Scottish Elises

Looks like it is happening after all.

tut


"From The Sunday Times
March 8, 2009
Road speed limit cut to 50mph
Steven Swinford

THE government is to cut the national speed limit from 60mph to 50mph on most of Britain’s roads, enforced by a new generation of average speed cameras.

The reduction , to be imposed as early as next year, will affect two thirds of the country’s road network. Drivers will still be able to reach 70mph on motorways and dual carriageways and 60mph on the safest A roads.

Jim Fitzpatrick, the roads minister, defended the plan, which will be the most dramatic cut since 1978, when the national speed limit was reduced from 70mph to 60mph.

“There will be some in the driving lobby who think this is a further attack and a restriction on people’s freedom,” he said. “But when you compare that to the fact we are killing 3,000 people a year on our roads, it would be irresponsible not to do something about it. I’m sure that the vast majority of motorists would support the proposals.”

im assuming that if the deaths dont go down they;ll admit defeat and put them back up again ?

Lazydonkey wrote:im assuming that if the deaths dont go down they;ll admit defeat and put them back up again ?

Surely improving driver training would be a much better idea.

I had to check it wasn't the first of April.

Riot anyone?

National Speed Limit is 60 not 70?

Puts a 50 limit on virtually all the back roads that we drive on for fun.

tut

tut wrote:Puts a 50 limit on virtually all the back roads that we drive on for fun.

tut

I can't see them putting speed cameras on all the Scottish roads.

I'd imagine a lot more people taking to the track to vent frustration. It would be murder driving around at 50mph.

They've done it here, on the dual carriage way A77, already, SPECS included.

Presumably they have proof that speed alone is the main contribution to the number of deaths ?. If not then they should be analysing the statistics to see where the money should be spent and it should be aimed at the demographic who are involved in the majority of accidents. All it will mean is more folk being penalised, more revenue for the government, folk possibly losing their licence/livelihood for doing nothing more dangerous than driving above 50 on a perfectly safe road, steeper insurance premiums........... Does anyone know the rules in other countries in this respect ?, might be enough to eventually tip the scale and convince me to look elsewhere for somewhere to live and enjoy driving. Otherwise I'll bin the Elise and just get a Prius or whatever other piece of crap the govt. would like to see us all driving.

111Robin wrote:Does anyone know the rules in other countries in this respect ?, might be enough to eventually tip the scale and convince me to look elsewhere for somewhere to live and enjoy driving.

I've been thinking about doing just that...Load the Elise into a container and ship it of to Cape Town. Only thing is I think I'll need to get a Honda conversion done before I do that. A few nice roads out there!

on duel carriageways SPECS can be circumvented by changing lanes. The manufacturers have confirmed this but advise that you don't for safety reasons

and as the roads are in such poor condition it keeps knocking front plates off


or you could just get a motorbike and blast along at 150 all day long, no front plate = no fines or points

111Robin wrote:Presumably they have proof that speed alone is the main contribution to the number of deaths ?. If not then they should be analysing the statistics to see where the money should be spent and it should be aimed at the demographic who are involved in the majority of accidents.

Yes there is - having lost a family member in a relatively slow speed impact, I have spent time researching this. Both the stats and the medical evidence show that impacts above 50mph, are more likely (than not) to result in fatal injuries. Even with the best modern cars, the G force is such that internal organs, particularly the brain, are damaged.

The truth is, however, most accidents don't have solid 50 mph impacts, even when the accident starts at higher speed. A bit of a lottery really - depends on what you hit, how you hit it, and how solid it is.

You can see where the argument is coming from, but better training in car control is probably the way forward. Personally I think that those at most risk will not obey a 50 MPH limit anyway.

Why not take all the safety cameras and install them in the board-rooms of our financial institutions. Might do more for the greater good.

I can see life becoming very very safe and very very dull in the future (as long as we're compliant). Thank you Big Brother.

This gets rolled out every few years in one form or another and will vanish again

I remember once someone was calling for 15mph to make us safe.

Considering you will need a specs camera at least per junction i can't see this getting anywhere considering most scottish backroads don't have electricty near them

David wrote:

111Robin wrote:Presumably they have proof that speed alone is the main contribution to the number of deaths ?. If not then they should be analysing the statistics to see where the money should be spent and it should be aimed at the demographic who are involved in the majority of accidents.

Yes there is - having lost a family member in a relatively slow speed impact, I have spent time researching this. Both the stats and the medical evidence show that impacts above 50mph, are more likely (than not) to result in fatal injuries. Even with the best modern cars, the G force is such that internal organs, particularly the brain, are damaged.

The truth is, however, most accidents don't have solid 50 mph impacts, even when the accident starts at higher speed. A bit of a lottery really - depends on what you hit, how you hit it, and how solid it is.

You can see where the argument is coming from, but better training in car control is probably the way forward. Personally I think that those at most risk will not obey a 50 MPH limit anyway.

I don't disagree that any impact at 50 (or even less) has a high chance of ending in fatalities. However it's driving at inappropriate speed and/or driving irresponsibly for the conditions/road situation that causes accidents, people don't just have head on crashes or hit trees becuase they're driving at 60 rather than 50, it's becuase they overtake when there isn't enough time/visibility or skid out of control on wet/icy roads etc. This is what the statistics need to prove. I have no issue with doing 30 or 20 where prescribed as these limits make sense where there are pedestrians/parked cars/junctions etc. that increase the risk of accidents significantly. Being told to do 50 however on an open road where the risks are significantly less is not the answer. Unfortunatley it seems that there are a significant number of road users who are ignorant/stupid/arrogant who will always use the roads inappropriately and we are all left to suffer the consequences. And before I get shot down for being "holier than thou", I will admit to exceeding speed limits but only when conditions/traffic allow and absolutely never in a built up area with 40/30/20 limits. You see people on the roads every day who don't appear to have any brain power whatsoever, these are the ones who should be made to suffer these draconian rules.