Anyway if the roads went falling apart through lack of maintanence maybe there wouldnt be so many accidents

plus 50mph is such a boring speed, your more likely to fall asleep and crash into someone

i like that..... Good arguement for the Goverment

Anyway if the roads went falling apart through lack of maintanence maybe there wouldnt be so many accidents

plus 50mph is such a boring speed, your more likely to fall asleep and crash into someone

i like that..... Good arguement for the Goverment

I reckon CP should all cruise down to HoP and put our arguement forward about the new speed restriction

And they dont own the country, we do. We pay for everything it does anyway!

don't kid yourself mate, we do pay for every thing but that's as far as it goes, they can and do do what they like. just to prove my point, did you vote for Gordon Brown to run the country?

Anyway if the roads went falling apart through lack of maintanence maybe there wouldnt be so many accidents

plus 50mph is such a boring speed, your more likely to fall asleep and crash into someone

i like that..... Good arguement for the Goverment

I reckon CP should all cruise down to HoP and put our arguement forward about the new speed restriction

I'm in on that

^^ I seem to recall that it was a labour government that introduced the first M1 motorway and increased the speed limit to 70mph from 55mph as was originally.

Perhaps if some drivers had been following the speed limit or drove properly then our democratically elected Government would not make such a decision on the decreasing the speed limit?

I was reading that this just applies to b roads? a roads would still be 60. correct me if i am wrong

If that is the case i dont think its that bad a move. I live just outside of Durham, loads of B roads there are twisting and winding, and yeah its fun doing 60... but fact is that 50 would be safer.

If we are all honest, there have been times you have came hurdling round a corner and someone is on horseback, or having a walk, and you have had to slam the anchors on. Its true that you were doing nothing wrong, but its less likely to end in tears if you are doing 50 instead of 60.

If your on a long straight a road, and it remains 50, then cool.

hypothetically they were going to install gps in to all cars for road charging years ago were they not?

and part of this system was to automatically fine drivers who went over the limits for the roads, this idea wont happen in the extreme it had been reported in the papers, i can guarantee that.

they will reduce maximum speed limits on some accident blackspot roads, much like they have extended 30 limits and added progressive national/40/30 reductions coming into villages and yes maybe install average speed cameras in some areas

but how would a 6 miles average speed trap effect a yokle? - someone who goes from house to A road for 3 miles then work, it couldn`t - so in essence they are targeting people who use the road network more.

if you want to have FUN wouldn`t you just pass a camera, gun it for a while (ie have your fun) then stop for a coffee and doughnut before carrying on to your destination - you lot dont gun it everywhere do you?

Edited 10 March, 200917 yr by bobby_hill

more wankey speed traps! weh hey...id be seriously fucked off if the twatty government plonked a big ol' yellow box in my nice countryside.

if the 'people' can stop wind farms being build, I'm sure they can stop the cameras!

the bell ends that want to speed and end up causing accidents will carry on doing so, speed cameras or not. so its yet another massive waste of cash.

they should come and fill the cave thats opened up in the middle of the road home from work, now thats alot more dangerous than me doing an average speed of 60 through the twisty's.

i only caught a bit of it, but did anyone catch a news article on the TV regarding a 'new drives' safety warning light system?

you have a green, amber and red light on your dash, any harsh stunts you pull gets sent back to a computer where you can a ticking off!

i only caught a bit of it, but did anyone catch a news article on the TV regarding a 'new drives' safety warning light system?

you have a green, amber and red light on your dash, any harsh stunts you pull gets sent back to a computer where you can a ticking off!

I smell something....

i only caught a bit of it, but did anyone catch a news article on the TV regarding a 'new drives' safety warning light system?

you have a green, amber and red light on your dash, any harsh stunts you pull gets sent back to a computer where you can a ticking off!

I smell something....

Not only do I smell something, but I'm waiting on something intelligent being said as well!

Edited 10 March, 200917 yr by cornflakes big bro

And they dont own the country, we do. We pay for everything it does anyway!

don't kid yourself mate, we do pay for every thing but that's as far as it goes, they can and do do what they like. just to prove my point, did you vote for Gordon Brown to run the country?

I hate to be picky here, but the only people who truly voted for Gordon Brown are his constituents. We live in a Parliamentary Democracy - you vote for the party to run the country, not the Prime Minister. And although I accept that the person who leads the party will have an effect on your voting decision, the party in power is free to decide who leads them, and therefore, who is PM. If you don't like it, you could always (a) have a revolution and turn us into a republic, (b) live with it, or © leave.

We agreed to be their bitches in 1997. They own us. You're their bitch. :)

this election will be the start of a new era for the BNP i'm pretty sure of that. i've been discussing this speed limit change with the lads at work today and every one of them went on to say they will be voting for them this time round as there pissed off with the big 2 not giving a shit about what we want/need. gotta admit i'll be joining them, as a wise mod on here once said "voting for any of the big parties is like deciding which one of your limbs you want to loose". if i vote for either of them i'll be assigning myself to even more of the same shit, if i don't vote at all then what right do i have to complain about who's in charge?

Edited 10 March, 200917 yr by McLOVIN

And they dont own the country, we do. We pay for everything it does anyway!

don't kid yourself mate, we do pay for every thing but that's as far as it goes, they can and do do what they like. just to prove my point, did you vote for Gordon Brown to run the country?

I know of course they can do what they like, but we do pay for everything, so i suppose we (the country) own it. But yeah you're right, the government may as well 'own' it.

I dont vote, and never have done, as i dislike pretty much all politicians, and not just for the sake of it. they're all essentially the same after they come to power.

how stupid , they cant see that the condition of the roads cause major problems for everyone and accidents , how many times have poeple on here had to steer round a crator in their car

and a 50 mph limit aint going to stop anyone crahing , its the standard of driving on the roads that causes accidents , we need to teach drivers better and i dont mean young people , i mean all people , not many know what car control is . the young maybe faster drivers , but i will say that the old dont know what their doing either , with some of them doing like 20mph in places .

i say scrap gatso`s and go back to driving school and make the roads safer everywhere !

The M1 motorway was unlimited until an MP who didnt even drive brought it down to 70mph,because she'd heard that some bloke did 180mph in an AC Cobra. Legitimately. I believe Labour were in power at the time,late 60s. Id have to check that. It was back in the days when most cars would struggle to reach 70mph anyway,so no great loss.

The single carriageway A-roads (green mapping road signs),which are currently 60mph for cars,will be 50mph (The single carriageway B-roads (white mapping road signs) are already 50mph,even where there's a national speed limit sign). This is to keep cars on the road for longer,which blocks up traffic because the same cars occupy the same space for longer (the quicker a car completes its journey,the less time it occupies road space,hence the clearer the roads).

They've been doing this trick with traffic lights etc,for ages.

As for this GPRS thing,it was unsurprisingly Labours idea,and suggested it at the turn of the millenium. First thing they (Gordon) did when they got into power was stop free road tax on classics,stop road building,hike taxes and pump them into public transport.

The reason said transport is as bad now as it is then is because your money didn't pay for investment,it paid for subsidy.

The wasters have been against the motorist in one form or other for 12 years solid,and you all personally suffer as a result,and have been for years.

I suppose it feels normal..

This is to keep cars on the road for longer,which blocks up traffic because the same cars occupy the same space for longer (the quicker a car completes its journey,the less time it occupies road space,hence the clearer the roads).

They've been doing this trick with traffic lights etc,for ages.

So if a car occupies the same road space, for more time, the road is clearer.

space = speed / time

What if a car is travelling towards you, at the speed of light. Would you see it before it hit you?

i only caught a bit of it, but did anyone catch a news article on the TV regarding a 'new drives' safety warning light system?

you have a green, amber and red light on your dash, any harsh stunts you pull gets sent back to a computer where you can a ticking off!

I smell something....

Not only do I smell something, but I'm waiting on something intelligent being said as well!

This is what i may have seen on le news Clicky

http://www.greenroad.com/

This is to keep cars on the road for longer,which blocks up traffic because the same cars occupy the same space for longer (the quicker a car completes its journey,the less time it occupies road space,hence the clearer the roads).

They've been doing this trick with traffic lights etc,for ages.

So if a car occupies the same road space, for more time, the road is clearer.

space = speed / time

What if a car is travelling towards you, at the speed of light. Would you see it before it hit you?

Thats a question for Dr Gaf.....

And Picki ^^ good answer.

why ty :p

theres a road near me thats had a few fatal accidents over the years cos its along a river bank. they dropped the speed limit down to 50 and the number of accidents and near misses has gone up.

its a long straight road (apart from one kink), about 3 junctions off of it, not particularly bumpy. the only thing that can cause an accident is peeps pulling out/into the junctions, or overtaking when theres somethin coming. the first one is not speed related, and the secon one is made worse because the peeps who do speed down there are doing more overtaking. in theory if they raised the speed limit to 70 there would be less accidents as there would be less overtaking... ish

low speed is just as, if not more dangerous, than high speed.

theres a road near me thats had a few fatal accidents over the years cos its along a river bank. they dropped the speed limit down to 50 and the number of accidents and near misses has gone up.

its a long straight road (apart from one kink), about 3 junctions off of it, not particularly bumpy. the only thing that can cause an accident is peeps pulling out/into the junctions, or overtaking when theres somethin coming. the first one is not speed related, and the secon one is made worse because the peeps who do speed down there are doing more overtaking. in theory if they raised the speed limit to 70 there would be less accidents as there would be less overtaking... ish

low speed is just as, if not more dangerous, than high speed.

Interesting point but i think your stretching it a little.

If the road is slower, then it will make people do more overtaking? i dont think so. If someone is gonna speed and ignore the speed limits... then overtake in a dangerous manner, you really cant blame the speed limit when there is a collision.

The faster the traffic,the less time its on the road,the clearer the roads. But they dont want that. Slow the traffic,block the roads,push people onto public transport.

Good point about a reasonable speed. If a straight,clear section of A-road is occupied by someone driving at 50mph,more people are going to be inclined to overtake. If said driver is doing 70mph,those behind are more likely to stay there,the traffic staying in single file.

And that's where the roads are safer - when there's even flow. When traffic is all at the same speed.

We could all cruise at 200mph bumper to bumper on the M1 and there wouldn't be a problem. Until some idiot upsets the flow by trying to overtake everyone at 300 - or more importantly in this case,sits at only 100 in the middle lane causing a thousand 200mph vehicles to have to swerve around them.

The other point was acceptability. Accountability is more the issue. Here in MK,people couldn't be bothered to use a bridge,and got run over on a by-pass instead. So what did the council do? Instead of condem the pedestrians,they lowered the limit on that section. So you now do 70mph,then have to slow to 40mph through an idiot zone.

The problem with this is that it sends the message that its okay to cross the road there. So by what's happened here,if someone got run over on the M1,they'd lower the limit to 40mph.

How about keeping the current limit and telling people its their fault if they get killed?

Its all about dumbing down the sheep. And if you vote BNP then Labour will win the next election.

You need to vote someone else in,to get Labour out.

They lost in England because we voted Tory.

They lost in Scotland because they voted SNP.

The English cant vote SNP,so when Labours two losses were added together,their loosers totalled a majority. The same will happen again. Protest votes will be a vote for Labour. They dont listen to protest,they've proven that already,the result is everything.

theres a road near me thats had a few fatal accidents over the years cos its along a river bank. they dropped the speed limit down to 50 and the number of accidents and near misses has gone up.

its a long straight road (apart from one kink), about 3 junctions off of it, not particularly bumpy. the only thing that can cause an accident is peeps pulling out/into the junctions, or overtaking when theres somethin coming. the first one is not speed related, and the secon one is made worse because the peeps who do speed down there are doing more overtaking. in theory if they raised the speed limit to 70 there would be less accidents as there would be less overtaking... ish

low speed is just as, if not more dangerous, than high speed.

Interesting point but i think your stretching it a little.

If the road is slower, then it will make people do more overtaking? i dont think so. If someone is gonna speed and ignore the speed limits... then overtake in a dangerous manner, you really cant blame the speed limit when there is a collision.

yeah i did kinda stretch it a bit!

but there has been more accidents since the speed limit has been lowered to 50. most peeps still go down there at about 60, overtaking the peeps doing 50. theres effectively more overtaking than there was, as most peeps dont go faster than 60 down there.

its not the speed thats causing the accidents, its the overtaking. thats kinda what i was trying to get at. the peeps who drive down it at 30-40 because its known as a road of death, cause accidents because its such a long featureless road it can be hard to judge how far away and how fast approaching cars are.

and theres pricks who overtake you when your trying to turn right which doesnt help

they never stop trying to screw us for anything and everything :mad: :mad: