Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2023 4:27:22 GMT
Canal shoe repairs. This is not about 'good driver training' we should all have had that but about drivers breaking the law. It does not matter whether you can see a camera or not, drivers know the speed limit on the road they are driving on and should obey the law, it really is that simple. Are you really saying that 'a law is only a law if you are caught breaking it'? Ridiculous. Drivers who drive within the speed limit very, very rarely get fined and if the do they can appeal it. You’re wrong. The whole 20mph imposition is positioned on the pretext that it’s about saving lives. Now you’re saying it’s all about obeying the law. I don’t think any competent driver objects to driving safely and abiding to sensible traffic regulations. What they possibly object to is being preached at about what’s best, when the preacher just keep reiterating speed kills without any context or real life proof that their stance has any validity… Why are people so ignorant of common sense? Getting hit by a car doing 20mph causes less damage than getting hit by a car doing 30mph, that is simple physics. In the good old days when we got the cane in school we would rather get it from Miss Jackson than Mr Peters, simple reason force applied. I have responded to others who were criticising speed cameras, not flip flopping as you seem to suggest, you do need to read the preceding texts if you are commenting on posts I have responded to. It is not up to the general population to decide what is sensible when it comes to the law. Take speeding for example, people get annoyed at night with a 30mph speed limit when no other cars are about but don't consider that darkness and pedestrians are all hazards. Nobody should have to 'prove' that the faster you go in a one ton plus car causes more damage in an 'accident', nobody. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Oct 3, 2023 9:41:56 GMT
There are times when breaking the speed limit has helped me avoid accidents, by getting out of the way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2023 10:59:09 GMT
There are times when breaking the speed limit has helped me avoid accidents, by getting out of the way. Is that an excuse? I am sure a good number of us have been in that situation, and that is allowed in law. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 3, 2023 12:11:09 GMT
You’re wrong. The whole 20mph imposition is positioned on the pretext that it’s about saving lives. Now you’re saying it’s all about obeying the law. I don’t think any competent driver objects to driving safely and abiding to sensible traffic regulations. What they possibly object to is being preached at about what’s best, when the preacher just keep reiterating speed kills without any context or real life proof that their stance has any validity… Why are people so ignorant of common sense? Getting hit by a car doing 20mph causes less damage than getting hit by a car doing 30mph, that is simple physics. In the good old days when we got the cane in school we would rather get it from Miss Jackson than Mr Peters, simple reason force applied. I have responded to others who were criticising speed cameras, not flip flopping as you seem to suggest, you do need to read the preceding texts if you are commenting on posts I have responded to. It is not up to the general population to decide what is sensible when it comes to the law. Take speeding for example, people get annoyed at night with a 30mph speed limit when no other cars are about but don't consider that darkness and pedestrians are all hazards. Nobody should have to 'prove' that the faster you go in a one ton plus car causes more damage in an 'accident', nobody. Very interesting and to me surprising statistic communicated to me when I had been naughty...... A car is travelling at 30mph in a 30mph area when a child runs out. He brakes and stops at the exact point when he brushes the child as he comes to a halt. Say the circumstances are exactly the same with the same distance between car and child. The only difference is you are now travelling at 40mph. Obviously stopping distances are longer the faster you are going so you are going to hit the child but at what speed? I guessed between 10-15mph. The answer is 28mph. You have probably killed the child and in all likelihood will go to jail for causing death by dangerous driving and perhaps worse will have to live with the incident for the rest of your life. Knowing that slowed my driving down in built up areas...... |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 3, 2023 12:46:22 GMT
Is the argument for a 20mph speed limit ( in hitherto 30mph limits) purely based on the damage differential?
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 3, 2023 13:18:10 GMT
You’re wrong. The whole 20mph imposition is positioned on the pretext that it’s about saving lives.
Now you’re saying it’s all about obeying the law.
I don’t think any competent driver objects to driving safely and abiding to sensible traffic regulations. What they possibly object to is being preached at about what’s best, when the preacher just keep reiterating speed kills without any context or real life proof that their stance has any validity…
Getting hit by a car doing 20mph causes less damage than getting hit by a car doing 30mph, that is simple physics.
In the good old days when we got the cane in school we would rather get it from Miss Jackson than Mr Peters, simple reason force applied.
I have responded to others who were criticising speed cameras, not flip flopping as you seem to suggest, you do need to read the preceding texts if you are commenting on posts I have responded to.
It is not up to the general population to decide what is sensible when it comes to the law. Take speeding for example, people get annoyed at night with a 30mph speed limit when no other cars are about but don't consider that darkness and pedestrians are all hazards.
Nobody should have to 'prove' that the faster you go in a one ton plus car causes more damage in an 'accident', nobody.
However, a DfT-commissioned study from 2018 found there was no evidence of a significant drop in the number of crashes and casualties after the introduction of 20mph limits.
And arguments around improved air quality were quashed by Frank Kelly, a professor at Imperial College London and director of the Environmental Research Group at King’s College London, who told Autocar: “With many urban roads already experiencing congestion during rush hours, speed is often already at 20mph or less, so I expect to see little further benefit to air quality in our towns and cities as a consequence of this new rule.”
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 3, 2023 14:05:34 GMT
Patman, the benefits of a 20mph speed appear to be contested. This report concludes that worthwhile num bers of lives and serious injuries avoidance are saved. blogs.napier.ac.uk/tri/technical-papers/Your second report suggests that air quality improvements may not always be achieved because congestion may have already reduced the achieved speed below 20mph anyway. The corollary of that means that if speed achieved is only 15mph, there is no downside in reducing speed limit from 30mph to 20mph. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 3, 2023 14:34:57 GMT
Patman, the benefits of a 20mph speed appear to be contested. This report concludes that worthwhile num bers of lives and serious injuries avoidance are saved. blogs.napier.ac.uk/tri/technical-papers/Your second report suggests that air quality improvements may not always be achieved because congestion may have already reduced the achieved speed below 20mph anyway. The corollary of that means that if speed achieved is only 15mph, there is no downside in reducing speed limit from 30mph to 20mph. I would infer from all the different data and opinions posted that very few, if any, perceived improvements from the condition or state at the time of imposition of new rules and regulations are likely to have been caused by these new rules or regulations.
But new rules and regulations do give the dinosaurs and obsessives something to squabble over until diminished by a different or (rarely) new cause becomes the important trend.
For the record, it's my view that even 20mph is too fast on some roads and in some conditions, as is the allowable 30mph, 40mph, 50mph, etc. Hence, my view that proper training to drive (and not just read a book and pass the test) is important.
Also, while there may not be "a war on drivers", there is a growing swell of opinion (across various factions) that anything car related should be suppressed and that car owning and driving should be made as inconvenient and expensive as possible...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 3, 2023 16:51:45 GMT
With 33 million cars on British roads already is that such an outlandish proposal?
|
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Oct 3, 2023 20:01:38 GMT
Pushing fossil fuel VAT up to £5, £6, £7, or more, a litre would cut car use. Then businesses would be able to claim it back and thus not harm commerce. This could be effective for several years until EV numbers increase...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2023 20:16:54 GMT
Pushing fossil fuel VAT up to £5, £6, £7, or more, a litre would cut car use. Then businesses would be able to claim it back and thus not harm commerce. This could be effective for several years until EV numbers increase... Yes it would, but I think that it might be a tad inflationary to add 300% to a litre of fuel, so best not to, I say. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 4, 2023 9:54:12 GMT
Pushing fossil fuel VAT up to £5, £6, £7, or more, a litre would cut car use. Then businesses would be able to claim it back and thus not harm commerce. This could be effective for several years until EV numbers increase... I was thinking more of a traffic management scheme like Singapore's where you can't just swan into a dealership and drive out in the vehicle of your choice for next to nothing down. You have to bid against all other potential car owners for a Certificate of Entitlement which entitles you to acquire a car for a period of ten years, after which it must be scrapped or exported.
Only a limited number of CoEs are sold each year, which allows the government to maintain a fixed limit on the number of vehicles on the roads. Or even to reduce it if it chooses to.
Singapore, like Great Britain, is an overpopulated island nation which has a fixed upper limit on the number of motor vehicles it can accommodate.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Oct 6, 2023 9:21:06 GMT
Pushing fossil fuel VAT up to £5, £6, £7, or more, a litre would cut car use. Then businesses would be able to claim it back and thus not harm commerce. This could be effective for several years until EV numbers increase... I was thinking more of a traffic management scheme like Singapore's where you can't just swan into a dealership and drive out in the vehicle of your choice for next to nothing down. You have to bid against all other potential car owners for a Certificate of Entitlement which entitles you to acquire a car for a period of ten years, after which it must be scrapped or exported.
Only a limited number of CoEs are sold each year, which allows the government to maintain a fixed limit on the number of vehicles on the roads. Or even to reduce it if it chooses to.
Singapore, like Great Britain, is an overpopulated island nation which has a fixed upper limit on the number of motor vehicles it can accommodate.
Oh well there’s an easy way to solve THAT Be nasty to those using rubber boats. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 6, 2023 10:02:02 GMT
Since the ratio appears to be one car per every second person we should expect the 30,000 or so channel migrants to account in due course for an annual increase of around 15,000 motor vehicles. That would require approx 75 km of new road each year.
However scale that up to the current and likely ongoing increase in net legal migration and, by the same formula, the UK would need an extra 1,500 km of roads just to maintain the status quo each and every year.
The effect of population growth on resources of every sort is barely appreciated by the general public. The PTB are no doubt well aware but they're keeping schtum.
|
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Oct 9, 2023 9:47:36 GMT
Pushing fossil fuel VAT up to £5, £6, £7, or more, a litre would cut car use. Then businesses would be able to claim it back and thus not harm commerce. This could be effective for several years until EV numbers increase... I was thinking more of a traffic management scheme like Singapore's where you can't just swan into a dealership and drive out in the vehicle of your choice for next to nothing down. You have to bid against all other potential car owners for a Certificate of Entitlement which entitles you to acquire a car for a period of ten years, after which it must be scrapped or exported.
Only a limited number of CoEs are sold each year, which allows the government to maintain a fixed limit on the number of vehicles on the roads. Or even to reduce it if it chooses to.
Singapore, like Great Britain, is an overpopulated island nation which has a fixed upper limit on the number of motor vehicles it can accommodate.
Only the rich end up driving cars because those certificates reach upto $100,000. Mind you, same with Ulez I suppose. Get the hoi polloi off the road or those who cannot afford it and let those who can swan around the roads at their own leisure. |
|
