Safe Speed Forums

We could compare these statements to the state of large fowl food production in this country -

"Speed limits are a good idea and are useful to road safety."

"Turkeys are a good source of non fat meat ,and healthy food"

"Speed limits are a vauable minor contributor to road safety."

"Turkeys are a good source of food - and their white meat means less fat"


"Speed limits are a good idea and are useful to road safety."

Turkey meat is low in fat and lower in calories if not cooked in fat.



"Current enforcement practice has promoted speed limits way beyond their level of competence, to the point that they are frequently a dangerous distraction."

The current trend to plumper turkeys means a fatter bird, which could mean more saturated fat , which poses a health hazard

Now - we could get Bernard in charge of road safety policy - a saving for turkeys - and possibly an increase in road safety terms - as he knows as much as the present mob.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Well, I wasn't asked to answer it in the first place.


Agreed - but a broad question may require a somewhat qualified reply.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

IIRC the original question had this as "legally binding maximum speed limits", and is fairly clearly a speed limit that one must not exceed by law.





I'd have thought that in the context of being preceded by a discussion on the notion that laws that are not enforced do not exist cf mice pies at christmas.



Do you think those speed limits should be legally binding? And that they should exists in practise eg be enforced?



The comment in question was aimed at Paul, sorry that wasn't clear.

I know, but I couldn't resist the temptation to answer it anyway

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

We've been here before and it's boring. Is this statement an answer:

Legal speed limits are a useful road safety device. They should be enforced when to do so is practical and genuinely in the broad interests of safety.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I don't dispute its boring - most things are, when actually looking at solving the problem.



Is a "mince pies at christmas" situation desirable wrt speed limits?

No. We'd lose the opportunity to use the speed limit laws against those using speed recklessly. And their value as a guide for inexperienced and underskilled drivers would be more-or-less lost.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

He seems to have answered the question pretty clearly there, tbh. Not remotely a mince pies situation.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I know this is completely off-topic, but the saturated fat health hazard is a myth. Read Dr. Malcolm Kendrick.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

What is really ludicrous is for drivers to place themselves above the law.

_________________
I stole this .sig

No. What is REALLY ludicrous is applying the law in such a way that millions of responsible citizens are criminalised for behaving responsibly.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I was thinking the same about you - it’s mad that you don’t back the limits, even though you must know that they do good in the round. I mean what I say - it’s those blokes who prattle on about paper clips that are joking.



Hey hey ... that’s a new one - we're getting somewhere – you have now backed the limits, and they do good. We can agree that speed limits are good, and should be enforced, at least some of the time.

If they are not binding all the time (for unenforced limits are not really very limiting!), the next question I have for you is this - how can drivers know when they are in the clear? I mean, how can they avoid a ticket when the limits are only enforced sometimes?

We could obey the limits all the time even though they are only enforced some of the time, like I do. Would that be asking too much?

Or we could leave it up to chance - is that what you prefer?

_________________
I stole this .sig

If it were true, yes. But it's not. For the limits to work, we (as drivers) have to all get behind them (or more literally, under them) and change the culture so that they are respected more often in places where they need to be respected. By obeying the law, we save far more drivers from getting speeding points than www.pepipoo.com ever could, and we preserve the reputation of motorists.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Depends on whether your aim is to save drivers from speeding points, or to save them from crashing and killing themselves and others. If the former, well and good. If it's the latter, well...

Speed limits make a good servant of road safety, but a very lousy master.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Then surely the issue is with the law, rather than enforcement? After all, they're still criminalised, regardless of if they are caught or not.

The way things are going now, pretty soon you're going to be criminalised for farting in your own bed.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

If it applied to my office-mate Bob, I'd pass a law tomorrow.

Seriously, who was it who said "We are reaching the point where normal people cannot go about their daily business without breaking the law"?

Even if we can't name him/her, does anyone think this proposition is valid?

So is the issue the law or the fashion in which it is enforced?

Both, but mainly the latter... There's nothing wrong with road traffic laws, there's everything wrong with obsessive, anal, enforcement thereof.

You can guarantee that once smoking in pubs etc becomes illegal that, despite "shortages of manpower", there'll be police checking round, issuing enforcement notices to smokers etc... And all the while the real criminal fraternity will be able to operate without hindrance.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Can current enforcement of traffic law really be considered "anal" or "obsessive"? It seems to me that the vast majority of roads in UK are simply under the radar of the police, speed cameras, or whatever.



Pray tell - whats the difference between a "real" criminal and a person who is "merely" breaking the law?