"Shock new limits" - and paranoia, perhaps ??
Discussion
The Evening Standard reckons that lower speed limits are about to imposed across the country. An article published today suggests that new guidance is being issued that will force limits to be lowered around the UK with 30mph restrictions dropped to 20mph and some 60mph limits dropped as low at 40mph.
Link: www.thisislondon.co.uk
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, we're all getting a bit wound up, aren't we??!!
I've been trying to access www.parliament.co.uk to find out exactly what is going on tomorrow - unfortunately I keep getting "server unreachable" so, in the absence of any hard fact (which is exactly what everybody else appears to have at the moment, an absence of hard fact), I shall do a little speculating and lateral thinking.
If you stop your collective panicking for a minute, and think about it, don't you all think it a little odd that this story emerges in a London paper only (not a national) about an important debate that is, apparently, to happen tomorrow. Don't you think the national media would have picked up on it if it was really that important? Don't you think the various car clubs, motoring groups, not to mention the RAC and AA would have picked up the story and put in their four-pennorth?? I think they would, and I also think it quite illuminating that they haven't.
Have you heard this story from any other source? I haven't (although, of course, being a Wiltshire local, we don't get to hear much in this neck of the woods, although we have got the electric on now - by the way, is it true about the "Titanic?" .....).
What I have heard, over the years, is "little green men" spouting on about "speed kills, blanket 40mph limits on rural roads (although how you classify a road as "rural" beats me, and would beat the idea as well), 20mph residential zones,etc,etc. I get fed up with them, but I am well aware that they aren't likely to get as much of their own way as they would like. There are too many potentailly lost motorists votes in it for any party to become too anti-car.
I have also heard, and had experience of, government "kite flying" (the old "run a flag up the pole and see who salutes" routine) - at best, I suspect that this story is one of them. At worst, its a cub reporter trying to impress his editor with a shock story and to sell a few more papers.
In any case, when govermnents enact legislation it needs to go through the due processes before it becomes law (white paper, green paper etc, committee stages, House of Lords, Royal Assent, to name but a few (and not in the right order, but never mind).
One thing our dearly-elected representatives ain't going to do tomorrow, whatever the debate is about, is blithely introduce new legislation that will affect all our lives first thing Friday morning. Stop panicking !!!
If somebody does manage to get through to www.parliament.uk, please post here to let us know what is really going on tomorrow. In the meantime, I shall go for a "relax" down the pub, feeling safe with my presumption that you lot are getting yourself wound up about nothing!!
Speak to you later later!
>>> Edited by rs1952 on Wednesday 16th October 21:30
I agree, the report is vague on timescale, and is just reporting hype IMHO. I work for a traffic authority and I'm not standing by with 20mph speed limit signs. In fact this is the first I've heard of such a plan. If this is true its a few years away at least....you can't just go out and put up new speed limit signs up without first jumping through a lot of administrative hoops, advertising etc etc...public/police consultation, some sort of justification. it will be well publisized before it happens. 20mph limits are not a new thing either, they can be found near schools in some of the London boroughs at the moment and no doubt other locations in the country. I think the whole speed control issue is getting bigger and bigger getting seemingly ridiculous..
Build better roads
Build better roads
If you stop your collective panicking for a minute, and think about it, don't you all think it a little odd that this story emerges in a London paper only (not a national) about an important debate that is, apparently, to happen tomorrow. Don't you think the national media would have picked up on it if it was really that important? Don't you think the various car clubs, motoring groups, not to mention the RAC and AA would have picked up the story and put in their four-pennorth?? I think they would, and I also think it quite illuminating that they haven't.
Not many news outlets do much work on predicting news, most of it is reactionary. As for the AA and RAC, don't get me started
That'd be lovely, as we all know, but they won't because some cnut with a dog on a string will chain himself to a tree and that'll be it. End of roadbuilding scheme.
dimmadan said: Build better roads
This might have all been a panic over nothing, but call is a 'Demonstration of Readiness' and I think it's done us proud either way.
I agree completely. It wouldn't surprise me at all that this was spoon fed to the Evening Standard from a "source" to see what would happen. If it made it through without protest then the government would have some comfort as to what they could likely get away with. If it got a lot of people protesting then they would just deny it all and, hopefully think twice before trying it on.
So we may have reacted to a non-event but I hope we got the message across ...
The national papers are carrying the story today, and loacl radio has also been touting it round - its a debate on a report today in the Commons AFAIK, but from small acorns.......
If we don't protest about the things we don't like, at every possible opportunity and in the loudest possible way, then the Islington halfwits will push thru more mis-guided legislation, all of it put in place to give them more and more control of our lives.
Paranoid?? ME?? You bet! Nothing I have seen from this bunch, or indeed from teh big knobs inside the Civil Service gives me any confidence that the Government Machine has my best interests at heart. Control and subterfuge is what they understand. Wheeler dealing and so on just to remain in power - and power translates as CONTROL! Not for me thank you.
And as for it having to have lengthy consultation etc ..... if they pass it as a law, quickly rushed thru "in the national interest of safety" or some such, then it wouldn't take them years, but months. How many Labour/Liberal MPs are pro-car?? Think about it ........
If we don't protest about the things we don't like, at every possible opportunity and in the loudest possible way, then the Islington halfwits will push thru more mis-guided legislation, all of it put in place to give them more and more control of our lives.
Paranoid?? ME?? You bet! Nothing I have seen from this bunch, or indeed from teh big knobs inside the Civil Service gives me any confidence that the Government Machine has my best interests at heart. Control and subterfuge is what they understand. Wheeler dealing and so on just to remain in power - and power translates as CONTROL! Not for me thank you.
And as for it having to have lengthy consultation etc ..... if they pass it as a law, quickly rushed thru "in the national interest of safety" or some such, then it wouldn't take them years, but months. How many Labour/Liberal MPs are pro-car?? Think about it ........
It was reported on radio 4 this morning and in the usual confrontational manner with a rep from the ABD. This was followed by "we would like your emails on this subject". So I listened as I wound myway to work and who would have belived it, every email supported lower limits, except one which was treated as if an idiot had sent it. Now call me cynical but who runs the BBC and who decides the Emails to read. The people this affects the most were like me probably stuck in traffic on the way to work to earn enough to pay the 40% tax the bastards extract so they fund think tanks to shaft me even more. They are out to get us it is not paranoid to see what is coming.
CarZee said:
This might have all been a panic over nothing, but call is a 'Demonstration of Readiness' and I think it's done us proud either way.
I was quite surprised to get so much support for my views !!
I fully agree with CarZee about a demonstration of readiness - what I started to get concerned about with last nights postings were the "I'm emigrating" "It all a government conspiracy""They're out to get us" style of some of them.
As someone said, Radio 4 picked the story up this morning and I happened to notice it on the front page of the Mail (I don't read the thing, it was just featured on Newsnight last night!).
It is becoming more and more clear to me that this is looking like the "kite flying" I suspected. I recall another one years ago when the government was becoming worried about "video piracy" by the public recording TV shows. A story "leaked out" that HMG were to introduce a bill to allow you to keep the recordings for no more than 28 days - when the laughing died down, and the practicalities of how you police something like that were publicly aired, we were all told that government had no such idea in mind. Of course, they might've done if the reaction had been more positive, mightn't they .....
Of course it is important to make your views known, and I would fully support CarZee in his statement. However, I would also say that it important to use reasoned argument and not "go off all guns blazing" at the first sign of trouble. And, of course, in reality, the way the system works is that "a few quiet words" will be had between those in power, those who thought up the daft idea in the first place, and those with more of a grip on reality.
Her are some reasons why lots of new speed limits won't work:
1. They'll need policing. I can't reasonably see any Chief Constable devoting much of his officers time to setting up speed traps on "40mph rural roads" when he/she could find 'em something more productive to do.
2. The more stupid limits there are, the less people will observe them. Too heavy-handed an approach could throw the whole speed limit system into chaos.
3. More speed cameras will not necessarily help with policing. For one thing, they each cost a substantial amount of money and we are starting to hear stories almost every day of somebody torching the bl
dy things. (What a shame, eh 
). For another thing, locals will get to know where they are, and the only people that will be caught will be the unwary or those who don't know the given area. Some, if not all of them, will not be best pleased and will probably vent thir spleen in the ballot box come the next election. As a final point, the costs of their replacement will come from local Council Tax - I can't see many local authorities getting away with increasing Council tax to replace torched cameras for too long before their electorate tell them where to go !!
4. (and the most important) - if the government get the suspicion that they'll lose votes if they hammer the motorist too hard, they'll back off. Think back, if you will, to what "Two Jags Prescott" said he was going to do in 1997, and then think about what happened
- bugger all !!!!
PS. I see PetrolTed doesn't think much of the AA and RAC - well, as you probably know, I'm new around here - I'll bear that in mind !!!!
Right, that's it. The boozer is calling. I'll go and get on me soapbox down there next !!!
Some, if not all of them, will not be best pleased and will probably vent thir spleen in the ballot box come the next election.
As a final point, the costs of their replacement will come from local Council Tax - I can't see many local authorities getting away with increasing Council tax to replace torched cameras for too long before their electorate tell them where to go !!
4. (and the most important) - if the government get the suspicion that they'll lose votes if they hammer the motorist too hard, they'll back off. Think back, if you will, to what "Two Jags Prescott" said he was going to do in 1997, and then think about what happened
- bugger all !!!!
Just a thought, but what's frustrating all of us is a lack of accountability. It seems to me that making elections much more frequent would allow the electorate to voice their concerns on specific issues more often. What do you think of annual elections?
Even better, combine annual elections with proportional representation. Stick that in your block vote and smoke it, Mr Blair. No more spin, no more promises. Get results or you're out.
It's in this area where the US state ballot system works..
I'm not totally up to speed on it, but basically, as I understand it, states have an annual ballot.
Organisations and representitives of the public at large can submit proposals to be included on the ballot. There's a sponsorship amendment which protects against someone addings a "Free McDonalds lunches for all schoolkids" type idea, but at the end of the day, every citizen gets a list and gets to vote yes or no individually on a whole raft of proposals.. those that are voted in are carried and should be implemented.. those which are rejected live to fight another day.. or not..
Such things which have appeared have been the speed limit affair in Montana, free-state-sponsored healthcare (pending ir Oregon).. laws are frequently repealed under this mechanism.. Of course it doesn't apply to federal law, but look down the road a few years and you'll see English & Welsh law as State Laws to Europe's Federal Laws..
the idea has merit.. the US democratic system has manhy merits in fact.. sadly, campaign finance and the human phenomenon of "good politican" being an oxymoron do lend flaws to the scheme.
Edited to say: 'Sorry - can't be arsed fixing my spelling errors'
>> Edited by CarZee on Friday 18th October 11:30
I'm not totally up to speed on it, but basically, as I understand it, states have an annual ballot.
Organisations and representitives of the public at large can submit proposals to be included on the ballot. There's a sponsorship amendment which protects against someone addings a "Free McDonalds lunches for all schoolkids" type idea, but at the end of the day, every citizen gets a list and gets to vote yes or no individually on a whole raft of proposals.. those that are voted in are carried and should be implemented.. those which are rejected live to fight another day.. or not..
Such things which have appeared have been the speed limit affair in Montana, free-state-sponsored healthcare (pending ir Oregon).. laws are frequently repealed under this mechanism.. Of course it doesn't apply to federal law, but look down the road a few years and you'll see English & Welsh law as State Laws to Europe's Federal Laws..
the idea has merit.. the US democratic system has manhy merits in fact.. sadly, campaign finance and the human phenomenon of "good politican" being an oxymoron do lend flaws to the scheme.
Edited to say: 'Sorry - can't be arsed fixing my spelling errors'
>> Edited by CarZee on Friday 18th October 11:30
another point being that, most people will have had a speeding fine at some time or other all ready so if this proposal were to see the light of day there would be a huge amount of tickets being issued, hopefully causing an administrative backlog....the amount of people losing their licenses would rise too
keeping in fashion by adding:- (edited to say arse biscuits! to the lot of em)
>> Edited by apache on Friday 18th October 11:45
keeping in fashion by adding:- (edited to say arse biscuits! to the lot of em)
>> Edited by apache on Friday 18th October 11:45
I was perusing the DTLR web site yesterday as part of work, and the Gov recons that if they can cut the ave speed of journeys down by just 2mph, then this will save the country £830M/yr in accidents. I guess they think they could achieve this by lowering speed limits. I think the Gov ploy is that by reducing speed limits from say 60mph to 40mph instead of Joe bloggs doing 65-70 now he'll do 55-60 and they've reduced your av. speed. There's a lot of info on the DTR web site /www.dft.gov.uk if someone really has the time to read it all its v interesting...just type vehicle speeds...
rs1952 said:Her are some reasons why lots of new speed limits won't work:
1. They'll need policing. I can't reasonably see any Chief Constable devoting much of his officers time to setting up speed traps on "40mph rural roads" when he/she could find 'em something more productive to do.
More speed cameras and if the police forces don't have the resources they will use the camera funded profits to get private companies to put in speed cameras.
2. The more stupid limits there are, the less people will observe them. Too heavy-handed an approach could throw the whole speed limit system into chaos.
More speed cameras.
3. More speed cameras will not necessarily help with policing. For one thing, they each cost a substantial amount of money and we are starting to hear stories almost every day of somebody torching the bl
True but you know the governments answer already "More speed cameras".
As a final point, the costs of their replacement will come from local Council Tax - I can't see many local authorities getting away with increasing Council tax to replace torched cameras for too long before their electorate tell them where to go !!
Ah, but they get to keep the profits from speed cameras to fund new ones.
4. (and the most important) - if the government get the suspicion that they'll lose votes if they hammer the motorist too hard, they'll back off. Think back, if you will, to what "Two Jags Prescott" said he was going to do in 1997, and then think about what happened
- bugger all !!!!
Maybe, but this government are already convinced of their invulnerability to loosing an election. With, admittedly, some justification. So how are you going to convince them they will loose because of this?
dimmadan said: I was perusing the DTLR web site yesterday as part of work, and the Gov recons that if they can cut the ave speed of journeys down by just 2mph, then this will save the country £830M/yr in accidents. I guess they think they could achieve this by lowering speed limits. I think the Gov ploy is that by reducing speed limits from say 60mph to 40mph instead of Joe bloggs doing 65-70 now he'll do 55-60 and they've reduced your av. speed. There's a lot of info on the DTR web site /www.dft.gov.uk if someone really has the time to read it all its v interesting...just type vehicle speeds...
1. should that not be www.dAft.gov.uk
2. The answer is torch them before they make enough cash to pay for their replacement (or, get a noice country tractor and pull 'em out of the ground)
So not everybody is in agreement, after all !!
I accept that icamm's words more or less repeat the government's line, but I'll let you into a little secret - the government, and indeed the police, are made up of people, they have good ideas and bad ideas, and they sit on the lav just like the rest of us.
Also, in common with the rest of us, they don't always do what they say they are going to do. Let me give you some examples:
"The Community Charge is here to stay" (Margaret Thatcher)
"Motorway tolls are coming and you'd better get used to the idea" (Some 'erbert of a Tory front bench spokesman c.1992 - and they had another 5 years in power to go)
"If you speed in the Thames Valley area you're going to get caught" (radio ad broadcast some years ago on 210FM)
"We're going to drive at 70mph in the outside lane to slow traffic down - if you do 71mph through our area we're going to book you" (prat of a spokesman from Avon & Somerset Constabulary on TV last year or the year before)
This, my friends, is simply bldy rhetoric, and nothing else. Yes, we've heard a lot about all these new speed cameras that are "about" to be introduced, but where the hell are they? Can anybody working in Highways & Transportation confirm that they've got shedloads of the things down the depot just waiting for the government to say "Go?" We've already heard, on this very post, from someone in such a job who confirms that he isn't sitting on a pile of circular bits of tin with "20" written on them!!
Even the idea that more speeding fines will be spent on more speed cameras looks, on the face of it, to be a bit of a joke. Firstly, you have to put film in the bldy things, which tends not to happen anyway and, even if they do have film in them, then only a proportion of the fines would be "ploughed back" into more cameras. And, of course, you would need a hell of a lot of income from fines to buy each and every new camera, and of course replace the ones that have been "dealt with."
Look at the practicalities brethren, not the rhetoric - and stop getting yourself wound up about it !!
Play them at their own game - I would also refer the honourable gentlemen here:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&t=19720&h=0
>> Edited by rs1952 on Friday 18th October 20:58
>> Edited by rs1952 on Friday 18th October 22:54
I accept that icamm's words more or less repeat the government's line, but I'll let you into a little secret - the government, and indeed the police, are made up of people, they have good ideas and bad ideas, and they sit on the lav just like the rest of us.
Also, in common with the rest of us, they don't always do what they say they are going to do. Let me give you some examples:
"The Community Charge is here to stay" (Margaret Thatcher)
"Motorway tolls are coming and you'd better get used to the idea" (Some 'erbert of a Tory front bench spokesman c.1992 - and they had another 5 years in power to go)
"If you speed in the Thames Valley area you're going to get caught" (radio ad broadcast some years ago on 210FM)
"We're going to drive at 70mph in the outside lane to slow traffic down - if you do 71mph through our area we're going to book you" (prat of a spokesman from Avon & Somerset Constabulary on TV last year or the year before)
This, my friends, is simply bl
dy rhetoric, and nothing else. Yes, we've heard a lot about all these new speed cameras that are "about" to be introduced, but where the hell are they? Can anybody working in Highways & Transportation confirm that they've got shedloads of the things down the depot just waiting for the government to say "Go?" We've already heard, on this very post, from someone in such a job who confirms that he isn't sitting on a pile of circular bits of tin with "20" written on them!! Even the idea that more speeding fines will be spent on more speed cameras looks, on the face of it, to be a bit of a joke. Firstly, you have to put film in the bl
dy things, which tends not to happen anyway and, even if they do have film in them, then only a proportion of the fines would be "ploughed back" into more cameras. And, of course, you would need a hell of a lot of income from fines to buy each and every new camera, and of course replace the ones that have been "dealt with." Look at the practicalities brethren, not the rhetoric - and stop getting yourself wound up about it !!
Play them at their own game - I would also refer the honourable gentlemen here:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=10&t=19720&h=0
>> Edited by rs1952 on Friday 18th October 20:58
>> Edited by rs1952 on Friday 18th October 22:54
A quick PS: paulu is somehere near 250% correct !!!
Objecting to a proposed new speed limit works wonders - people hardly ever bother and the new limits usually go through "on the nod"
If people don't object then local councils take the view that the population is in agreement - get out there and tell 'em otherwise !!!
Objecting to a proposed new speed limit works wonders - people hardly ever bother and the new limits usually go through "on the nod"
If people don't object then local councils take the view that the population is in agreement - get out there and tell 'em otherwise !!!
In our local paper is a piece headlined "SPEED ALERT" a local counciller has had 200 signatures for reducing a limit through a housing estate. The reason is that the subway is dirty ans smelly so people don,t use it and "risk life and limb dashing across the road". I have complained to the counciller in question, the council and the local paper who took up valuble space with bollocks.As I pointed out to the counciller if drivers ignore the 40 limit what makes her think they woul obey the 30 she proposed. Instead of her wasting time on rubbish if she addressed the issue of the condition of the subway, the issue of her 200 signaturies who don't know how to cross a road properly and enforcing the exsisting limit by improved policing, then the bad drivers would be caught and rightly dealt with.If we ignore reports like this they will be carried through as minor puesdo politicians react to the wants, not needs , of their wards.
Just a note as well, in the Somerset and Avon area they are advertising for independant members for the police authority, anyone know what might be involved and if a person who is not a beliver in the speed kills mantra could have a posotive effect in the area?
Just a note as well, in the Somerset and Avon area they are advertising for independant members for the police authority, anyone know what might be involved and if a person who is not a beliver in the speed kills mantra could have a posotive effect in the area?
oakers said: Just a note as well, in the Somerset and Avon area they are advertising for independant members for the police authority, anyone know what might be involved and if a person who is not a beliver in the speed kills mantra could have a posotive effect in the area?
Not a bad idea in priciple - it might be worthwhile to have somebody on the "inside." The only problem I see is that plod are only the enforcers of speed limits - its the ba
rds who dream 'em up in the first place that need targetting, like this 'ere Councillor. Now, what did I read elsewhere regarding a Motorists Action Party?
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=19882&f=10&h=0
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff