DODGYDODDS Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Not sure if this a repost, did do a search, couldnt find anything, just wanted know what people opinions were on this nanny state issue, due to be voted on later in the year. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article5864847.ece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden1989 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 yes, im fed up with idiots speeding round corners and nearly hitting my horse people seem to think that just because the speed limit is 60mph it doesnt mean you have to go 60mph and that it is safe to do so sorry rant over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_d Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 i dont think horses should be on the road personally, there unpredictable my rant over!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden1989 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 i dont think horses should be on the road personally, there unpredictable my rant over!! i dont think idiots should be on the road personally, there unpredictable yes horses CAN be unpredictable, but unlike many idiots i see on there horses out riding, i actually know how to handle my horse/s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Massey Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 i think most speed limits should be raised. Just because the speed limit will get reduced to 50 doesnt mean it will make it safer because some people will speed.That is a fact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexM Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I think it's ridiculous, but then I also think that people should drive to the conditions (and the majority don't). Most of the main roads have been reduced to a 50mph limit around here already, so they might as well reduce the little country roads too.. it seems to be the intention of the Warwickshire County Council to make everything 50mph to 'improve road safety'. No matter how much they reduce the speed limit, there's always going to be one idiot around who will have an accident. Knocking 10mph off each time it happens doesn't magically make the idiots go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j80leo Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I think it is a good thing really, as i do not like the twisty bits much lol:p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanM Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Yep, more and more a nanny state. I have over a 120 miles to the nearest motorway, apart from that there is a big mix of roads here, sometimes very safe at high speed, sometimes only safe at 40. They should use breaking the speed limit less of an issue and enforce reckless/dangerous driving charges more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j80leo Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 They should use breaking the speed limit less of an issue and enforce reckless/dangerous driving charges more. Totally agree with that:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extendor Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Its a no brainer really. It will cost nothing to change over as signs in place already which have a meaning not depicted as a numeric sign. It will alwaye be argued that speed is dangerous and therefore justify more plod (and plastic plod) sat in a layby catching you speeding rather than catching scrotes doing your house over. It will force more and more drivers off the road due to points. It will easily be argued 'its for our own good' It lets the local councils off from maintaining the roads at a higher level. So in conclusion it will happen. edit; Oh by the way, Devon and Cornwall Constabulary are having a month long trap the driver campaign. Approx 100 police officers will be sat in unmarked police cars, around blind corners and on bridges to catch motorists. Now is a good time to come down to the West Country and do someones house over or steal their car. How about our boys in blue concentrated their efforts on the little scrotes who ruin other peoples lives and stop taking the easy target. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJI Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 We were discussing this in my office about two weeks ago. Personnaly I think its a stupid idea. Dropping the speeds on 'A' roads will have next to zero affect on road deaths. In my line of work I often use the national road traffic accident database (well, not allowed to call them accidents anymore...they have to be termed as 'collisions' because in our current time of claim culture, there are no accidents anymore as there is ALWAYS somebody to blame. But back to the point.... the accident database clearly shows that less than 5% of all injury accidents have speed as the cause factor. So a 10mph drop in speed limit is going to achieve foook all in terms of what they [the government] will claim it is for. In reality, what will happen is that more speed traps will be set up. More of this bolloxx 'traffic calming' will appear and the main thing that will happen is that driver will go into 'robot mode'. By this I mean that driving along at a mundane monotonous speed that after a while the driver lowers his/her concentration level and his/her thinking ahead. The majority of injury accidents are usually caused by drivers/passengers not wearing seat belts and then involved in 'minor' collisions, also drug/drunk drivers, elderly drivers, foreign drivers, then also drivers simply doing stupid turning maneouvres or stopping the vehicle in stupid places. And the other main one is extreme weather and road conditions. None of the above will be affected by a 10mph limit drop as excessive speed is not the cause factor. Every one of the above cases can still happen at 50mph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJI Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Just wanted to add that in our office discussion we decicded that the government, instead of wasting money on speed campaigns that are targetted at the So things like widening county roads so that vehicles are not having to come into such close proximity to each other, another is having a frequent program for renewing road markings so that they are clear at all times. Another is cutting down (or moving back) many hedge rows and other items that restrict visibility around corners. Finally they should also be making sure that road conditions is such that it is not full of pot holes and degraded road and also full of patch work re-surfacing done by service contractors that leave the road looking like a mess. The final point is also relevent because of the difference in grip levels between 'normal' road and patched up road. Water tends to sit on to of badly patched road and the vehicles are driving over varying levels of grip all the time. (I work for a road maintenence company by the way... I have tried a number of times to put my ideas forward, but the main concern of any company involved in routine maintenence is that its always about the money and profits etc. Here in the UK the government could easily say that we want roads like that is found in Germany. But no, as the road quality in the UK is allowed to be so crap we find that companies like the one I work for are allowed to put down minimum specification road surface......they do this because it guarentees future repair work. On average our roads in the UK are only HALF the depth quality of those found in Germany for example. And due to this it is nearly impossible to drive any where in the UK without stumbling across some road works) (rant over) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extendor Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The big problem is that no one trusts a bloody thing the government say or do. We all know everything they do is a bullsh1t ploy to put thier hand in our pocket one way or another. I feel sorry for plod in this instance but they are an easy target for our (my) frustration but there has to be a point at which people do say enough is enough. I consider myself to be a normal law abiding person. I see no need to speed and I rarely do but this smacks of another unnecessary intrusion into our lives and will just end up as another stealth tax. I really object to them thinking we are a bunch of spineless wimps. But then again we all are so we will just put up with it and acknowledge that our frustration is with ourselves. Whenever did anything that the people wanted ever happen? Get used to it people we are beaten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The big problem is that no one trusts a bloody thing the government say or do. We all know everything they do is a bullsh1t ploy to put thier hand in our pocket one way or another. "No one" and "we all know" would be overstating the case. Not everyone shares the same paranoia. I also absolutely can't understand this attitude to taxation as if it's some sort of robbery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extendor Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 "No one" and "we all know" would be overstating the case. Not everyone shares the same paranoia. I also absolutely can't understand this attitude to taxation as if it's some sort of robbery. I am all for fair taxation - but will never condone a stealth tax. You cannot argue that the 'profit' from the safety camera partnerships is not a stealth tax. It does not go back to road safety or road maintenance. It goes direct to the chancellor. Do you trust the government or what they say? Anyone who does is welcome to put their name here............................. Paranoia, just a bit fed up with losing the Great from Great Britain that's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I am all for fair taxation - but will never condone a stealth tax. You cannot argue that the 'profit' from the safety camera partnerships is not a stealth tax. It does not go back to road safety or road maintenance. It goes direct to the chancellor. I'm not bothered if the money goes back into the roads or not. Governments need to raise revenue from somewhere. It's either raised from income tax or from targeting particular activities. I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to selectively tax people who decide to break the law. Do you trust the government or what they say? Anyone who does is welcome to put their name here I will. Trust isn't an all or nothing thing, is it? Compared with virtually any other government in the world, yes, I think they are pretty trustworthy.* When you think of the media scandals over usually fairly petty stuff in the UK and compare it to, say, Bellasconi's antics. For all the media are largely jackasses, they do actually have some teeth in this country (compare the US!) and their constant digging for the merest whiff of scandal at least reduces corruption. * WMD dossier aside, though even there Seldon's biographies of Blair show pretty convincingly that he was convinced over the scale of the threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extendor Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 If the government needs to raise money it should tax those that do not contribute fairly. By that I mean those people who work within the black economy. It is a well known fact often talked about within the HMRC that if eveyone who earned money paid tax on it then all of us would have (x% cant remember exactly) a significantly lower tax. Tax on law breakers. Hmmmmmmmm who is the hardest criminal to catch? A motorist or a scrote robbing your Granny. What about the bankers who literally robbed us blind for years. Yes there is a scale to everything but the unfair burden does seem to be upon the motorist. Personally I dont really care about speeding. I have no points, rarely speed and so its not an issue. BUT the principle is. If speeding was such an awful crime then technology exists that could prevent it. Failing that, treat it like DUI and lose your license. I would vote for that. Take the money (tax) out of it and treat it like a real crime not a cash pot. Trust. Yes we seem to have a more trustworthy bunch compared to some others but it does not get away from the fact that we have a government that lies, obfuscates and cheats and has totally ignored the voices of its population. I cannot trust them at all because trust is earned and they have let me, you and everyone else down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garethr Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I'm just glad I had the best part of 30 years (from 1968) of riding/driving on comparatively free roads. I never thought I'd look back on the golden days of a 70 mph NSL on all roads, when I could overtake other vehicles without the overtakee reacting as if I'd just slaughtered a kitten, and when I didn't have to spend my life at 40mph (because the limit won't be 50, it'll be 40, the speed of the "large goods vehicle" you will never be able to pass). This country is fucked on so many levels it's well beyond farce and heading rapidly towards complete tragedy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 people seem to think that just because the speed limit is 60mph it doesnt mean you have to go 60mph and that it is safe to do so Agree, however, dont agree with changing the national speed limit for those roads, think those roads just need to be signposted 50mph or whatever.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benkei Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Speeding kills kittens! If you break the speed limit you will get cancer! Thank God for speed cameras! Keeping the public safe at our own expense! You've got to remember, the government don't give a sh1t about you or what you think. All they want is for the money you earn to go back into their pockets so they can lead comfortable lives and shape the country and/or world as they see fit. We all know EXACTLY how to make our roads safer, but these methods all cost money! Why spend money actually making the roads safer when you can spend next to f00k all and tell people it's safer? Most of us know the facts that speeding has little to do with most accidents, and how cars are much faster at stopping safely than they used to be, and how their crumple-zones make it less dangerous to be hit by a car... BUT... How does this generate revenue? It doesn't. So it bares little to no relevance in the governments grande scheme of things. The people will never be in charge, and you will be told what you want or need and exactly how much it will cost you. Then either taxed for not having it, not using it correctly, or having it when you shouldn't have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 The people will never be in charge Think you will find that we have a democracy in this country and that the current govt is pretty much a good snapshot of what society we live in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 If the government needs to raise money it should tax those that do not contribute fairly. By that I mean those people who work within the black economy. It is a well known fact often talked about within the HMRC that if eveyone who earned money paid tax on it then all of us would have (x% cant remember exactly) a significantly lower tax. Catching people within the black economy is a trickier proposition and, I venture, with less reward-to-investment ratio. Inevitably, it would involve more surveillance on everyday activities and more use of informants, which I think compares unfavourably to surveillance on the road. Tax on law breakers. Hmmmmmmmm who is the hardest criminal to catch? A motorist or a scrote robbing your Granny. I'm not sure I know what you're saying here. However, it seems to me that taxing muggers won't work too well, as muggers tend to be not earning too much. It's not the affluent middle classes that mug and burgle, as a rule. The underclass would seem to be a poor source of revenue, unless I'm missing your point. What about the bankers who literally robbed us blind for years. Eh? In what sense? Because they were overpaid? Or because they lent recklessly? Both are the products of a laissez-faire free market economic system that Britain and the US were head over heels in love with. Have bankers collectively broken any laws of the land? Yes there is a scale to everything but the unfair burden does seem to be upon the motorist. Why? It's not burdening millions of people that travel within the speed limits. Personally I dont really care about speeding. I have no points, rarely speed and so its not an issue. BUT the principle is. If speeding was such an awful crime then technology exists that could prevent it. By giving fines for all but the most serious cases, the law is saying exactly the opposite, isn't it? That it ISN'T an awful crime. It's a minor crime, that receives a minor penalty. Failing that, treat it like DUI and lose your license. I would vote for that. Take the money (tax) out of it and treat it like a real crime not a cash pot. You already can lose your licence, so presumably you're saying that you're in favour of losing your licence more easily, rather than having a fine. Where's the sense in that from the motorists point of view? Your solution is far more draconian than the existing system, which you already think is unfair. As usual, most people think that somebody else should be shouldering the burden (regardless of the situation) and that everyone else is more worthy of police attention. Just like most people driving a car absolutely cannot accept that they have done anything wrong - it's always someone else's fault. The trust part of your argument is similarly contentious, but I've run out of steam on this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 All they want is for the money you earn to go back into their pockets so they can lead comfortable lives and shape the country and/or world as they see fit. First part is absolutely risible. Most politicians could earn much higher salaries, for a lot less hassle, in law or in the city. Second part is almost tautological - you're blaming people who go into politics for wanting to shape the world in the way that is in line with their beliefs? That's like saying 'those damn cheese sellers, all they want to do is sell cheese'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 Tannhauser win. ROUND... 2. FIGHT!!1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DODGYDODDS Posted April 1, 2009 Author Share Posted April 1, 2009 "No one" and "we all know" would be overstating the case. Not everyone shares the same paranoia. I wouldnt call it paranoia not to trust the governement. But been reading your statements and you do speak some truth. Bottom line is, politics is a game designed to decieve the public making the silent majority believe they have a say. It's the classic to tier system demonstrated in all democratic places. You get fed up with one, you vote in the other, and vice versa. At the end of the day the politicians are all puppets in fairness, laying down a spiel set to them by massive think tanks like DEMOS. CFR, TRILATERAL COMMISION, and THE TAVISTOCK INSTITUTE. the corporations fund these think tanks and the same powerhouse corporations fund most western politicians campaigns. To get to the top level in politics, you have to believe in the AGENDA. Go along with game, if you dont then you get know where or worse. In britain we spend 5 TIMES THE AMMOUNT ON QUANGOES AS WE DO DEFENCE, And most dont even know what a quango is, yet they are this army of workers steering opinions and policy and usualy to suit corporations and major banks, never the humble british sovreign individual All these measures erode the middle class, through fines and control, whilst allowing new beaurocracies to gain a slice of control in our lives. It's all new world order ect ect. And i dont trust governments one bit. A true saying is POWER CORRUPTS, ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTLEY. Sorry for my rant, i just see where all this control and centralisation of power is going, and i for one dont like it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.