View Full Version : Petition to Not reduce the national speed limit
Fill in this petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/noNSLreduction (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/noNSLreduction)
If you don't like the idea of reducing the national speed limit. Be quick because the deadline is 2morrow.
Reduce the Speed limit to 50mph, now that is a good idea :Razz
redeyedtreefrog
08-Sep-09, 21:34
They should reduce it to 50 for inexperienced drivers and keep it at the current speed for people over, say, 35.
Tubthumper
08-Sep-09, 23:56
"Following the announcement that the government is planning to reduce the national speed limit to 50 miles per hour, we the undersigned oppose this, since it will make no difference to road deaths and the cut in carbon emissions is so insignificantly small it's laughable."
I have got to ask, who proposes this crap? And who signs up to it? Does it not dawn on people that garbage like this serves only to waste government time and resources, and masks issues that are actually real?
Laughable indeed!
Reduce the Speed limit to 50mph, now that is a good idea :Razz
here here
dx
Based on ill-informed opinion and with absolutely no research I want the national speed limit left as it is and motorways to be raised to 100mph.
Based on ill-informed opinion and with absolutely no research I want the national speed limit left as it is and motorways to be raised to 100mph.
I'll second that.
And at the same time ban online petitions.
Based on ill-informed opinion and with absolutely no research I want the national speed limit left as it is and motorways to be raised to 100mph.
Why 100mph Jox? Why not 80 or 90?:eek:
And at the same time ban online petitions.
this seems more important
Why 100mph Jox? Why not 80 or 90?:eek:
I often drive from Hampshire to Glasgow, a distance of 420 miles, so with a limit of 100mph I could do the journey in a little over 4hrs, whereas driving at 50mph will take me over 8hrs, unless it's only A and B roads that comes under the proposal leaving M-ways as they are. Also, I'm more likely to have an accident at the lower speed, boredom sets in dawdling along and I'd end up losing concentration. The quickest I've done the journey is 5hr 15 mins, that was back in the days before speed cameras covered the country.
Boozeburglar
09-Sep-09, 01:56
Then let's petition for a 155mph limit!
Why not? The logic seems irrefutable!
Boozeburglar
09-Sep-09, 02:01
By the way your times are pedestrian, I used to be in my bed in London in 8 hours door to door from Thurso with a fuel stop near Glasgow, (albeit on an overnight run).
:)
Tubthumper
09-Sep-09, 07:46
And at the same time ban online petitions.
Here's a laugh - I was actually meaning who proposes these online petitions, not who proposes the speed limit reduction!
Maybe reducing the speed limit isn't the answer: Anyone got any other bright ideas how we can reduce the awful toll of dead yougsters on highland roads?
Anyone got any other bright ideas how we can reduce the awful toll of dead yougsters on highland roads?
Raise the age at which you can obtain a driving license. Infact why not raise the age to 21 or 25 before you can drive, smoke, drink and any other pleasure in life
Set a minimum amount of hours driver training you must complete before sitting a test.
tonkatojo
09-Sep-09, 09:44
It is unbelievable what some people would advocate to suit themselves.
The only solution what would work is an electronic device factory fitted to regulate speed according to road,age,experience or any other factors the authorities come up with. These would be activated by road sensors and EPRS devices.
The penalties for tampering would have to be such so as it would be folly to do it, IE not a ruddy ASBO.
northener
09-Sep-09, 11:07
Not as clear cut as it seems........
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/article5864847.ece
What difference will it make anyway? It's not just the crazy young who ignore the speed limit. I know plenty of otherwise perfectly respectable, law abiding older drivers who think speed limits simply don't apply to them becauses they're "good, experienced" drivers.
You can't legally drive anywhere in Caithness at more than 60 (even overtaking) but it doesn't seem to stop those who think country roads are for 70 or even 80. Restricted areas - who cares, they just ignore them. I was overtaken driving through Castletown at 30 (the limit) in the daytime earlier this week, Murkle (50) is well known for speeding because it's a straight stretch, same applies to many 40 areas.
I don't see dropping it to 50 stopping anyone. What's needed is for the law to be enforced not more regulation.
I've never managed to drive at 100mph, although at my age (64) I have always wanted to do it, I get to 90mph and "cop out" every time (even with Led Zepplin or "Born to be Wild" on the CD player) on the A9 from Latheron to Thurso, never found a stretch long enough to get my little Fiesta up there at the 100mph.
Any Boy Racer's prepared to take me over the 100mph??
Ha ha ha excellent this made me smile - I cant get past 70 in my vehicle so your doing good getting 90 :lol:
Wait till I win the lottery and buy myself a red ferrari with a pink furry dice and i ll race you then. Helmsdale stretch will be best ha ha ha:lol::lol:
I've never managed to drive at 100mph, although at my age (64) I have always wanted to do it, I get to 90mph and "cop out" every time (even with Led Zepplin or "Born to be Wild" on the CD player) on the A9 from Latheron to Thurso, never found a stretch long enough to get my little Fiesta up there at the 100mph.
Any Boy Racer's prepared to take me over the 100mph??
Fill in this petition http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/noNSLreduction (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/noNSLreduction)
If you don't like the idea of reducing the national speed limit. Be quick because the deadline is 2morrow.
Indeed why not reduce the speed limit?:confused
The problem with this country's transport policy is that although we have seen an actual reduction in overall deaths per year per road user, we have seen more 'vulnerable' road users such as pedestrians and cyclists and these 'more vulnerable' road users are statistically more at risk from serious injury than before.[evil]
Indeed why not reduce the speed limit?:confused
The problem with this country's transport policy is that although we have seen an actual reduction in overall deaths per year per road user, we have seen more 'vulnerable' road users such as pedestrians and cyclists and these 'more vulnerable' road users are statistically more at risk from serious injury than before.[evil]
*How many times can they die? [lol]
*Sorry for being flippant.
*Sorry for being flippant.
You will be, you will be...:Razz
Tom Cornwall
09-Sep-09, 23:10
By the way your times are pedestrian, I used to be in my bed in London in 8 hours door to door from Thurso with a fuel stop near Glasgow, (albeit on an overnight run).
:)
If I drive from Norwich to Wick, it is 650 miles...so, from London to Thurso you could add another 100 miles...to do this in 8 hours is an average of roughly 90 odd mph...which means that at times you were doing well over 100 and at others you were doing under 80..
what were you driving....not a lorry hopefully...
YESSS!!! I always thougth 60 miles was to fast, 50 it is better it is a good idea, you drive to fast over there.
bluechesse
10-Sep-09, 01:40
Hmm, at the risk of being some what controversial, what is it exactly that everyone seems to think will be acheived by dropping the speed limit, other than slowing the flow of traffic obviousley? For a start, many of the worst accidents are caused by people driving dangerousley and without due care and attention, not just by speeding. Reducing the speed limit will not cure this. If someone is going to drive like a lunatic, breaking the speed limit at every turn, dropping the limit to 50 will make not a hoot of difference.
And on another note, the current speed limits were put in force donkeys years ago, before cars were fitted with ABS and other such fancy dan driving safety aids . Technology has come a long way and cars nowadays can slow from 60 mph to a total stop in half the time they could 30 years ago, so with this new technology in place, is it not a step backwards to reduce the speed limit? Granted cars are now much more powerful, and capable of much greater speed and acceleration, but lowering the speed limit does nothing to alter this. If someone has decided they are going to drive along at section of road at 100mph, the fact that the speed limit is 50 and not 60 will make hee haw difference in my opinion.
The speed limit for lorries is 50mph, and they are involved in far fewer accidents. This is not becuase the limit is lower for them, but simply due to the fact that the drivers make their living from driving, and are simply more careful.
The government need to put a lot more emphisis on driving in a careful and curtious manner, and less on the actual speed. It is perfectly possible for one driver to drive along safely at an average speed of 60 mph on a strech of road, and for another to drive extremely unsafely at 40 mph on the exact same strech of road.
Likewise, if you are driving along a straight strech of road, with little traffic, at 80mph, in a curtious manner, how is this dangerous? But if you are driving at 60 on the same strech, and overtaking at the last minute in to the path of oncoming traffic and generally being an idiot, this is certainly dangerous. But you would not be breaking the speed limit so does that make it ok?
But, it's a lot harder to prove someone is driving unsafely than it is to prove they are breaking the speed limit, which brings me to beleive that this proposal has, in reality, a lot more to do with speeding fines and the revenue they bring the government than actual road safety. If we had more actual police monitoring the manner in which cars are driven, not just the speed, and less reliance on automated cameras and camera vans operated by plain ordinary non-police personel which purely monitor speed, I think the roads would be a much safer place for us all :cool:
northener
10-Sep-09, 09:41
Bluecheese, you've summed the problem up nicely.
It is inappropriate speed that is the culprit, not some arbitrary limit. Certainly, up here,reducing that limit would be a pretty ineffective measure. However, I can see the benefit on some of the horrendously twisty roads you get elswhere in Britain....and pssibly a couple of short stretches in Caithness.
I fear that regional councils fiscal policy will have far more to do with policy on speed than risk.
Think about it, wouldn't it be easier for a council to impose a blanket 50 mph limit across the county rather than go to all the expense of surveying roads, changing limits and installing expensive signs?
All that would happen is that the Council would press the Police into enforcing their new limit, thus removing Plod from a worthwhile task and replacing it with enforcing a political/financially driven policy.
And, turning things on their head, if national Government enforced a nationwide 50mph limit, do you think the council will go to the trouble of changing the limit to a more sensible 60mph on relevant sections? Hardly.
Tinkering with a couple of signs isn't going to make the slightest difference to the prats who overtake in dangerous places (in fact it will increase the likelyhood of that happening) or to the (expletives deleted) who hammer down the open road at 120mph in hacking down rain, or to the cretins who tank through villages at 50mph.
kmahon2001
10-Sep-09, 11:15
Reducing the speed limit may not stop those who will always ignore the limit and go as fast as they dare, but it does mean that any law abiding vehicles they come (literally) into contact with will be going that bit slower and this may reduce the damage and death toll slightly. In addition, if a driver is doing 50 mph and finds a speed merchant heading towards them, he/she would have slightly more reaction time to possibly avoid a collision (only slightly more time, but it could make a difference). And before the wisecracks start, no I don't feel we should reduce the speed limit even further to 40, 30 or 20 mph - that would be ridiculous.
The only certain way to stop people driving over the national speed limit is to fit speed limiters in each and every car, motorbike, van etc and to have very serious and costly penalties for tampering with the devices, but that is totally impractical and would be hugely expensive too. Not to mention the cries of "Nanny State" that would inevitably issue from those who want to retain the freedom to break the law whenever they see fit.
Leaving aside those who willingly break the speed limit because they don't consider it should apply to them, there are those who I believe may be genuinely confused about the national speed limit on rural roads. The sign for national speed limit is the same on rural roads as it is on motorways. Maybe a different sign may help those who are used to doing 70 (ish) on motorways to realise that the speed limit is actually only 60 on the rural roads.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.