|
The 70 mph limit is a nonsense, and many drivers demonstrate that with their right foot ... I too consider an upwards revision to 80 mph for motorways and some dual carriageways to be appropriate.
We live in a society in which the rule of law is paramount - the problem with the currernt set up is this law is an ass and when the law is an ass it gets ignored and that is detrimental to society in general. One very good reason for change is to stop such flagrant abuse of the law and enable the police to concentrate on the minority. Cameras as used today is nothing but a money making scam, a blanket wide catch-all that does not reflect changes in conditions and in many cases are held in contempt by motorists.
For example, France has got it right by reducing the speed limit in wet conditions, yet in the UK one can legally drive at 70 on a watelogged road. Is that sensible?
|
We live in a society in which the rule of law is paramount
Not really. We live in a society which relies on self enforcement of the law. The law only works if 98% of people abide by it when the Police aren't looking, so law is tailored to what the vast majority of reasonable people would deem acceptable. There's simply not enough Police to enforce any more than that.
The 70mph limit is a joke law and the Government considered raising it to 80mph to reflect reality a few years ago, so they already know it's a joke. When the majority of otherwise law abiding citizens break a law every day, it's pointless having it.
The same applies to the offence of using a mobile phone while driving. Almost the same amount of people use a phone while driving now as before the ban, because too big a minority of people deem that reasonable, so the law is pointless.
For example, France has got it right by reducing the speed limit in wet conditions, yet in the UK one can legally drive at 70 on a watelogged road. Is that sensible?
Well France is full of peasants and communists, so they are very good at bringing in unenforceable laws. There's no need for any more laws governing roads and speeds, because if you have too many rules then nobody respects any of them. If someone wants to write off their Audi Q7 at 120mph in a monsoon then let them.
Edited by jamie745 on 01/03/2015 at 20:18
|
|
|
|
"For example, France has got it right by reducing the speed limit in wet conditions, yet in the UK one can legally drive at 70 on a watelogged road. Is that sensible?"
Having lived in France for nearly six years I have yet to see a french driver reduce their speed to comply with the wet limit-they just don't take any notice.
Coupled with the usual gallic confusion on what constitutes wet conditions ie Does it only apply when actually raining? Or does it still apply when it's stopped raining and the road is wet? How wet does the road have to be for it to apply? etcetc
Nobody will give a proper answer - gendarmes just make it up as they go along if they want to nick you!
Another nice little trick the flics pull is if you don't stop for long enough at a stop sign-the flics say you must stop for 3 seconds or they nick you - nowhere in the french highway code does it say to stop for three seconds!!
|
|
70mph is a luxury. On the crappy mess of roads we have I don't think I can cruise at 70 for very long before I hit some roadworks, or some other blockage.
They can increase the limit, or decrease it but on the a1(m) you're lucky to get to 60 before you're slowing down again!
|
The same applies to the offence of using a mobile phone while driving. Almost the same amount of people use a phone while driving now as before the ban, because too big a minority of people deem that reasonable, so the law is pointless.
My wife was hit by a van when the driver was on his phone. Drive was honest enough said at the scene "sorry luv, was on mu fekin phone" Took 6 months to get the damage sorted at the companies (Virgin Media) expense. Luckily no one was injured. Pointless law, I don't think so.
If someone wants to write off their Audi Q7 at 120mph in a monsoon then let them
That would be fine if the Q7 was the only vehicle involved and no injuries resulted.
But in the real world its unlikely to be that simple or clear cut.
Edited by skidpan on 02/03/2015 at 12:54
|
|
It is a pointless law because it didn't stop the Virgin Media van driver from doing it and it appears to deter very few phone drivers from doing so. 99% of the people who don't use their phone while driving wouldn't have used the phone while driving before the law came in.
That would be fine if the Q7 was the only vehicle involved and no injuries resulted.
But in the real world its unlikely to be that simple or clear cut.
Well if you have movement then you'll have crashes. Simple as that really.
In the real world. s*** happens.
|
|
The law won't be changed in response to postings on an internet forum. If you want it changed, you need to make your point elsewhere.
|
The law won't be changed in response to postings on an internet forum. If you want it changed, you need to make your point elsewhere.
Over the years I have written to my MP a number of times, every response has simply been a paraphrase of his Party's existing policy, wrapped up in the usual politician's waffle.
Looking at the history of the last few decades, when have laws been changed as a result of quietly and lawfully making representations?
Mass public outcries have made the powers that be think " we'd better do something to keep the peasants happy" and knee-jerk legislation has been rushed through.
For example, introducing the 70mph limit because a fuss was kicked up when Le Mans cars were tested up the (empty) M1 at 5 am at well over the ton.
Edited by galileo on 02/03/2015 at 21:40
|
|
|
The law won't be changed in response to postings on an internet forum. If you want it changed, you need to make your point elsewhere.
Over the years I have written to my MP a number of times, every response has simply been a paraphrase of his Party's existing policy, wrapped up in the usual politician's waffle.
Looking at the history of the last few decades, when have laws been changed as a result of quietly and lawfully making representations?
Mass public outcries have made the powers that be think " we'd better do something to keep the peasants happy" and knee-jerk legislation has been rushed through.
For example, introducing the 70mph limit because a fuss was kicked up when Le Mans cars were tested up the (empty) M1 at 5 am at well over the ton.
Duplicate post, sorry!
Edited by galileo on 02/03/2015 at 21:41
|
|
My point about needing to make your case elsewhere contains the implication that the law won't be changed without some debate. The cross-section of the population on this site is almost certainly not representative of the population as a whole, as it caters for a group with a special interest in motoring.
I'd be prepared to bet that in the event of such a debate occurring open to the public, there would be a sizeable and vocal lobby in favour of reducing the limit. So, in the event of this issue appearing on the political agenda, you would have to bear in mind the possibility that things might get worse rather than better...
Edited by twitcherman on 03/03/2015 at 16:32
|
|
|
|
|
It is a pointless law because it didn't stop the Virgin Media van driver from doing it and it appears to deter very few phone drivers from doing so. 99% of the people who don't use their phone while driving wouldn't have used the phone while driving before the law came in.
That would be fine if the Q7 was the only vehicle involved and no injuries resulted.
But in the real world its unlikely to be that simple or clear cut.
Well if you have movement then you'll have crashes. Simple as that really.
In the real world. s*** happens.
It does but you want to limit how much s*** happens
|
In the real world. s*** happens.
Very easily said when it happens to an unknown stranger, When it happens to you or your family it's different.
|
|
You're right because statistics mean nothing to the individual which is why parents of dead children for instance should be kept as far away from the law making process as possible.
Laws brought in as a quick reaction to a single tragedy are bad laws.
|
|
The whole reason the speed limits were introduced is because of the people who oppose them.
In an ideal world people would drive at a speed that is suitable to the conditions but, Unfortunately there are people who think that driving at 80MPH in heavy fog 4 metres away from the back of the car infront is OK.
|
|
re the 2 posts above, I agree with Jamie, disagree with the second.
Regardless of the Laws in force, these people will still be STUPID.
And DRIVE stupid/stupid fast/stuipd drunk, but mostly just STUPID.
Ah nivver thought like!
That is for the Police to deal with.
When in Germany in 2011, in the late summer, despite the new car and unlimited Autobahns, I did not generally exceed 130kmh, unless exceptionally, simply because I did not feel happy driving faster, despite having considerable distances to cover.
No doubt I would have grown accustomed over more exposure, but still?
cheers
M
|
The whole reason the speed limits were introduced is because of the people who oppose them.
A nonsensical remark. They were introduced on motorways in response to reports of people doing very high speeds.
In an ideal world people would drive at a speed that is suitable to the conditions
Yes.
but, Unfortunately there are people who think that driving at 80MPH in heavy fog 4 metres away from the back of the car infront is OK.
Yes. and how do speed cameras help? The truth is that speed cameras will not catch someone if a) the fog is too thick for them to work, b) the fog is not near a speed camera and c) the cars are obeying the speed limit despite that being a suicidal speed in fog.
|
but, Unfortunately there are people who think that driving at 80MPH in heavy fog 4 metres away from the back of the car infront is OK.
Yes. and how do speed cameras help? The truth is that speed cameras will not catch someone if a) the fog is too thick for them to work, b) the fog is not near a speed camera and c) the cars are obeying the speed limit despite that being a suicidal speed in fog.
They help as a lot of people will drive slower when they know cameras are about.
|
but, Unfortunately there are people who think that driving at 80MPH in heavy fog 4 metres away from the back of the car infront is OK.
Yes. and how do speed cameras help? The truth is that speed cameras will not catch someone if a) the fog is too thick for them to work, b) the fog is not near a speed camera and c) the cars are obeying the speed limit despite that being a suicidal speed in fog.
They help as a lot of people will drive slower when they know cameras are about.
But you ignored the points I made. Cameras are too blunt, unless you reduce speed limits right down and enforce them. Then they will,work. We won't get anywhere, the economy will collapse, but a few more of us wil be alive. I see far too many people slow at cameras, then drive like nutters elsewhere.
|
but, Unfortunately there are people who think that driving at 80MPH in heavy fog 4 metres away from the back of the car infront is OK.
Yes. and how do speed cameras help? The truth is that speed cameras will not catch someone if a) the fog is too thick for them to work, b) the fog is not near a speed camera and c) the cars are obeying the speed limit despite that being a suicidal speed in fog.
They help as a lot of people will drive slower when they know cameras are about.
But you ignored the points I made. Cameras are too blunt, unless you reduce speed limits right down and enforce them. Then they will,work. We won't get anywhere, the economy will collapse, but a few more of us wil be alive. I see far too many people slow at cameras, then drive like nutters elsewhere.
A camera will always struggle in the fog to be effective. Even a police officer will find in difficult in those conditions.
Some people do slow down and then speed up but I find more people simply drive more to the speed limits which is what they speed cameras are designed to do.
|
|
You're right because statistics mean nothing to the individual which is why parents of dead children for instance should be kept as far away from the law making process as possible.
Laws brought in as a quick reaction to a single tragedy are bad laws.
I never said that families of victims should have any input to making new laws.
Who mentioned 'single tragedy'? not me! Road deaths have increased by 3% bringing the figure to 24,580 killed or seriously injured in the year ending June 2014.
There were 193,290 road casualties reported for the last year. (again ending in June 2014)
I would hardly call any rules or restrictions based on these figures (or the figures of previous years) to be a knee jerk reaction.
|
|
re the 2 posts above, disagree with the second.
So you disagree with:
In an ideal world people would drive at a speed that is suitable to the conditions but, Unfortunately there are people who think that driving at 80MPH in heavy fog 4 metres away from the back of the car infront is OK
Beggars belief what some drivers are thinking.
|
|
Ah! good point there!
I could not read the second post and was "remembering" the first sentance.
And attempting to explain that introducing Laws to prevent abherrent behaviors does not make sense.
"They" will ignore them.
i.e.
Lowering the drink drive limit to catch those who choose to drive "stupid" drunk.
What is the connection?
Edited by DirtyDieselDogg on 03/03/2015 at 14:15
|
i.e.
Lowering the drink drive limit to catch those who choose to drive "stupid" drunk.
What is the connection?
The drink drive limit is proposed to be reduced (and has been in Scotland) because there is ample evidence of significant impairment well below the current limit.
|
Who mentioned 'single tragedy'? not me! Road deaths have increased by 3% bringing the figure to 24,580 killed or seriously injured in the year ending June 2014.
There were 193,290 road casualties reported for the last year. (again ending in June 2014
Actual fatalities in UK in 2013 were 1,713. In 2000 fatalities were 3,409.
(Full details from DofT website, for those interested)
The year-on-year reductions may well be due to the population of cars being newer, more of them with ESP/airbags/better crashworthiness in general.
Naturally, some will claim it is due to lowered limits and more cameras (not me!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
