40mph on rural roads?

[Mark_Able]

What are they trying to do now? Eventually all the speed limits will be 20mph and it'll be quicker to get where you're going by pushbike.

I am sick and tired of the 'anti-speeders' lobbying the government to impose more and more restrictions on us as motorists. I'm sorry if I offend anyone here, but most of the 'accidents' where someone gets either killed or seriously injured are down to 'misjudgement'. There are a high proportion of 'accidents' cause by the inappropriate use of speed. But there are few accidents (about 7%) attributed directly to excessive speed. More crashes are attributed to out of control kids in the back (about 9%).

The girl that got killed on her pushbike in Taunton, tragic though it is, was killed by two drivers behaving like morons. But because of incidents like this, we'll all have to put up with reduced speed limits, cameras, etc. Would a lower speed limit have made any difference to the two pillocks that were racing that day? Of course not. Just like imposing 40mph speed limits on rural roads won't stop those that want to go faster. All it does is piss off those that have the ability to judge a safe speed. I don't like having the decision taken out of my hands as to what I think is a safe speed and what isn't.

Let's start the debate... :-?

[Swanny]

I agree with you.
I was thinking today when was the last time you saw or heard of an accident on rural roads?? Speed is only a factor because people are driving beyond their capabilities.
I don't beleive speed kills, in my opinion it's bad driving that kills.
The majority of accidents happen in the towns and citys.
This is just more BS control being forced upon us.

[redken1]

Before you rush to the rolling eyes icon and criticise me for talking politics, bear in mind that whether at a local or national level, politicians set the speed limits on our roads.

The simple fact is that our road network is overstretched and can’t cope with the ever increasing volume of traffic.

If you cramp too many animals from any species into a confined space, eventually they will start to attack each other. You don’t have to leave the WB forum to read the anti-van, car, truck, cyclist, horse, pedestrian sentiments. Doubtless, forums representing road users from other modes of transport contain similar animosity directed at bikers.

Reducing speed restrictions on open roads will do nothing to alleviate this problem in the long-term and will just lead to more frustration on our roads.

In the early days of the Blair administration when Johnny ‘two jags’ Prescott was appointed at the helm of the transport rudder, Labour flagged-up its vision to build a modern affordable public transport system.

Fifteen years on and that vision is not fit for sore-eyes. If we are to reduce traffic volume we need alternatives to the private car, bike, like an efficient and affordable pubic transport network.

My wife travels 3 miles to work and back on the bus, which costs a staggering £6.85 per day. Not much incentive there to leave the car in the garage. I would much prefer to ‘let the train take the strain’ when I visit OT to watch Man U, but it costs 3 times more than travelling to Manchester in my van. It was our intention to travel to Edinburgh by train for Easter – not a viable option when it would have cost £450 return for the 4 of us.

IMO we should bring transport systems like network rail into public ownership, which would stop the taxpayers’ subsidies ending up in the pockets of the privateers and could be reinvested for new trains etc. Stop the transport privateers from all modes, cherry-picking the most lucrative routes.
I’m against high fuel prices and/or road tolls as a means of reducing traffic as this would be just another tax. It would not be ring-fenced for transport and would hit the low paid and poorest disproportionately.

[Geordie Stu]

Is it "Politics" or just "Bollocks your talking Ken : : : :
;D ;D ;D

[wiltshire builders]

You are absolutely right Ken. The trouble is, everything is short term solutions with the politicians. They can't think beyond the next election because they know they're talking ****e and probably won't be around for too long.

As for lowering accidents on the roads, everyone knows that education is the ONLY way. Unfortunately that costs money and people don't want to pay for it so the short term solution is to lower speed limits.
This not only looks like something is being done but also makes money that can be ploughed back into the community for much needed things like expensive artwork in council offices, exchange trips to foreign countries and schemes to overhaul the NHS that cost millions of pounds then are shelved 2 years down the line.
Don't forget to keep switching the roles of the politicians so that the blame can't be pinned on anyone in particular!

[Geordie Stu]

[quote author=dan_geoghegan link=1343940251/4#4 date=1344076624]You are absolutely right Ken. The trouble is, everything is short term solutions with the politicians. They can't think beyond the next election because they know they're talking ****e and probably won't be around for too long.

As for lowering accidents on the roads, everyone knows that education is the ONLY way. quote]

Education not just for New Riders, Drivers. Am I right in thinking if anyone who has been disqualified, has to retake their test ? If anyone reaches 9 points on their licence they should automatically have to do the Hazard awareness test. Make the driving "Car Driver test harder" Do you have to sit a Hazard awareness test also ?

Reducing the speed limit won't reduce the speed of younger driver/riders, Just the The Older Generation (TOG) will drive the same way.

This conversation will run & run we all have our thoughts on it. The goverment won't listen & try to push through any EU changes.

[Swanny]

Next will come average speed cameras clocking you in and out of towns
40 mph is a bad joke >

[Wes]

40 mph from the ringroad at emersons all the way now to the bath junction at tormarton, ive heard that the council have a higher duty of care/maintenance where the speed limits are higher, say for example a 60 limit will have a schedule for inspection and repair more frequent than a 40, if you lower the limit, you lower the inspection intervals, as usual, it all comes down to ....money.

[redken1]

Is it "Politics" or just "Bollocks your talking Ken : : : :
;D ;D ;D

I always talk bollocks, but at least I talk in English, ye ken canny lad? ;D ;D ;D

[Mark_Able]

The only banned drivers that have to take a retest are those that are ordered to do so by a court, which is pretty rare. They are normally drivers that are banned for 'Dangerous Driving' or a big 'Drink Driving'. Even the 'Dangerous Driving' is normally only considered when someone has died. Those that lose their licence in the first two years of driving have to resit their test, but it's exactly the same.

Reducing the speed limits is a short-term solution to a bigger problem, bad driving. If the Police are trained to a high enough level to be considered safe at whatever speed, then surely it's possible to train Joe-public to a similar level. Quite frankly, reducing speed limits is an exercise in cutting serious injuries and fatalities the easy way. Let's face it, if we all rode or drove at 5mph, then the number of fatalities or serious injuries would be in single figures. But is that why we chose to ride/drive in the first place? We chose to drive/ride to get from A to B quicker than any other means (which includes crappy public transport). More speed will include increased risk. The ONLY solution is better education, not slowing everyone down.

It's like saying the solution to air accidents is to not allow planes to take off... :