JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A SPEED CAMERA ON 50MPH ROAD

[NotYoMomma]

Does NOT mean you should drop your speed to 35MPH!!!!

Ianbu!

HATE this, seriously why do 50, traffic moving nicely and then bang on the break just as you go past?!

Note I didn't nearly crash but we had to slow right down and of course it was muggins here who got stuck at the next set.of traffic lights of doom

GRrrr twitch

Re-reading, flatpackhamster is quite right. Motorways are the safest roads we have because everyone is travelling in the same direction. Collisions may be at high speed but 'relative' speeds are much lower.

This is in contrast to a country road where you can have a 120mph head on collision or come off the road and hit a tree.

'As for emissions - who gives a fuck!?'

Me.

Perhaps if you are so worried infamouspoo you should not drive

I wouldnt Ilovemyself if buses had more wheelchair spaces and ds didnt have weekly appointments. We were carfree until we needed a mobility van. And those fuckers drink petrol.
So I do worry about emmissions and uneccassary journeys and until someone makes you thread monitor I will give my opinion too. And drive on the odd country road.

I agree with the issue on public transport. It is slightly different but we couldn't get our buggy on a lot of the buses in our area and they won't wait to get the kids out and the buggy folded.

But with the stupid thread monitor comment, you are bringing a totally irrelevant side to the discussion. I thought going off topic ( which talking about emissions is) was fr

Sorry. Blooming iPhone. I meant was frowned upon.

"As for emissions - who gives a fuck!?"

Our great great great grandchildren.

Are you actually Jeremy Clarkson?

Of course most fatalities happen on 30mph roads, because that's where most most car miles are travelled.

But where people are travelling faster, the risk of fatalities are higher. A collision at 25mph is less likely to result in death than a collision at 35mph, a collision at 60mph is less likely to result in death than one at 80mph, no-one of any seriousness disputes this.

Why the hyperbole? It is absurd to pretend that if you travel at 70mph you will get there 3 months later than if you travel at 85mph. Depending on how far you are travelling, you might get there 10 minutes later, 20 minutes later, or a couple of hours later. A season later? Really? Where are you going?

I don't think it is off topic because it's part of the speed debate, Ilovemyself. It's one of the reasons cited for not changing speed limits on certain motorways.

By the way, Germany used to have the highest death rate on motorways in Western Europe - it wasn't just fluffy bunnies they were killing 25 years ago. It now has speed limits on a third of all motorways.

Basil we are talking about the safety of road users regardless of speed limits - therefore how has emissions got anything to do with it?

You still don't get the point that speed on its own doesn't kill. Would I drive past a school at 3.30 at 80mph. Of course not. Would I travel on a straight one mile section of dry road in good weather and no junctions with excellent visibility well in excess of the speed limit. Quote possibly.

The whole point that some many people fail to see is that it is speed in the wrong place.

If speed by itself killed I would see people getting killed at race circuits every weekend. But I don't, because it is appropriate and safe in that location.

But where people are travelling faster, the risk of fatalities are higher. A collision at 25mph is less likely to result in death than a collision at 35mph, a collision at 60mph is less likely to result in death than one at 80mph, no-one of any seriousness disputes this.

Yes of course but I didn't think that was what you were previously alluding to.

You were originally talking about raising the speed limit on the motorway. The motorways are currently the safest roads to travel for the aforementioned reasons so increasing the speed limit is unlikely to have much of an effect, especially when people have been driving at roughly 80mph for years anyway (remember the police allow 10% +/-2mph). From the discussions I've read the proposed 80mph limit will have no tolerance so exceed 80mph and you will get a fine. Thus no change really except a psychological one for the driver.

Motorways aren't the issue.

Your point about it costing £1m per road fatality and the drain on the NHS is basically swamped by the vast bulk of fatalities occurring in 30mph zones. This is where the problem lies and is largely because people drive at 30mph when the conditions are totally inapropriate. Change the mentality of drivers in 30mph zones and you will save lives.

As for emissions it's a tricky one. You would ultimately achieve targets much more quickly if you banned 4x4's with 3.0 litre+ engines or anything older than 10 years. Driving at 100mph in a Smart car will still put out small beans compared to a V6 Range Rover doing 60mph.

Oh I don't disagree with any of that Technotronic.

Technotropic even

Basil Seeing as the total CO2 emissions of the UK account for 1.75% of the global CO2 emissions then increasing the speed limits will add the grand total of fuck all to the global CO2 levels - in fact if the UK went back to the stone age the difference to global levels would be minimal. This is in addition to the fact that this planet has a long history of quite extreme climate change regardless of the human impact. We are I believe leaving an ice age so of course the climate is going to change. Not many groups of people I hate more than environmentalists they can complain about cars like mine that do 20mpg all they like but quite frankly they can go and fuck themselves.

That sounds measured and rational AKAK.

Basil. If the fuck you bit wasn't on AKAK's post would it still not be measured or rational?

"As for emissions it's a tricky one. You would ultimately achieve targets much more quickly if you banned 4x4's with 3.0 litre+ engines or anything older than 10 years"

You'd do better banning trucks and new cars, the energy emissions involved in building a new car dwarf those of an older car (even with a 3 Litre engine.

"Seeing as the total CO2 emissions of the UK account for 1.75% of the global CO2 emissions then increasing the speed limits will add the grand total of fuck all to the global CO2 levels - in fact if the UK went back to the stone age the difference to global levels would be minimal"

Correct. Anything done in the UK is rearranging the cushions on the deck chairs of the Titanic. And btw the biggest generators of CO2 in the UK are industry and agriculture, not civilians.

You'd do better banning trucks and new cars, the energy emissions involved in building a new car dwarf those of an older car (even with a 3 Litre engine.

Of course, let's get rid of logistics and go back to the canal boat

I'm all for going back to basics but the world would have to turn on its head to achieve this.

Of course, let's get rid of logistics and go back to the canal boat

But that was the point, to make any form of noticeable difference you have to go back to a pre industrial age, and even if we became a bucolic backwater it wouLd make f-all difference globally anyway.

Lazyjaney

I think we are on the same side on this (for once ). I wasn't arguing for a ban on 4x4's but just responding to Basil's comment on the attainment of CO2 targets by increasing the speed limit.

Personally I think cars do very little and don't feel bad at all about either of my cars that are old and inefficient.

Compared to aeroplanes, cars are really insignificant so it is ironic that there is much effort pumped into expanding airports and increasing the numbers of flights globally. I will really start worrying about my car when flying becomes similarly targeted by the gov.

Without doubt it is not a great thing to be polluting the air but I am far from being 'green' and am not wholly convinced about mankind's contribution to global warming. For me, any change in car choice is usually dictated by performance. Economy is a factor but it is more to do with the money at the pumps than how much I'm polluting the planet.

Possibly on the same side I mean, just in case I've misinterpreted