Derek Flint

Spot on - and underpins a speed limit should be a result of a risk assessment. Crunch the data, then weigh up all the stuff you’ve mentioned above, and say, “yep, xx mph seems about right for this stretch” This is where govt is leaving itself wide open to a legal challenge for civil damages at some point.

This isn’t a matter for consultation. It’s a matter for good governance, and the state meeting its assertions on its road safety strategy, along with its art.2 obligations. As is the way, by putting in a National Road Safety Strategy based on vision zero, a clause about persisting with derestricted roads, the IOMG has contradicted itself and made itself look rather foolish.

It’s that multi dimensional thing, and the state’s positive obligation to protect life. anyway, stand down. Howard says nothing happening, and the Mhoddey Dhoo rep says it will destroy vIsitor numbers. https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/speed-limits-to-be-considered-case-by-case/

You've never dealt with the aftermath of a high speed collision, have you? The issue is this; multidimensional road use. Where different types of transport and user ability conflicts, there needs to be a degree of risk management by assessing abd imposing an upper limit. We now have a strategy that says there is a desire to reduce death and serious injury. Death and serious injury is more likely when higher speeds are achieved. So to do anything else than bring in a limit is a contradiction.

https://www.buzzsprout.com/826228/2529070 we we’re talking about this and other stuff this week. (Its nearly an hour long btw) And don’t worry about enforcement. Once there is something to go at effectively, then it will be policed. Times are a changing. The CM can’t put the genie back in the bottle with this. Safety and emissions are a big part of two declared strategies. They cannot counter this with the ‘speed tourism’ card. I personally think TT will actually attract more visitors who will perceive the place as safer. The important thing is that they don’t fudge the Mountain Road. If it’s to be kept as a fairground attraction then close it and run it as such. (And no, I’m not pitching for the contract!) Ballsy move, and it will signal the passing of something. I will miss a fast run, but I can live with it if it makes the world a better place for others. Ballsy move all the same.

It isn’t always easy. If there’s anything I can do to help let me know. It’s not a nice position to be in.

We have an incredibly diverse population here, and it works well. The missus commented the other day when we were out on how many different languages were being spoken and how any visible ethnic identities there were. There are a number of reasons it works, but amongst these are full employment, and the fact ‘quarters’ have never manifested themselves. Lets also remember that over half the population are in fact migrants. The Island will remain a safe haven. Having a moat makes a world of difference.

Every time “in the Isle of Man” is mentioned in matters such as these, then regardless of whether we have done the right thing, reputational damage is done.

My point is, mental health services are overwhelmed because of the under resourcing of social care services. This is the bit that needs fixing. More day to day support for the vulnerable

Is the chap still at the back of Darnill’s? Steve Parry? he was very good.

This is a great thread - and demonstrates how complex it all is. The island is completely the wrong place to virtue signal a climate emergency. For a start, high vehicle speeds create higher emissions. A quick win is imposing limits. Any likelihood? No. Then we are looking at encouraging more visits by cruise ships - some of the most polluting and unnecessary vessels on the planet. Any sign of that being ditched? No. we have a hugely polluting Motorsport festival, where tens of thousands of bikes arrIve and burn huge amounts of hydrocarbons. Any sign of a cancellation? No. Electric vehicles offer some potential in reducing emissions. But does the IOMG offer any incentives to purchase? No Same with installation of solar, wind etc for domestic use. Do people need point to point convenience? Of course they do. It’s a rural community. There needs to be an acceptance of this, and then a little more balls from Government.

I’ve stayed off this thread as it’s got out of hand. I will however offer the following on the above. It isn’t what happens, but there is an element of it that does bear out. There is a gap between criminality and mental health. That gap should be filled by supportive social care, but there is an under provision in that area. We are talking here about just looking after people that find the world a bit difficult to cope with. They are not, at this stage, mentally ill. The result is that vulnerable people then come to the notice of the police as they are the first line of contact in many cases where crisis occurs. Then, the bar for mental health treatment is quite high. So detentions by the police under the MH Act are usually returned to the community, with a follow up plan. That ‘follow up’ clearly can’t be full time, so the person lapses, and comes to police attention again. This spirals, and one of two things happen; the individual either becomes truly mentally ill, or commit an offence and are criminalized. Its not right, but that is how it plays out.

It’s actually exclusionary policy. It means that by default, you HAVE to use a funeral director. I take it the local rag are OK with you putting a notice in despite your lack of credentials in the funeral profession.

Based on what logic? not really the approach you’d expect from a local radio station

Some good people on that side too. The problem as I see it, is it has grown like topsy, and is a bit of an unwieldy beast at present.