Jump to content

New Speed Limits ?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 203
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I used to like a bit too

I’d like my T-shirt back.  And my CD’s. Thanks.     

My sister drives like an absolute lunatic, usually while shaving her beard with an electric razor

Posted Images

3 hours ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

So, think about it being really really foggy as it was this evening, then look at the highway code. Highway code rule 225 states "be able to pull up well within the distance you can see clearly. This is particularly important on motorways and dual carriageways, as vehicles are travelling faster".

Tootling along at 30 when you can't actually see 3ft in front of the car, or the road beyond about a foot in front of your bumper isn't exactly unreasonable. It was probably some of the worst visibility I've seen, or not seen up there tonight.

No argument from me there. If you can't stop in the distance you can see, it's a "when" not an "if" you'll have a crash. Plenty of slow/stopped traffic on our roads.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Most RTCs are pretty minor in nature.  No one is hurt.  Or others involved.

I don't think clinical staff in A and E would necessarily agree. There have been several (I have no numbers)reported RTCs that have resulted in attendances there, and even further.

Edited by Apple
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Apple said:

I don't think clinical staff in A and E would necessarily agree. There have been several (I have no numbers)reported RTCs that have resulted in attendances there, and even further.

Do you have any other statements that openly admit to not meaning anything of value

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Scotty said:

Sorry, but why didn’t you overtake to cars doing 15 mph and 35mph respectively. The problem isn’t the slow car, but the dick who can’t overtake and doesn’t drop back to allow others to pass them both in turn. Some drivers are like sheep, they travel so close together that they can smell the rear of the one in front.

Call me old-fashioned, but I don't overtake on double white lines or when cars are coming in the other direction.

I did overtake the Micra when I could, which is why I said Keppel Gate and not Ramsey ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, PaulJ said:
4 hours ago, Apple said:

I don't think clinical staff in A and E would necessarily agree. There have been several (I have no numbers)reported RTCs that have resulted in attendances there, and even further.

Do you have any other statements that openly admit to not meaning anything of value

It is a comment on the original post about no-one being hurt in RTCs. I do not agree and I am sure others who have to patch people up and talk to bereaved or scared relatives would support. Been there, done that. Others seem to have too ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Apple said:

It is a comment on the original post about no-one being hurt in RTCs. I do not agree and I am sure others who have to patch people up and talk to bereaved or scared relatives would support. Been there, done that. Others seem to have too ?

I didnt say no one gets hurt.  I said most of the RTCs up there result in very few people being hurt.  It's the minority rather than the majority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Apple said:

It is a comment on the original post about no-one being hurt in RTCs. I do not agree and I am sure others who have to patch people up and talk to bereaved or scared relatives would support. Been there, done that. Others seem to have too ?

Injuries and fatalities are a by-product of RTIs. Secondary.

Reduce or stop the RTIs and the associated injuries and fatalities will reduce or stop. Having cars that make crashes survivable, whilst welcome, is only masking the problem. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

I didnt say no one gets hurt.  I said most of the RTCs up there result in very few people being hurt.  It's the minority rather than the majority.

And this thread and my points are not just about the mountain road, as I think some have been trying to move the focus.

20mph in villages, 40 mph limits round the rest of the island.

3 hours ago, PaulJ said:

Do you have any other statements that openly admit to not meaning anything of value

Yes thanks, don't need to borrow any.

 

For the record, there are plenty of other ways for men to "just be men" and I can think of a few ways right now.

 

If you read back there are those who actually sound quite proud it seems about how fast they can go etc etc. I will leave it there for consideration.

 

Edited by Apple
Had to re type of - Freudian slip?
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In any instance where freedom and personal judgement is being curtailed there ought to be a good reason.

I don't think that "maybe" influencing a minority of the crashes on our roads is necessarily a good enough reason.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, HeliX said:

In any instance where freedom and personal judgement is being curtailed there ought to be a good reason.

Same with risk to me and mine. Given the "adrenaline junkies" being defended on here and the volumes and types of traffic now saving what 7 minutes on the mountain hardly seems a grown up argument any more.

There is insufficient evidence to show speed is a good thing, not on this island. And despite my asking no-one has given me a good reason. Still it would be a brave politician to argue for these changes given the argument about freedoms in this climate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apple said:

Same with risk to me and mine. Given the "adrenaline junkies" being defended on here and the volumes and types of traffic now saving what 7 minutes on the mountain hardly seems a grown up argument any more.

There is insufficient evidence to show speed is a good thing, not on this island. And despite my asking no-one has given me a good reason. Still it would be a brave politician to argue for these changes given the argument about freedoms in this climate. 

There is less onus to provide a reason to maintain the status quo than there is to provide a reason to alter it.

How many of the crashes on the island occur at more than 50mph? How many would be prevented by a speed limit? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Apple said:

Same with risk to me and mine. Given the "adrenaline junkies" being defended on here and the volumes and types of traffic now saving what 7 minutes on the mountain hardly seems a grown up argument any more.

There is insufficient evidence to show speed is a good thing, not on this island. And despite my asking no-one has given me a good reason. Still it would be a brave politician to argue for these changes given the argument about freedoms in this climate. 

Speed limits don't stop being people going fast. Surprising isn't it? But funnily enough, you look at a lot of the roads in England where people have high speed crashes, shocker, they had speed limits.

Though, a 20 along the quayside in Ramsey and along Parliament Street wouldn't be a bad thing.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...