Rigid enforcement of 70mph limit on motorways.
Posted by: Steve Toy on 14 November 2005
The government is proposing the above in another of their leaked secret reports. Having virtually lost the debate from the safety angle they are trying a different pretext - exhaust emissions. Apparently engines become much less efficient beyond the magical figure of 70 that just happens to coincide with the current speed limit. Officials agree that the move could be highly sensitive (and a poll I took part in confirmed that 75% of respondents were opposed to such authoritarian control.)
Given the governments much weaker majority and the bloody nose it received in Parliament on the Terrorism Bill, I very much doubt they will go through with it. The proposals are likely to create a stir in the media before being flatly denied, as we've seen a few times before in recent years.
I'm convinced the proposals would simply be in keeping with the totalitarian bent that exists solely to make people in power feel powerful under suitable pretexts that the public are expected to swallow i.e: safety, the environment or national security.
We've already discussed ad nauseum what the government would need to do if they really wanted to make the roads safer. Now we need to consider measures that would reduce emissions of greenhouse gases without necessarily imposing more restrictions on drivers.
If the government wants to reduce emissions I suggest the following:
1) Removal of all speed humps and chicanes. The process of stopping/starting, slowing down/speeding up, or even maintaining a constant speeed of 15 to 20 mph does not make for an engine running efficiently. The emergency services would be delighted at this and more lives could be saved as a result!
2) Reverse all those speed limit reductions that didn't actually reduce the accident rate. Engines are more efficient at 40mph plus than at 30mph. The 30 mph limit should be reserved exclusively for roads in densely built up areas and not on arterial suburban roads that used to (and were designed to) carry limits of 40, 50 mph or even national speed limit.
3) Stop removing parking spaces from our cities forcing drivers to go round in circles adding to traffic while they look for somewhere to stop.
4) Tax punitively the use and ownership of fanny cages.
5) Address the issue of emissions from factories and fossil-fuelled power stations.
6) Build more nuclear power stations and wind generators, promoting renewable energy sources in general.
Alternatively they can use every pretext available to limit our freedom as they usually do. It is only a question of the gullibility of the electorate.
Given the governments much weaker majority and the bloody nose it received in Parliament on the Terrorism Bill, I very much doubt they will go through with it. The proposals are likely to create a stir in the media before being flatly denied, as we've seen a few times before in recent years.
I'm convinced the proposals would simply be in keeping with the totalitarian bent that exists solely to make people in power feel powerful under suitable pretexts that the public are expected to swallow i.e: safety, the environment or national security.
We've already discussed ad nauseum what the government would need to do if they really wanted to make the roads safer. Now we need to consider measures that would reduce emissions of greenhouse gases without necessarily imposing more restrictions on drivers.
If the government wants to reduce emissions I suggest the following:
1) Removal of all speed humps and chicanes. The process of stopping/starting, slowing down/speeding up, or even maintaining a constant speeed of 15 to 20 mph does not make for an engine running efficiently. The emergency services would be delighted at this and more lives could be saved as a result!
2) Reverse all those speed limit reductions that didn't actually reduce the accident rate. Engines are more efficient at 40mph plus than at 30mph. The 30 mph limit should be reserved exclusively for roads in densely built up areas and not on arterial suburban roads that used to (and were designed to) carry limits of 40, 50 mph or even national speed limit.
3) Stop removing parking spaces from our cities forcing drivers to go round in circles adding to traffic while they look for somewhere to stop.
4) Tax punitively the use and ownership of fanny cages.
5) Address the issue of emissions from factories and fossil-fuelled power stations.
6) Build more nuclear power stations and wind generators, promoting renewable energy sources in general.
Alternatively they can use every pretext available to limit our freedom as they usually do. It is only a question of the gullibility of the electorate.
quote:Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
No speed cameras on my residential cul-de-sac. Bastards come down the almost empty street by mistake at @ 50mph do a 'pissed off' 10 point turn at the end and come back up at 70. It's worse at night. Several cats killed but no action by police or council untill someone gets run over.
I'd canvas the neighbours with the idea of bolting a white-painted, square-edged flat steel bar onto the road surface at the entrance to your cul-de-sac. Preferably under street lights for visibility at night. I've observed hundreds of terrified motorists gingerly crossing the hard edged steel plates on the high street excavations for the last year. I can vouch for the remarkable effectiveness of a humble 3/4" high step. Provided it is sharp edged. Nobody dares to do more than a slow walking pace which means noise levels are much lower than typical ramps taken too fast.
On the subject of emergency vehicles and traffic calming methods look no futher than mushroom road humps. The wider track of emergency vehicles and busses can negotiate at any speed since their tyres pass safely outside the humps. But ordinary cars and delivery vans are hurled into the hedgerows if they don't slow down. Fierce, they are, too!
quote:Originally posted by Steve Toy:
The trouble with the UK electorate is that we just sit back and take this shit. I'm sure that in other countries camera vans would get torched.
Never assume that your car-centric views would be universally held by others if only they were a bit brighter... (than you are?)
quote:Originally posted by Steve Toy:quote:Incidentally, the engine of my car runs at it's most efficient at, I believe, around 80 mph. So at 70 I am emitting more CO2 - mmm, I wonder if the police or magistrates will accept that as an excuse?
When laws are passed (or reinterpreted as would be the case here) the reason behind the law isn't attached. The police may accept the excuse but the cameras and the magistrates certainly won't. You broke the law. End of.
The trouble with the UK electorate is that we just sit back and take this shit. I'm sure that in other countries camera vans would get torched.
You're gonns love this Steve Big Bro's gone mad
quote:
Given their record on new software I don't think you have much to fear for several years. Then you'll be getting stern letters through the post telling you that your were being naughty in Loch Lomond whilst on holiday in Tenerife.
quote:Originally posted by andy c:
Yup.
quote:Originally posted by Steve Toy:
My freedom-of-movement views held by the majority are always going to be at odds with the minority of rabid empty vessels (like yourself) who want to lay lethal contraptions to pitch speeding cars and vans into hedgerows, possibly knocking out innocent pedestrians alongside in pursuit of their pathological persecution of drivers.
Your literal conception of my post is as highly amusing as it is worrying Steve.
quote:Originally posted by Nime:quote:Originally posted by Steve Toy:
The trouble with the UK electorate is that we just sit back and take this shit. I'm sure that in other countries camera vans would get torched.
Never assume that your car-centric views would be universally held by others if only they were a bit brighter... (than you are?)
Aaaw shucks NIME, now you are going to really piss Steve Toy off!
