Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Cretin · June 2007

Mister Paul I'm not going to provide you with the soapbox you clearly want. You've had some interesting input on road safety but you're not interested in debating speed limits, you clearly just want to correct me and tell me how dreadfully wrong I am and how it will all be better if I just come around to your way of thinking.

I'm am just not interested any more to see what you have to say on the matter, because you've written it a million times before on this forum and your views will never change. It would be a waste of my time and therefore this will be my last reply to you on the subject. I will continue to debate the matter with anybody else I feel isn't asking me questions to 'catch me out', because frankly its all a bit pathetic.

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare
Cycle-lanes and paths: for or against?

Given the rate at which Europeans are flooding into this country and driving like they're invading Poland (Godwin's Law) there is no hope whatsoever of raising standards. The best hope we have is to force them to drive slowly.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Cycle lanes - being those painted lines on the road? Against, although I feel safer when I'm on a long straight road where traffic is tailgating and may not see a cyclist 20 yards ahead.

Cycle paths - being completely separate bespoke lanes just for cyclists? Provided they're not full of dog turds and dizzy pedestrian s, and not criss-crossed by junctions, entirely for. I love cycling out of the way of traffic, it suits me perfectly.

As for unlicenced/taxed/insured immigrants, Trafpol can take care of them. No exceptions.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

There's no harm in 20mph limits.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So why do you think people oppose them then? Is it because they all think it's such a big thrill driving at the breakneck speed of 30mph?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<ul><li> Because people don't like being told what to do.</li>
<li></li>Because people don't realise that the time difference in their commute will be negligible.
</li> <li>Because some drivers are selfish and only consider themselves </ul>

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Mister Paul I'm not going to provide you with the soapbox you clearly want. You've had some interesting input on road safety but you're not interested in debating speed limits, you clearly just want to correct me and tell me how dreadfully wrong I am and how it will all be better if I just come around to your way of thinking.

I'm am just not interested any more to see what you have to say on the matter, because you've written it a million times before on this forum and your views will never change. It would be a waste of my time and therefore this will be my last reply to you on the subject. I will continue to debate the matter with anybody else I feel isn't asking me questions to 'catch me out', because frankly its all a bit pathetic.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're asked questions on your views which you don't want to answer. So you can't support your views. If you had support for your views then you'd provide it. And when this is pointed out you spit your dummy.

You talk about my views never changing, but in respect to 20mph limits you can't offer any reason why I should change my views. You can't offer any argument against 20mph limits, but you don't like them.

Ho hum.

If everyone against 20mph limits is as good at debating your points as you, I think we can safely predict that their implimentation will continue.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

You talk about my views never changing, but in respect to 20mph limits you can't offer any reason why I should change my views. You can't offer any argument against 20mph limits, but you don't like them.

Ho hum. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, no arguments that you like, or agree with.
What about the fact that, since they're unenforceable, the motorists that are respectful of the law will obey them but the ones that aren't and the 'safespeeders' will not, and will get itchy and impatient suddenly finding themselves stuck behind all these people doing what they consider an unnatural speed, and will want to overtake. Cue more dangerous overtaking.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

You talk about my views never changing, but in respect to 20mph limits you can't offer any reason why I should change my views. You can't offer any argument against 20mph limits, but you don't like them.

Ho hum. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, no arguments that you like, or agree with.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No. No arguments. Except for the point that 20mph limits don't improve driving standards. Which isn't an argument because that was never the intention. Improving driving standards comes through training and accountability. And there is absolutely no reason why this can't go on at the same time.

And let's face it, a safe and experienced driver will be driving at less than 20mph in a built-up, busy area most of the time. And the same safe and experienced driver will appreciate that there will always be drivers who aren't capable of getting to their standard of driving and need limits like the 20mph ones, and so won't mind that the 20mph limit is still in force when they feel personally that it isn't necessary. And the safe and experienced driver won't have an unhealthy obesession with his speed, so his plans will have taken into account the amount of time it will take him to get from A to B. And he'll be completely fine with this. Because a safe and experienced driver will have appreciation for others and a full understanding of the issues.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

What about the fact that, since they're unenforceable, the motorists that are respectful of the law will obey them but the ones that aren't and the 'safespeeders' will not, and will get itchy and impatient suddenly finding themselves stuck behind all these people doing what they consider an unnatural speed, and will want to overtake. Cue more dangerous overtaking.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

See? No arguments. That's just the first thing you thought up. And it's not really a good argument is it? It'st just a lot of juvenile hypothesis.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
itchy and impatient suddenly finding themselves stuck behind all these people doing what they consider an unnatural speed, and will want to overtake. Cue more dangerous overtaking.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Only bad drivers make dangerous overtaking moves, safespeed or no.

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No! Neither can you 'back up' the viewpoint that all the residents have been surveyed. I just don't think they have. People on these forums spend far too long wittering on and on about proof and evidence, way more than the threshold of where it becomes tediously dull.

It's almost become a standard response that if you don't like what someone's saying or they've made an argument that you don't agree with but can't think of a counter-argument in response to it, you just retort with "can you prove that?". It's DULL.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Interesting..........

On another thread you posted:
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">ah, the old "they used to be there but I can't find them now" get-out. That old one. I don't suppose you'd have any, proof, of these 'pages-that-used-to-exist-but-don't-now' EVER having existed? Nah, didn't think so<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I and several others posted the evidence, but despite being asked to comment you have failed to answer.....

So asking for "evidence" is a little ironic.

You may not be convinced, but the residents of Portsmouth (and other cities) are - it is the residents asking for these restrictions - that is called Democracy - learn to live with it!

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Tourist Tony · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tourist Tony

What--for quoting you? I know you have trouble remembering what you say, so the above was to help you along, son.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You must be a very vindictive, hate-filled little man if you can be bothered to go digging back through nearly 40 pages just in the hope of showing me up.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's just that I know that as you are in your teens your brain has not yet finished developing, so I thought I'd give your memory a jog, son.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Rhythm Thief · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

Is Ely a city? 'sgot a Cathedral.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Apparently. But I think the definition of a city as anything having a cathedral is a stupid one ... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh good lord, here we go again. Because Bonj thinks it's stupid it must be wrong. Cue 42 pages of pointless bickering.[;)]

________________________
I'm the national treasure, and I hate noise.
My fixie
My two main modes of transport

Rhythm Thief · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I again dispute the notion that "the entire community want this", instead asserting that it's simply the victory of a few die-hard car-hating campaigners. Did they take a vote of EVERY single person in portsmouth? No. There you go then.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well - that's interesting again, BUT CAN YOU BACK THAT UP?...........

It is equally arguable that the opposite is true, and the residents have a reasonable case and it is simply the complaints of a few "speed loving motorists" - Have you actually taken a vote of any car drivers in Portsmouth?

What could be a measure though is the fact that Portsmouth residents hate this so much thatthey are requesting inclusion, not exclusion from these limits.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No! Neither can you 'back up' the viewpoint that all the residents have been surveyed. I just don't think they have. People on these forums spend far too long wittering on and on about proof and evidence, way more than the threshold of where it becomes tediously dull.
It's almost become a standard response that if you don't like what someone's saying or they've made an argument that you don't agree with but can't think of a counter-argument in response to it, you just retort with "can you prove that?". It's DULL.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well that's rich, coming from you.[:D]

________________________
I'm the national treasure, and I hate noise.
My fixie
My two main modes of transport

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Rhythm Thief

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

Is Ely a city? 'sgot a Cathedral.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Apparently. But I think the definition of a city as anything having a cathedral is a stupid one ... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh good lord, here we go again. Because Bonj thinks it's stupid it must be wrong. Cue 42 pages of pointless bickering.[;)]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

k, fine. Portsmouth's not a city, it's a town. Anyone care to disagree?

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Does your mummy know you've sneaked out of your bedroom, sonny?

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

k, fine. Portsmouth's not a city, it's a town. Anyone care to disagree?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

What are you on about?

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">People on these forums spend far too long wittering on and on about proof and evidence, way more than the threshold of where it becomes tediously dull[/quite]

Especially when youask for the evidence, and then it proves you wrong!

Let's rephrase that:
People on these forums spend far too long providing evidence and argument that does not agre with me or proves me wrong, therefore instead of supporting my own argument with evidence, I will ignore it and claim evidence is dull.

Well I just don't accept that it'd just magically be perfectly safe as soon as people started going under the speed limit. That's one area in which we'll have to agree to disagree.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Also the same difference between SERIOUS road safety campaigns and SafeSpeed.....

The Institute of Advanced Motorists points out that competent and skilled drivers are fully able drive SAFELY WITHIN the promulgated speed limits, SafeSpeed says you can't!

One supoorts training that will allow drivers to do this, the other refuses to contemplate it!

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How on earth do you propose to raise the standard of driving to such a high level that speed limits are unnecessary? That is something that will never happen.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There is proof (posted earlier) that speeding drivers tend to be "risk takers" and that some Fleet operators are now using psychometric testing to weed out suitable and unsuitable drivers, providing remedial training where neccessary.

Is this a way forward. A method of removing those drivers who have a proven propensity to aggression, poor tolerance of others and risk taking behaviour. Limited licenses, retraining or review perhaps and in severe cases no license at all?

Secondly clamp down on the poor behaviour. Syptomatic of a oor attitude or an inability /refusal to obey the law. Illegal prking, speeding, tailgating, failure to stop at junctions, yellow box offences etc. In other words apply a "zero tolerance" to the minor ofences that are often "diagnostic" in a poor driving attitude.

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

dondare · June 2007

And Gatsos are one way of identifying some of those poor drivers.
Future tehnology will increase the number of violations that they can detect and identify the driver as well as the vehicle; so removing part of Mr. Blankety Blank's objections to them.

Cunobelin · June 2007

I am getting boring with repeating this....., but I have a standard proposal.

Most of the crimes like Speeding, jumping lights, yellow boxes and parking are ideal areas where a crime is demonstrably and unequivocally committed. They are ideal for automatic and electronic detection.

Make the fines punitive (œ400 +) and ring fence the money to pay for a Traffic Police Force. The money from speeding alone is enough to pay for a force three times the size of Hampshire Constabulary, and if you include the other offences, a force 6 - 8 thimes this size and totally dedicated to traffic policing.

We maintain the present level of detecting poor driving, and increase the number of Police on the Roads

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Cretin · June 2007

Unfortunately you then run the risk of having a police force more interested in issuing tickets and meeting targets for selfish reasons, rather than a force seeking to improve safety. Exactly the scenario with safety camera partnerships (before the system was changed this year).

Jaded · June 2007

I agree tickets are issued for selfish reasons. Drivers behaving selfishly, deciding which laws they wish to obey and which they wish to break. Selfish reasons that lead to tickets being issued.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Cretin · June 2007

Then perhaps we should all ride around with number plates, licences and insurance, so we can be ticketed too. Join in the fun, so to speak. After all my front wheel went 3 feet over a stop line the other day when a motorist blocked the ASL. œ30 and 3 points, I wouldn't have done that again. I'd have stayed within the traffic and risked being squished.

PRD · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin
[
There is proof (posted earlier) that speeding drivers tend to be "risk takers" and that some Fleet operators are now using psychometric testing to weed out suitable and unsuitable drivers, providing remedial training where neccessary.

Is this a way forward. A method of removing those drivers who have a proven propensity to aggression, poor tolerance of others and risk taking behaviour. Limited licenses, retraining or review perhaps and in severe cases no license at all?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'd go for system of graded licences, so that you'd start with a local licence enabling you to drive within a 50 mile radius of home limited to a maximum of 50mph and work up to an International licence with which you'd be entitled to drive anywhere.
You'd only be allowed to drive in Lane 3 of a motorway with an International licence with a speed limit of 100mph

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Then perhaps we should all ride around with number plates, licences and insurance, so we can be ticketed too.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why? Are you suggesting that we all break the law?

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Cretin · June 2007

No. Are you suggesting everybody else does?

Jaded · June 2007

You speed, you get a ticket. Breaking the law has a penalty if you get caught. Cameras catch law breakers. By all means campaign against the law, but to whinge about equipment that catches you is rather silly. Making things up and creating a one-man industry dressed up as Road Safety is even sillier.

I think it should be 9 points for speeding in 30 or 20 mph areas. Possibly as a balance it should be slightly more lenient than it is now on Motorways, although with the heavy use they get nowadays I'm not so sure about that as I was.

So, there would be more people out there with 9 points on their licence (and ____ _______ could get his green ink pen out again) and therefore more people who realise that driving at 25mph in a 30 isn't so bad. Then maybe 20mph limits wouldn't be needed.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Cretin · June 2007

Reading that I wouldn't say I was the one doing any whinging.

Jaded · June 2007

Interesting comment. Who said you were?

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Unfortunately you then run the risk of having a police force more interested in issuing tickets and meeting targets for selfish reasons, rather than a force seeking to improve safety.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So the SafeSpeed and ABD suggestion of more Traffic Police is a non starter then?

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Unfortunately you then run the risk of having a police force more interested in issuing tickets and meeting targets for selfish reasons, rather than a force seeking to improve safety.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So the SafeSpeed and ABD suggestion of more Traffic Police is a non starter then?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Er no? Don't you see the serious problem with hypothecating fines from police activity, to the same police force?

imbecile · June 2007

Good point!

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories