Jump to content

manx maid

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

manx maid's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Right o luv... That's just what i thought you would say, so Well done ...
  2. Oh probably another self important 'gobby bint' in your eyes.... but there's not enough hours in the day for me to carry out my duties.... I imagine that when you feel threatened, you insult everyone in the same way...however, as a 'biker' AND self important 'gobby bint'- you go right ahead and get it off your chest, it's water of a ducks back sunshine !!
  3. It's called banter, get over yourself. Another Interesting remark, without your brain engaged. ''We are all dumb struck !'' Well that didn't last long. Still struggling to engage in the right gear I see - will you be joining us with anything constructive to say ?
  4. I'm happy to start another thread before 2016 - if I thought anything would come of it.....
  5. So is anything currently being done to address the issue regarding driver skills and re-training in the Isle of Man ? or do we just continue to debate the merits of the proposal, without anything happening ....
  6. It's called banter, get over yourself. Another Interesting remark, without your brain engaged.
  7. " " well that contributed such a great deal to the debate. We are all dumb struck !
  8. Re-training people to recognize hazards is like standing them on the edge of a cliff, without a fence and saying ‘ you might fall off if you go too close to the edge’ how much ‘re-training’ should they need? How many times could you tell them it was dangerous? or would you build a fence and erect a sign saying, “ if you cross the line, you are in danger of falling off….” The rest is up to them… if they choose to cross the line, then they deal with the consequences.…. It is appreciated that little that could be done to ensure that people adhered to the notice but surely if there were an incident, the fact that they ignored the advice, would go against them. Taking someone to the same spot over and over again to – ‘re-train’ them would make no difference to their decision on a different day under different circumstances…. Introduce speed limits on more of the roads in the Isle of Man and you reduce the risk, surely !
  9. The shame of this issue, is that no matter what amount of ‘experience and re-training’ people had, there would still be those who continued to ‘wind it on’ / ‘put their foot to the boards’ around a bend, with an eye on the speedo, just to see if maybe this time, in perfect conditions, they could pass the 100 /120/130 mph mark, because currently this is within the law in the Isle of Man, on many roads. How many of us motorcyclists have ‘pushed it’ just to see whether we could go ‘ that little bit faster’ With the sun on your back, head down, there is no better thrill…- it’s like flying…it’s freedom. We just have to learn that sometimes, just sometimes, we are in the wrong place at the wrong time, doing it ! And to help us remember, there should be speed limits on more of the roads ! The mountain road offers the opportunity ' to fly' in places and we take advantage of it…There surely is no problem with that but there should still be more limits on other roads in the Isle of Man, to enable us to protect ourselves and others, when it comes to speed !!
  10. It is both distasteful and disrespectful to discuss individual court cases... as in some of today's posts..... I am sure that both families involved in the particular case have suffered enough. My original post was to highlight speed and the fact that I felt, restrictions should be introduced on some roads, to prevent more serious incidents happening in the future. We have all read the ideas and opinions put forward and these should be the only points for debate. I think we all need to take a step back from this and show some respect..
  11. The issue we have with this debate is that views can be so firmly entrenched that we don't necessarily fully appreciate the other side's position. In answer to the last part of your post, for complete clarity, I am not saying excessive speed is a major factor in the cause of collisions nor that a national speed limit would reduce the amount of collisions. What I am saying is that when a collision happens, for whatever the reason is, the severity of the outcome could be reduced if the terminal impact speed is lessened. when a cat runs out in front of you, or a tyre blows, hitting a wall at 65 can be very different to hitting it at 100mph. Stopping people hitting the wall entirely is never going to happen, although we should take steps to reduce that as well, but by reducing speed we might improve the chances of surviving these collisions. I fully agree much more should be done in terms of driver training, and that resources should be aimed in that direction. Perhaps all income from fines for road traffic offences and a percentage of road tax could be ringfenced to fund ongoing driver education, with the drivers also making contributions, as they do to driving lessons now. Turning to the cost implications, I don't agree with your analysis. The white circle with a black line means 'national speed limit' applies, so you don't need new signage. Changing the law could be done very quickly by Tynwald, with an amendment to primary legislation or perhaps even just a new regulation. All that's needed then is to advertise the fact, which will cost a bit, but not a prohibitive amount. To some extent, the limits would be self-enforcing. Most people don't want to get into trouble with the law so will obey the limit 'just in case', achieving the desired result. It's not as if police officers have to burst into everyone's homes five times a day to make sure they aren't snorting cocaine to enforce drug legislation is it? Most people obey laws. Occasional spot checks, as are done now in restricted areas, would keep drivers on their toes. So, there's no major cost implication there either. If enforcement of speed limits is too expensive to do, then how do we operate the limits we have now? My simple point is this, the change could happen quickly and with very little cost and might help reduce the number of serious and fatal injuries suffered when accidents do happen. If it doesn't work, what have we lost from trying? I suppose that's my major problem with the argument of those opposed. It takes very little in terms of resources, might help and, even if it doesn't, won't cause any actual problems. On that basis, how can you oppose something that might save lives with no downside? The fact that there are those like yourself, who will always debate this issue and put forward their own ideas and opinions, with respect and without rudeness, means that every time it is discussed, we are a step closer to the solution.
  12. I'm sorry, no I don't have any evidence to support my belief that speed limits are the way forward. It is just something that I personally believe would make a difference. I do however appreciate all the information that you have provided to support your theory that driver skill is likely to be the most efficient method of reducing serious road incidents. I have read it with great interest but feel that neither your proposals nor mine, will be actioned at any time soon. I feel very sad, that people are still losing their lives in accidents, which I personally believe are caused by excessive speeds on roads in the Isle of Man. Having an upper speed limit on the roads, would have some effect and if we can save at least one life, by reducing the speed they travel at, it would be a positive.
  13. I'm sorry that post #93 confused you. The point I was trying to make was, that if driver skill level is the most important factor, then should driving instructors be teaching to a better skill level to begin with ? With regard to re-testing, how would this be implemented ? I still feel that to introduce speed limits is the way forward or as mentioned in post # 110 - " It could be achieved by amending the existing legislation and stating that when you pass the white circle with a black line the 'national speed limit' applies, so no new signs needed at all and not much expense"
  14. People who break rules will continue to do that. People who obey rules, which is probably the majority, will adhere to a new limit. Fewer people travelling at high speed might reduce the severity of collisions when they occur due to any of the contributory factors outlined above. It could be achieved by amending the existing legislation and stating that when you pass the white circle with a black line the 'national speed limit' applies, so no new signs needed at all and not much expense. So, for minor investment we could persuade the generally law-abiding majority to reduce their risk of death or serious injury when something goes wrong, possibly making the roads safer, and definitely not any more dangerous. Bravo and to start this off, the theory test for new drivers, could simply include the question, "What speed should you be travelling at when you pass the 'national speed limit' sign...... in fact the question could be asked at both theory and practical levels in the Isle of Man
  • Create New...