is, you shouldn't take your eyes off the road in traffic. Actually, never take your eyes off the road at all. They don't outlaw any of the above things i've listed. Why not outlaw eating, radios and drinking in the car? Do you know why?
Because this man that said that, probably loves swinging by a fast food restaurant and grabbing a burger, or going to the donut shop and getting some morning coffee. Now the radio... Well who doesn't love them?
Another thing is why not put a IQ limit to get a drivers license?
Cars that aren't maintained properly, maybe if your tire is only a couple of pounds low on air pressure or the tires or brakes still have a couple hundred miles of life in them still. It doesn't matter, you should make sure the vehicle is maintained properly at all times.
Just wait, it wont fix a single thing. The speedlimits will go back up.
Edit:
Not only to top things off, 50mph to 60mph is probably a 1% more fatality rate. 50-80mph is probably 10 or 12% more fatality rate. Now that you'll have speeders crashing into slower cars you'll have a higher fatality rate. YAY!
Me: My justification to own a car is to get to work.
You: Just walk or ride a bike to work.
Me: I live too far to walk or ride a bike. Nor do I want to walk or ride a bike in -18 F temperatures in 24 inches of snow for 20 miles in the winter and walk or ride 20 miles in 105 F temperatures in the summer.
You: Move closer to work.
Me: Housing costs are far to great to move closer. Cost would be why I live where I live. If one can barely afford where they are now, how would you expect one to afford somewhere where the cost is twice or more as much.
You: Get a job closer to where you live.
Me: There is no where closer. Work is in town, whether that town is 20 miles south, 20 miles north, 20 miles east, or 20 miles west.
Any more DarkTimes? I'm having fun arguing with you
I swear this government is just looking for ways to piss us off. It doesn't matter how right-wing they move, they just can't let go of their inherent desire to find ways to impact our daily lives. It's all part of their need to make themselves feel important, active and involved.
I'm absolutely in favour of the move to reduce speed limits through rural villages from 30 to 20mph. That makes sense to me, and the statistics to support that trend, regarding road deaths, are well-established.
However, there is absolutely nothing, anywhere, in any study that's ever been done to suggest that a change from 60 to 50mph in national speed limit zones will deliver an even slightly measureable, let alone tangible, justification for this. And yet they've already DECIDED on the number.. before they even begin to spend public money to justify it.
In national speed limit zones, where junctions exist, there has already been a campaign of increasing road sign warnings, and in many places reducing the speed limit on approach to these places. This new "idea" is only about finding new ways to spend public money and introduce more repressive methods of circumventing due process by mechanising fixed penalty speeding fines.
It's sickening. Scew nu laba, scew the cons, I'm going with the only party with big enough bollox to tell Bush to screw himself and his Iraq war.
I think you are deluding yourself. You make absolutely no sense. There was a reason for the creation of cars in the beginning, therefore having a NEED for them (in certain cases). Trucks are necessary for the transport of goods, food, services, etc. And what about (almost) silent, non-scent, clean electric cars? You sir either don't own a car yet, or got too much of that "save-the-planet-ban-cars" kool-aid. People have cars because they need them, like mrodgers said above (I know, there are some exceptions, but generally).
Is this serious? It's ****ing ridiculous. Like many others in this thread have said, the solution is driver training. I'm an IAM advanced driver and a lot of the focus of the course is on safe but progressive rural driving. "Limit point" theory, safe overtaking and car balance form the basis of this, and if everybody was taught this, the number of idiots understeering their Puntos into trees would decrease dramatically.
Fer ****'s sake.
-
(Mackie The Staggie)
DELETED
by Mackie The Staggie : My bad
Safety Nazi's strike again. If you wrap people in cotton wool enough, they get complacent. I've noticed in the last few years, where i live, that people now take more stupid risks, ie pulling out into traffic without looking, pulling out of stationary lanes of traffic into the flow, running stop signs, running red lights, more than i ever remember when i was younger. I've dodged 4 people this year alone, and i've driven maybe 1000km since start of the year.
but hey they've lowered the speed limits, increased cameras and loads of other "safety initiatives"
None of which will matter when someone gets blindsided and killed. (side impacts are some of the worst for brain injuries, so even if you don't get killed, you might just end up a vegetable, but at least their fatality figures will be lower hmm)
This is ****ing rubbish. By the time i get a car the speed limit will be 40mph. This will not stop people speeding and crashing. This is getting beyond a joke now. They will be putting in Speed limiters in our cars soon so we cant speed.
Wow what a joke, if 60mph wasn't suitable for the road it shouldn't be that speed limit in the first place, but if it's a fast road why shouldn't you be able to do the speed?
I noticed yesterday on "National Speed Limit" roads that people were doing 40mph, yet the road was open and fast, overtook the slow gits and did 60mph, it was on a safe section of road, wheres the danger?
Just another ploy to "keep us in line" and grab more dosh for their pockets.
if people bothered to do a bit of research instead of relying upon The Times, you'd find that the speed limit will only be cut to 50 on rural, single carriageway roads
