Cut speed limit to 50mph? Petition

quattro

quattro

Administrator
Staff member
Personally I am against this proposal as I firmly believe that it is just another way for the government to make some money to replace the billions of our pounds they have squandered, give a lot of jobs to underhand little hitlers and pretend to be serious about road safety.

so I have signed this petition.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/noNSLreduction/
 
Signed,...though i think that petitions don't really do any good,even if 100% of the population said No they would still go ahead,
You;re right about the Road Safety aspect,...too me this is a revenue raising exercise and has nothing to do with Road Safety
A mate of mine was killed recently whilst riding his motorcycle at 30 mph,he was knocked off by a car and catapulted into a pedestrian saftey barrier,had the barrier not been there he would've landed on the pavement and still been around today.

Personally,..I think that everybody who uses the roads and pavements should have a responability to ensure that they (and others around them) are safe,i've lost count of the amount of times i have had to slam on the anchors because a pedestrian has walked out in front of me without looking :roll:
 
I have found that Canadian MPs are very susceptible to pressure from constituents , an individual letter or e mail always
produces a response and often provokes results . Let's face it most politicians are un employable in the real world ; they will go to great lengths to protect their cushy jobs , pay and perks and generous pensions !! The thought of losing a vote from the minority who actually bother to turn out to vote fills them with fear , which is the great motivator .
Since nearly every one in the UK is a motorist they should be the most potent pressure group around . Signing petions is probably not effective , flooding the MPs mail boxes with individual e mails and letters would probably work wonders
Cheers
RVW
 
Here on the Isle of Wight there is an old biddy that keeps starting up a campaign for a blanket 40mph limit. Will not work as it would mean you could not take your driving test on the Island as you could not demonstrate that you can drive at 60.

(bare with me here)

But all this reducing speed has one fundamental error. Roads and so traffic can be modelled with flow dynamics. They do this a lot for judging new road systems. Taking this in mind reducing speed is the same as reducing water flow. This means that the capacity of the roads is reduced and so more traffic jams. One example of this is the main road here from Ryde to Newport. Used to be 60 mph, reduced to 40 mph now. And guess what, it's now a permanent traffic jam! The road is very busy even after rush hour.

Ever hit a 50 limit on the motorway because of roads works and found the traffic to get very heavy yet all lanes still open and nothing obstructing the traffic? Now you know why, flow dynamics.

Yes speed kills, but the majority of ALL accidents are below 30mph!

It's driving standards that need improving starting with, I think, theory tests to be taken every 10 years, at the same time fitness to drive should be tested. My dad can drive legally but my god he should never be allowed to! I took my bike test after driving cars for approx 15 years and doing the theory test for that really showed me how my driving is was out of date, and I'm only 39!
 
It's driving standards that need improving starting with, I think, theory tests to be taken every 10 years, at the same time fitness to drive should be tested. My dad can drive legally but my god he should never be allowed to! I took my bike test after driving cars for approx 15 years and doing the theory test for that really showed me how my driving is was out of date, and I'm only 39!
Click to expand...

I have to say I tend to agree there.

One thing that, even today, still gets my goat a bit is (and I beg forgiveness in advance!) how older (50+ year old) drivers seem to be portrayed as safer drivers.

When I was learning to drive (mid 1993, I passed my test in Jan 1994), I was taught, when turning from/into a junction, to slow the car down with the brakes (even if in 5th gear!), and just before the engine laboured (about 20 MPH) change to 2nd gear. My father and other older drivers I know were shocked to here this! They, (so I am told!) were taught to go down through without touching the brake if possible. Personally, I think that is dangerous; if they are not using the brake, the brake lights are not activated, and younger drivers are caught out. I think that is one of the reasons for the stats showing younger drivers are more likely to have accidents.

Years ago, you probably wouldn't fail the test by driving too slowly. I was told if the examiner saw anyone driving significantly under the limit, they would interpret that as inability to drive at speed, and fail! (In fact, "What are you waiting for? Get a bloody move on!" was one thing my examiner said during my test! [I was driving at 55MPH on a notorious stretch of road here in North Wales, so I accelerated up to 60MPH] I did pass, but wonder if I would have had I carried on at 55!) A lot of older drivers accused me of lying and BS'ing, but I find that insulting; I had been there and experienced it myself!

I see older drivers driving big BMW's, Merc's, Jag's, Rover 3500S's ( :p ), etc at well over the speed limit. I admit they have driving experience, but why oh why would they think a younger driver driving at the limit in a car is more dangerous than them, seeing the cars they were taught to drive in were not that quick!?

Any older drivers reading this, I beg you to understand that younger drivers are taught in a different way to how you were, and that may well be why they seem to be 'dangerous' in your opinion!

Enough of my ranting!
 
As an older driver - I passed my test in 1971 - I think the answer is to keep up with changes in cars and road conditions.
In the days of drum brakes all round , slowing down through the gears would save the brakes but now brakes are more efficient and it's better to wear out your pads than your gearbox

I agree about braking and braking early to warn following drivers of your intentions by having brake lights displayed

I've done 3 fleet driver assessment courses which tend to identify old habits and introduce new ideas. For example changing down several gears in one go is encouraged. As is not indicating if there is no-one behind to act on the signal

Younger drivers would be OK if it wasn't for their excessive testostetrone and their need to race everyone and to show off to their peers.But we've all been there ...
 
I passed my test in 1986 and I completely agree with Dave H. Drivers have to move with the change in technology, road conditions and other road users. I've always taken the defensive driving route and tried to give other road users plenty of notice of my intentions. I also try to be as tolerant of young and old road users too. My biggest gripes are drivers just completely ignoring the basics once they pass their test. A few examples:

Poor road positioning when turning at junctions then swinging out to turn left (how big do people think their cars are these days?), lack of indication on roundabouts, tailgating, impatience when in a queue waiting to overtake (the 'I've got to get past now' attitude) and people not dipping lights quick enough at night (if I saw your lights coming from around the bend then you must have seen mine :evil: ).

Speed limits do not need to be cut to prevent accidents, people need to be more tolerant and patient with other road users.....

Here endeth the lesson :)
 
I'm glad to hear others share my views! :)

Not all young drivers are testosterone junkies, I hasten to add. I certainly wasn't, anyhow!
 
"When I was a lad "it was a privilege to have a driving licence , nowadays it seems to be viewed as a right to have one
That of course excludes those who go on the road with no licence and no insurance . A figure of up to 10% in some areas, I believe
 
My main gripe with drivers today is that they are selfish, although I personally think this carries over to most other areas too. People are just interested in their life, getting where they want to be as fast as possible, regardless of everybody else.

One point regarding engine braking over using the brakes, I totally agree that brakes are cheaper than gearboxes, and a lot easier to replace !, however modern fuel injected cars cut the fuel supply to the engine on the over-run and during engine braking, and this will save you fuel. Whether this counters the cost of replacing the clutch / gearbox is another matter. The other thing is that engine braking generates lots of vacuum which on a tired engine will suck loads of oil vapour into the inlet, not necessarily a good thing ! :LOL:
 
Being a 56 yr old wrinkly I learnt to drive on a P6 and consequently am accustomed to slowing first on the overun and then on the brakes without changing down. However many cars of the period had extremely poor brakes and it was essential to supplement the brakes with the gearbox. I particularely recall a 997 Mini Cooper whose brakes were so awful I eventually had to spin it in order to avoid hitting the scenery!

I agree with Richard that the principle problem today is impatience and lack of consideration for other road users. I don't think it was any different when I learnt to drive but the traffic levels were so much lower it didn't matter. Today there are so many cars on the road it is essential if we are all to coexist in peace!

Speed limits have absolutely no relevance to tackling this! I'm a serious fan of decriminalising "due care and attention" and then using it to do those who drive inconsiderately. ie those whose inattention and inconsiderate behaviour cause accidents and not those who do 50 in a 40 limit at 2 in the morning!

Chris
 
oh god!
here i go getting extreme again!
weren't pedestrian and cyclist accidents gods way of dealing with the weak and the stupid?
having this week met a electric buggy on the wrong side of the road twice this week and an old woman who regularly walks her dog using one on the road nothing suprises me anymore so how about a reality programme which seem so popular theses days?
catch wrongdoers in the act and have a roadside phone vote on their punishment!
beatings, hangings etc, could be fun and a decent fundraiser!
 
weren't pedestrian and cyclist accidents gods way of dealing with the weak and the stupid?
Click to expand...
Not when the accident is the fault of some idiot driver
I think you will find most pedestrian and cyclist accidents are the driver's fault
OK I know some cyclists think they are are a law to themselves and red lights don't apply to them
 
ah, the weak and stupid remark was a joke regarding the law of the jungle!
oops!
as for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers, i think you'll find idiots amongst them all!
my mum was put in hospital after being hit on the pavement by one nipper on a skateboard and one cyclist!
i think i'd ban cyclists from the roads, it would stop any cycling accidents wouldn't it!
or make them pay road tax and get insurance?
around my area , all limits were recently cut to 30mph.
not sure why? its made no difference as far as i know.
oh yes, i have a white van as well!
 
I think there is something to consider in the idea that cyclist should have some form of insurance, sure they're physically less capable of causing damage, simple by the fact that they're not cocooned in a tonne of metal, however, they use the same road system, signs, rules of the road and procedure as a car, or any other form of road going transport.

Surely in part they should be responsible to a similar degree. Until I drove, I regularly cycled as a form of transport and I'm sure I regularly ran red lights and went onto the kerb etc because it is so easy to do and there are almost no consequences. If you had some for of insurance or some legal consequences to doing what you like on the on the road then I'm sure you'd think twice.

Now I know this kind of cyclist is on a certain percentage but in Edinburgh right now due to the abomination that is the non-progressing tram works, you see a lot of people doing stupid things simply to get ahead, whether it be cars or cyclist, pedestrians or buses. If everyone is equally liable for their actions then surely there would be more consideration towards each other. It's all to easy to blame the D***head driver who sits anonymously behind the windscreen of his generic car. If everyone took a bit more care and caution and perhaps more importantly showed a bit more consideration (as everyone is busy, its the way of the world, its wrong to think your "rush" is any more significant) then things would flow a lot more smoothly?

I personally think its down to the individual character in control of a vehicle, rather than a blanket set of rules a regulations for everyone. I do, however, believe that everyone should be starting at the same/similar point, taxed, insured and respectful of others on the road.

That's the end of my piece.
 
8866nk - I wasn't having a go at you. I know a chap who's 24 year old son was knocked off his motorbike and killed by an old driver who shouldn't be on the road Also I've spent years investiagting motor insurnce claims for a living

I do, however, believe that everyone should be starting at the same/similar point, taxed, insured and respectful of others on the road.
Click to expand...

That sums it up .People no longer think of or respect one another. Other people's safety is not as important to them as the need to get somewhere quicker
 
i thought about more training for road users etc.
but then you watch 5 minutes of the 'jeremy kyle' show and you see what sort of morons you're up against!
care, consideration , means nothing to them!
 
Yes Training for all road users to include pedestrians. And all road users to include pedestrians to have respect for one another
Fat chance in this day and age . I'm becoming a grumpy old man !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top