50mph limit to be adopted?

[NoTail]

Is it a fact that accident numbers have increased? If so are they more serious? 

[Chris C]

3 minutes ago, pongo said:

Where is the evidence that not having yearly or 5 yearly tests is "the main cause of accidents" ?

You're putting words in my mouth. I implied that most accidents are caused by driver error and suggested 5 yearly tests as a possible way of reducing them.

[gettafa]

4 minutes ago, pongo said:

Where is the evidence that not having yearly or 5 yearly tests is "the main cause of accidents" ?

Times are changing.

There needs to be some sort of assessment. 5 years sounds about right, maybe 10. At the moment the assessment is wait until you have a serious crash.

[pongo]

1 minute ago, Chris C said:

You're putting words in my mouth. 

I quoted you?

[Chris C]

1 minute ago, pongo said:

I quoted you?

Out of context.

[pongo]

3 minutes ago, gettafa said:

Times are changing.

There needs to be some sort of assessment. 5 years sounds about right, maybe 10. At the moment the assessment is wait until you have a serious crash.

Don't be daft. Most people never have an accident.

Maybe if people get their licence taken away then they should be re-tested. Say, if they get too many speeding points.

[pongo]

2 minutes ago, Chris C said:

Out of context.

Nope. I quoted the context too.

[Neil Down]

5 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

I can see the "green" card being played on this too. Reduced fuel consumption and emissions from a lower overall speed limit. All grist for the climate change mill.

Of course, it will obviously be a total waste of time buying large, powerful anythings as small engined vehicles will nowadays easily meet a 50mph top limit. So we can ban the sale of Chelsea tractors, luxury and sports cars and bikes too on redundancy grounds. Even greener.

I'm sure the population and its politicians will happily adjust to life with a Toyota Yaris or Citroen C1 and mopeds 

You do realise you can keep to speed limits in a “Chelsea tractor”

[Chris C]

7 minutes ago, pongo said:

Nope. I quoted the context too.

Indeed you did - the wrong one.

[WTF]

how does going slower change the emissions?   if a wheel has to rotate X amount of turns to cover s set distance the engine has to rotate X amount of turns to suit, whether it does 8000 rpm for 15 minutes or 4000 rpm for 30 minutes it is the same revs per distance traveled ,  and cars/engines are most efficient at certain revs and speeds, 50mph max isn't it, they'd do better reducing the max BHP of vehicles which would reduce the emissions and speeds.

[Amadeus]

13 minutes ago, WTF said:

how does going slower change the emissions?   if a wheel has to rotate X amount of turns to cover s set distance the engine has to rotate X amount of turns to suit, whether it does 8000 rpm for 15 minutes or 4000 rpm for 30 minutes it is the same revs per distance traveled ,  and cars/engines are most efficient at certain revs and speeds, 50mph max isn't it, they'd do better reducing the max BHP of vehicles which would reduce the emissions and speeds.

In theory it does as a car uses more fuel at higher speeds / during harder driving. In practice it's negligible in a place as small as this island. In fact, I bet the enforcement infrastructure needed would do more damage to the planet than whatever they would save by doing this.

[Max Power]

10 minutes ago, WTF said:

how does going slower change the emissions?   if a wheel has to rotate X amount of turns to cover s set distance the engine has to rotate X amount of turns to suit, whether it does 8000 rpm for 15 minutes or 4000 rpm for 30 minutes it is the same revs per distance traveled ,  and cars/engines are most efficient at certain revs and speeds, 50mph max isn't it, they'd do better reducing the max BHP of vehicles which would reduce the emissions and speeds.

It's to do with the fact that the engine has overcome the rolling resistance of the vehicle and requires a lighter throttle opening to maintain 50mph. Cruising at 70mph means the throttle is open wider to maintain the speed normally. Not sure that it works on the island as you are constantly climbing hills, cornering, stopping and starting but you can definitely save fuel out of town. 

[WTF]

many people stick in a high gear to keep the revs low and have their foot to floor thinking they are saving fuel,   and if we are going to reduce emissions by such a massive extent then it means we are burning less fuel so the fuel duty take will be down.   

[sausage]

I quite like an occasional blast across the mountain on a good day with clear roads....I dont like people getting maimed/killed.

A suggestion then which might appease both sides of the argument. Why dont they take apply a speed limit around all other parts of the island, coz people dont really need to be driving above 50 or 70mph on other roads where there are houses etc and people going about their daily business. Then just leave the wide open section over the mountain with the unrestricted speed limit. With a bit of policing to discourage the proper knobheads there is little reason why most people cant open up their cars/bikes up there.....and for those that do not like that kind of thing......there is the coast road which would then have a restriction all the way along so they dont have to use the mountain if they dont want to. 

[ian rush]

The 'It'll kill the TT' argument is bollocks. More people want to come than can get and if a determing reason for not coming is a speed limit then will they really be missed by the rest? Bums on seats ideally without shutting roads or filling hospitals.