Plans to cut traffic speed limits

Kill the regulation, promote personal responsibility, prosecute for causing danger.

Governments should govern, not micro-manage.

Cut taxes!!!! (Sorry, i was getting carried away)
 
Crazy.

If people break the law speeding, punish them in a serious and severe (where justified) manner. Not just some silly fine or small suspension from driving.

Then, responsible drivers get to continue to drive at acceptable speeds and idiot drivers goto jail if they cannot drive within the laws of the land.
 
Ooooh... bring back the hanging cages at Tyburn!

I've no problem with 20mph in many zones - the reason being, NO driver ever seems to adhere to 30mph ones, anyway. Just wait til you keep to 30, and you'll have someone up your jaxie in no time, trying to push you on. Many round here prefer to zip on up to 40 if they can get away with it. So, 20mph will see people driving at 30mph anyway.

I do think there's a blanket idiocy here, though: in Brighton, we have clubs that are open until 2.00 a.m., some even to 4.00 a.m. When it's the height of the tourist season, and we have an average influx of some 250,000 extra people in town, then it's quite reasonable to impose an urban 20mph driving limit 24/7. However, it's just not necessary when you live in a rural hamlet where the most excitement at night might be an escaped cow. True, it's sod's law that you're the one to find it, at 70mph in your Porsche Boxster, but overall, taking a blanket approach is unrealistic.
 
Road safety researchers say only one in 40 people who are hit by a vehicle at 20mph dies, compared with one in five at 30mph.
Click to expand...

Then the moral of the story is not to get hit by a car - teach kids not to walk across the bloody road in front of traffic! It's not that difficult!
 
Does this law actually stop the indivuals from speeding because at the end of the day its the indivudal who's going to make the choice to speed.
 
A lady has just been interviewed whose daughter was a passenger in a car which spun out of control and was killed on impact. The driver was going at 80mph in a 40mph zone. The mother wants the speed limit reduced. In reality, would it made any difference if the speed sign had said 20 or 30mph? If someone is going to drive at 80mph when they shouldn't, changing a number on a sign isn't going to stop them.
 
Shadow Leader said:
Then the moral of the story is not to get hit by a car - teach kids not to walk across the bloody road in front of traffic! It's not that difficult!
Click to expand...

If it wasn't that difficult it wouldn't happen.

We've had every educational initiative going from Tufty to the Green Cross Code Man but stupid people breed stupid kids and most of the stupid people doing the breeding are drivers themselves.
 
It is true that a large percentage of people holding driving licences shouldn't be holding them as they are inept drivers and stupid to boot, however it is still the case that people should take more care crossing the road. The object of the exercise should be that an individual is not hit by a vehicle, not that an individual is hit by a vehicle travelling at 20mph rather than 30mph. There isn't a lot of excuse if someone is hit at 30mph - no-one should be crossing the road, or be in the road in front of a car in the first place so that they are hit then use the excuse that they didn't see it coming when the car is travelling that slowly! It's not as though they'll have been taken by surprise by a vehicle doing 30mph, or even 40mph, if they're looking out before crossing the road and crossing in a sensible place where they can be seen.

It's generally teenagers/youths who are guilty of darting out in front of cars, either on foot or on bikes. It's then them, or their family, who cry foul when their little darling gets hit by a car whose driver didn't see them as they rushed out in front of them.
 
Last edited:
I'd lay money that the car was travelling considerably faster than 30mph. In which case, as has been said, cutting the speed limit to 20mph probably wouldn't make much difference to that driver anyway, there are plenty of idiots behind steering wheels who wouldn't care what the limit is.
 
Desert Orchid said:
If it wasn't that difficult it wouldn't happen.

We've had every educational initiative going from Tufty to the Green Cross Code Man but stupid people breed stupid kids and most of the stupid people doing the breeding are drivers themselves.
Click to expand...
Natural selection.
 
There's a two-way responsibility between all road users, including pedestrians who walk across them. I can't count the number of pedestrians here in Brighton who jaywalk - even a few yards away from pedestrian crossings. Cyclists here think nothing of scooting through amber lights which turn red when they're halfway across the intersection, or even just sliding round a corner when their light's on red. There is no sense from them that they have a contract to behave as responsibly as drivers are supposed to. There's no taxation (or even registration) of cyclists, who now have dedicated cycle lanes and council-funded cycle racks in all cities. They don't have to pass a test to show they're competent and yet we're urged all the time to take to them in our millions, to cut down on car usage. Yet they show little respect for pedestrians and think drivers will second-guess their moves, pedestrians show no respect for drivers, and on it goes.

I came round the corner of a very busy main street in town the other day and there, only yards from a safe crossing island, was a damn-fool woman and young child, walking straight across and at me. I hooted and glared, and she yelled at ME - I'd got the green light, she should've been on the island - so what sort of message is that to the kid? You should just march across streets wherever you like, because drivers mustn't hit you? I could've stopped if I'd needed to, but I'd probably have been wearing the car behind me if I had. Many pedestrians (who may well also be drivers) seem to be incapable of thinking beyond the few steps ahead of them. As drivers, we have to be aware of all things at all times - but walkers seem to park their brains at their front doors when they leave home.
 
That amusing piece about the infinity of peoples stupidity springs to mind. There are just as many idiots driving as there are walking (if the piece is correct then there are more...) and both have a responsibility to themselves and others.

A blanket cut of the speed limit will not assist them to be any less stupid or responsible.

I would, however, agree with cuts (especially to 20) in certain areas, where 30 (read close to 40) or 60 (read at least 70) is clearly not a speed which is suitable for the surrounding enivronment, rather than allow people to use their own judgement.

And I've got no time for speeders who complain about speed cameras either. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime....:D
 
Back
Top