An article has appeared in the Evening Standard suggesting that, if elected, the conservative party would review speed limits, in particular in residential areas speed limits could get lower say 20mph and on motorways limits could be raised to say 80/90mph.
My own view is that this is most welcome and sensible. I think we should have speed limits that are based on actual rates of road traffic accidents so particular accident hot spots have lower limits and roads that are safe have higher limits. I think the motorway limit should be raised to 80/90mph, most people travel at or around 80 mph anyway. I also think that night time speed limits sould be raised even higher (why not have electronically opoerated varibale speed limits on all motorways and A roads). I recently drove back on a empty M1 from Leeds to London and it was quite safe to drive at 80-100mph in dry weather in a modern family car. Lets not forget that speed limits were set in the days of morris minors. I beleive motoring technology has moved forward a gret deal but so has traffic volume.
The article also suggested that road side camera policy is likely to be reviewed leading to a reduction in the number of GATSO's. As we all know GATSO are just a form of stealth tax and do nothing to increase road safety.
I also beleive that the road tax disc should be abolished and replaced by a supplimental levy on fuel, I beleive this would be more efficient and equitable, so the more you drive the more you pay.
Road pricing (another stealth tax) should only be introduced after genuine improvements have been made to roads/rail infrastructure.
All road humps should be ripped up and removed, they increase pollution and do not stop postie or white van man from driving slowly! ...perhaps replaced by cameras if the accident rate warrants it...
Am I talking sense or complete rubbish....
|
Some of that looks sensible and easily said in opposition. But I can't see anyone reducing means of raising revenue - they all want revenue!
I suspect that once elected this idea would pretty soon get parked.
|
|
|
Kal,
I agree with most of what you say but I dont believe al Gatso's are a form of stealth tax. Alot of these cameras are in accident blackspots and do a good job in keeping the traffic down to a sensible speed, however there are an awfull lot of them that have no bearing on safety and as you say are purely for revenue.
The abolishment of the tax disc is something that would have to be carefully looked at as I'm sure if you are a high mileage driver, courier etc, the added cost would probably put you out of business.
|
|
Kal, just to be pedantic, I remember reading somewhere that when the motorways were first opened they had no speed limit at all. It was the likes of Jaguar who used to test their race cars on the motorway that hastened the introduction of the 70 limit. Somebody tell I didn't dream this please.
|
The ABD(*) make some sensible proposals along the lines of your posting. One is to make sure that speed limits and other safety measures are assessed by the police and other road safety experts rather than councils. That way we would at least have uniform standards rather than the sometimes amateurish situation that exists today. (Limits that last 100m, limits that are too high/low, speed bumps in odd areas etc).
(*) ABD = Association of British Drivers. I won't comment on this group.
|
|
|
Robert..No I don't think you dreamed this as I remember the M1 being opened in about October 1959 from Crick to the M10 in to South Mimms.
There was no speed limit but in November 1959 there was horrific carnage in fog. Scores of vehicles were crahing into each other with very high death and injury numbers.
The papers were full of it at the time and was attributed to drivers being usused to high speed roads and believed it was safe to keep up the speed even in thick fog. (similar to today)
Just when the 70mph limit came about I don't recall but would have been the result of such incidents I feel sure.
Other chenges made later prohibited HGVs from using the outside lane.
alvin
|
IIRC the 70 limit came in in the early 70s as a fuel saving measure resulting from the oil crisis, nothing to do with safety.
I've still got my petrol coupons from those distant days....
Terry
|
I think the 70 limit came in as a respose to AC Cars testing their their Le Mans entry on the road. Estimates as to speed vary depending on which book you read, but all I've see are in excess of 150mph with some near 200.
Goverment of the day denied it was a knee jerk, and was experimental for a year (although no-one was fooled).
Petrol saving later reduced it to 50mph but limit went back later.
|
An extract from a website
tinyurl.com/fqik
A series of multiple accidents in fog in 1965 led the Government into the all too familiar position, where it felt that it had to be seen to be 'doing something'. The result was a four-month 'experiment', starting on 22nd December 1965, of a mandatory maximum speed limit of 70 mph on all roads previously unrestricted. At the same time, an advisory speed limit of 30 mph was to apply on motorways in poor visibility, when indicated by flashing amber warning lights, controlled by the Police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a keen motorcyclist as well as a driver.
Before His Toniness was elected, he claimed he would make motorcycles "central in the transport policy". He appeared on tv sitting on a Triumph, grinning as usual.
Once elected, he's done exactly as expected.
Moral: Don't trust politicians. Not a statistical assertion, it's only His Toniness.... yes, I know, but trust in God and make everyone else pay cash.
To get your vote the Tories will claim 5p per litre fuel, 300mph speed limits on motorways, 20mph outside schools etc.
Once in power it's "we didn't realise..... and so the agenda is postponed."
|
|
Re the usual comment re old cars and speed limits. Clearly cars have improved since the days of the Morris Minor. However, the big snag is that drivers haven't evolved. They are also less likely to concentrate, what with radios, CD's, cell phones and other distractions. Not least, the great unwashed now drive as distinct from the former higher paid, and dare I say, better mannered, echelons of society;)
|
|
|
|
£26,448was £27,449Details
£29,550was £29,895Details
£16,024was £16,232Details
£34,990was £35,490Details
