20mph limits coming

TheMgt said:

Ekul Namsob said:

TheMgt said:

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Ben C <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

>> They made what I think is a good point in that article, which is that
>> 20mph limits will erode respect for speed limits generally.
> Why? It's easy to drive at 20 mph and quite appropriate for drivers to
> travel slowly down residential streets.
Maybe, but that isn't what'll happen. 20 mph limits are like cycle
farcilities in that they allow some council jobsworth to tick a box
marked 'job done, budget spent' while making sod all difference really.

Do you have any evidence for that?

My own eyes. I've never yet been behind anyone who slowed for a 20 limit
unless the road was lined with speed bumps. Not that I'm advocating
more speed bumps or anything.

So, your only evidence is anecdotal. The problem with that is that the
evidence of my own eyes is that people round here tend to slow down for
them.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Ben C

(') said:

They made what I think is a good point in that article, which is that
20mph limits will erode respect for speed limits generally.

It's foolish to make laws that significant numbers of people will think
are silly. They will just break them, unless you enforce them like mad,
and excessive enforcement is not appropriate in a civilized country.

People - yes, I specifically mean you - are so gullible.

On Alec Salmond's first day as First Minister, some bright spark journalist
asked him if he supported the idea of a Scottish Olympics team. It 'wasn't
a priority' said Salmond. There were more important things he had to deal
with. On being pressed, he said that yes, in principle, he did support the
idea. So the headlines in all over the papers were 'SNP plan Scottish
Olympics team' and the next day it was 'IOC won't allow SNP Olympic team'.

It was a non-story, entirely cooked up by the media. The SNP had no plans
for a Scottish Olympic team.

Similarly, with this 20mph speed limit thing, it's a non-story. NOTHING HAS
CHANGED. Councils have had the right to put 20mph speed limits on
residential streets for years - probably since speed limit legislation was
first introduced, but certainly for the last decade. Guess what? They
still do. There've been plenty round here for years. Now one more town -
Portsmouth is to adopt them.

And just because of a silly story in a tabloid you wouldn't dirty your [censored]
with, you're getting hot under the collar about 'foolish laws' which
will 'erode respect for speed limits'. You're a mug, laddie. You've been
conned. You've fallen for it hook, line and sinker. That's exactly the
reaction the Express was looking for. It's a non-story cooked up in the
newsroom on a slow news day. It's the journalistic equivalent of trolling.

Well said 🙂

In article <[email hidden]>, Ben C
[email hidden] says...
<snip>

Quoted message said:

I already respect speed limits much less than I used to. It's getting to
the point where one just ignores most of the road furniture except the
cameras.

Might I suggest that if one pays attention to the other road furniture,
particularly the round white signs with a red border and a black number,
and the little groups of three coloured lights, then one may safely
ignore the cameras.

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Ben C
[email hidden] says...
<snip>

Quoted message said:

I already respect speed limits much less than I used to. It's getting to
the point where one just ignores most of the road furniture except the
cameras.

Might I suggest that if one pays attention to the other road furniture,
particularly the round white signs with a red border and a black number,
and the little groups of three coloured lights, then one may safely
ignore the cameras.

Now, now. That's just getting silly. You'll be suggesting that drivers
should take tests before they are allowed to drive alone next.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

TheMgt said:

Ekul Namsob said:

TheMgt said:

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Ben C <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> They made what I think is a good point in that article, which is that
>> 20mph limits will erode respect for speed limits generally.
> Why? It's easy to drive at 20 mph and quite appropriate for drivers to
> travel slowly down residential streets.
Maybe, but that isn't what'll happen. 20 mph limits are like cycle
farcilities in that they allow some council jobsworth to tick a box
marked 'job done, budget spent' while making sod all difference really.

Do you have any evidence for that?

My own eyes. I've never yet been behind anyone who slowed for a 20 limit
unless the road was lined with speed bumps. Not that I'm advocating
more speed bumps or anything.

I was travelling along the road today, 20 mph (I had my aircon on, and
it's real slow to get my car going), and I had to swerve to avoid a
speed bump.

Bloody woman and her brood include a kid in a pushchair, they were
crossing a side road, then decided they were just going to walk out into
the middle of the main road that I was on.

These people deserve to be killed. It's about time we stopped being a
cotton wool society and said to people "You wanna behave like a pratt,
then that's up to you, but you live with the consequences". Some bint is
trying to get some kind of legislation going that'll ban talking on a
mobile phone while crossing a road because someone once got killed,
ergo, it's dangerous.

Lets bring back natural selection.

So my vote is against 20mph speed limit, and lets focus more on
dangerous driving. In towns and cities where visibility is reduced etc,
I'll bring my speed down to a natural speed, ie, 20mph. It's a speed
limit, not a target.

But then a 20mph limit at times when it's say middle of the night, or
there's excellent visibility, 20mph could well feel incorrect.

Cya
Simon

Simon Dean said:

Bloody woman and her brood include a kid in a pushchair, [...]
These people deserve to be killed.

No, they don't.

--
Gareth Rees

Simon Dean said:

I was travelling along the road today, 20 mph (I had my aircon on, and
it's real slow to get my car going), and I had to swerve to avoid a
speed bump.

Jump out in front of you from between parked cars, did it?

--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
I eat my peas with honey, I've done it all my life.
It makes the peas taste funny, but it keeps them on the knife.
(Spike Milligan)

Gareth Rees said:

Simon Dean said:

Bloody woman and her brood include a kid in a pushchair, [...]
These people deserve to be killed.

No, they don't.

Why not?

They want to step into the middle of the road without looking where the
f*** they're going! And we're trying to protect these idiots, making it
safer for them to practice their lunacy, prosecute those around them,
just to help them carry on being unsafe and maybe, even, one day
becoming an idiot prime minister?

Wally said:

Simon Dean said:

I was travelling along the road today, 20 mph (I had my aircon on, and
it's real slow to get my car going), and I had to swerve to avoid a
speed bump.

Jump out in front of you from between parked cars, did it?

No, as I said.... "It" was crossing a side road, ie, the road that I
wasn't on. Then all of a sudden, in the middle of them crossing that
road, they make a 90 degree right turn and cross into the middle of the
main road (the road I was on).

Wally said:

Simon Dean said:

Quoted message said:

> I was travelling along the road today, 20 mph (I had my aircon on,
> and it's real slow to get my car going), and I had to swerve to
> avoid a speed bump.
Jump out in front of you from between parked cars, did it?

Quoted message said:

No, as I said.... "It" was crossing a side road, ...

Yawn.

Ok, well, please, fill me in to your supreme intelligence. What is your
point? You have got one havent you?

Simon Dean said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I was travelling along the road today, 20 mph (I had my aircon on,
and it's real slow to get my car going), and I had to swerve to
avoid a speed bump.

Jump out in front of you from between parked cars, did it?

Quoted message said:

No, as I said.... "It" was crossing a side road, ...

Yawn.

--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.

Simon Dean said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bloody woman and her brood include a kid in a pushchair, [...]
These people deserve to be killed.

No, they don't.

Why not?

Because they are people; human beings like me and you. No-one deserves
to be killed for a moment of inattention or carelessness or stupidity.
They may be killed as a *consequence* of that carelessness. But they do
not *deserve* it.

Quoted message said:

And we're trying to protect these idiots

These "idiots" are our fellow citizens, our relatives, our neighbours,
maybe you and me on a bad day. They deserve tolerance and forbearance,
not death.

--
Gareth Rees

Gareth Rees said:

Simon Dean said:

Quoted message said:

> Bloody woman and her brood include a kid in a pushchair, [...]
> These people deserve to be killed.

No, they don't.

Why not?

Because they are people; human beings like me and you. No-one deserves
to be killed for a moment of inattention or carelessness or stupidity.
They may be killed as a *consequence* of that carelessness. But they do
not *deserve* it.

Quoted message said:

And we're trying to protect these idiots

These "idiots" are our fellow citizens, our relatives, our neighbours,
maybe you and me on a bad day. They deserve tolerance and forbearance,
not death.

Ok, you're right of course. I got carried away. But I don't see that
they deserve wrapping up in legislation that only erodes our personal
responsibility. Perhaps if people thought that they might get killed if
they did something stupid, they might pay more attention?

Cya
Simon

Simon Dean said:

Wally said:

Simon Dean said:

I was travelling along the road today, 20 mph (I had my aircon on, and
it's real slow to get my car going), and I had to swerve to avoid a
speed bump.

Jump out in front of you from between parked cars, did it?

Quoted message said:

No, as I said.... "It" was crossing a side road, ie, the road that I
wasn't on. Then all of a sudden, in the middle of them crossing that
road, they make a 90 degree right turn and cross into the middle of the
main road (the road I was on).

[censored]. The speed bump was crossing a side road. Why? Was it trying
to follow the chicken?

And you had to swerve to avoid it, even though it was crossing the road
you weren't on.

Thanks for brightening my day,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Simon Dean said:

Gareth Rees wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

These "idiots" are our fellow citizens, our relatives, our neighbours,
maybe you and me on a bad day. They deserve tolerance and forbearance,
not death.

Quoted message said:

Ok, you're right of course. I got carried away. But I don't see that
they deserve wrapping up in legislation that only erodes our personal
responsibility. Perhaps if people thought that they might get killed if
they did something stupid, they might pay more attention?

Ah. I'm with you, so we should bring in the death penalty for careless
drivers who swerve to avoid speed bumps crossing side roads.

Then you might pay more attention.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Ekul Namsob said:

Simon Dean said:

Wally said:

Simon Dean wrote:

> I was travelling along the road today, 20 mph (I had my aircon on, and
> it's real slow to get my car going), and I had to swerve to avoid a
> speed bump.
Jump out in front of you from between parked cars, did it?

Quoted message said:

No, as I said.... "It" was crossing a side road, ie, the road that I
wasn't on. Then all of a sudden, in the middle of them crossing that
road, they make a 90 degree right turn and cross into the middle of the
main road (the road I was on).

[censored]. The speed bump was crossing a side road. Why? Was it trying
to follow the chicken?

And you had to swerve to avoid it, even though it was crossing the road
you weren't on.

Thank you for not reading. You look like you have missed...

"Then all of a sudden ... they make a 90 degree right turn and cross
into the middle of the main road (the road I was on)."

You see, these are the laws of physics and geometry and simple
mathematics, that when someone suddenly, with no warning decides to run
into the middle of your path, means that you end up having to swerve or
hopefully slam on your brakes to hopefully avoid said suicidal object.

Why do people seem so unable to read, often ignoring statements, or
inventing their own in order to flame, ridicule, or argue against.

Cya
Simon

Simon Dean said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, as I said.... "It" was crossing a side road, ...

Yawn.

Quoted message said:

Ok, well, please, fill me in to your supreme intelligence. What is
your point? You have got one havent you?

My point was that your attempt at 'humour' was [censored].

--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Call me a saint, call me a sinner - just don't call me... late for
dinner.

Simon Dean said:

Why do people seem so unable to read, often ignoring statements, or
inventing their own in order to flame, ridicule, or argue against.

They probably don't, by and large. However, in your case, they may be making
an exception for a sarcastic, callous [censored].

--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
I eat my peas with honey, I've done it all my life.
It makes the peas taste funny, but it keeps them on the knife.
(Spike Milligan)

Wally said:

Simon Dean said:

Quoted message said:

> No, as I said.... "It" was crossing a side road, ...
Yawn.

Quoted message said:

Ok, well, please, fill me in to your supreme intelligence. What is
your point? You have got one havent you?

My point was that your attempt at 'humour' was [censored].

Ahh. Highly convoluded point, and pretty hypocritical coming from you.

Wally said:

Simon Dean said:

Why do people seem so unable to read, often ignoring statements, or
inventing their own in order to flame, ridicule, or argue against.

They probably don't, by and large. However, in your case, they may be making
an exception for a sarcastic, callous [censored].

What's sarcastic about it? A young woman and her family tried to kill
themselves by throwing themselves in front of my car without warning? I
think that's deadly serious and extremely worrying trend of society that
these idiots are actually being defended.

Worse still, rather than trying to educate these morons, we'd rather
clap and applaud because someone's installed a 20mph zone, or put a
warning on a hot apple pie, or a warning that your bag of peanuts
contain peanuts.

I think it's pathetic and disgusting. There's no sarcasm intended.