Calls to reduce the A34 to a 50mph limit, Yet more namby pamby nonsense Options

[Andy Capp]

I have an obsession with speed (after all it's the reason I drive a Golf ) but if you think about it, the A34 is an artery, the cars are Red blood cells. Slow the cars down, you get a stroke.

A stroke in this analogy would be an RTA. Equally, the more efficient the heart the slower it beats.

Oh well. Death to a few thousand people so your beloved children don't have to taste gods green grass when they fall off their wobbly bicycles.

I think average speed cameras would slow traffic down and there would be fewer accidents, all without causing much difference to delivery times. I'd also hate it.

[Penelope]

The obvious solution is a man with a red flag walking in front of everyones vehicle ! simple ! In fact lets all forget 100 years of progress and go back to the good old days altogether. Everyone gets a horse and cart, fitted with methane filters to please the greens, Everyone gets a job on the land and Adrian (look at me) Hollister can get his kids to sweep my chimneys !

All in the name of progress (of course). Its fools like this who got the incandescant lightbulbs banned. Beware idiots with agendas.

[On the edge]

The obvious solution is a man with a red flag walking in front of everyones vehicle ! simple ! In fact lets all forget 100 years of progress and go back to the good old days altogether. Everyone gets a horse and cart, fitted with methane filters to please the greens, Everyone gets a job on the land and Adrian (look at me) Hollister can get his kids to sweep my chimneys !

All in the name of progress (of course). Its fools like this who got the incandescant lightbulbs banned. Beware idiots with agendas.

Quite agree - the 'deep green' lobby damage their cause with the hair shirt approach. Just as much as 'militant cyclists' put the rest of us off with their anti social antics. Ironically, there are some solutions, being worked out right now, which will deliver us a sustainable future, which is comfortable (and for XJ) fun. For instance, we really ought to be able to deliver very fast personal transport; which is both safe and sustainable. Yes, we do have the technology, albeit at an immature stage right now.

[Adrian Hollister]

Beware idiots with agendas.

Agreed, remind me, what is your agenda?

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

What the Green Party don't seem to realise is that, yes while we probably are contributing to earths warming, it's far more dependant on the pre-existing cycles which the earth has naturally (hotter, more levels of "greenhouse gases" and cooler, with lower levels) - anyway, the problem is green people always try to do things for the "greater good" which if you have watched Hot Fuzz you would know is a load of poop. Stop being interfering, if you have issues then fine, raise them - debate, and apply reason to your arguments, excellent - but don't be quite so ridiculous. 50mph...lol. For reference America has a mostly 50-60mph highway limit and they have LOADS more accidents per car than the UK.

Quite agree - the 'deep green' lobby damage their cause with the hair shirt approach.

Yup I'm with you and Penelope here. We should get a Pizza delivered and share it. If we ordered it from Dominoes in Newbury and it travelled at 70mph it would get to our chosen eating place much more quickly and be warmer and more delicious

Yes, we do have the technology, albeit at an immature stage right now.

Story of so many things!!! Technology and evolution is about progressing forward. It's why the electric (battery) car is not going to work, but why the Hydrogen powered car will. Because it gives us the same, 5 minute fill up, 300+ mile range as most sort of cars, and can easily replace explosive or combustible fuels by using exisiting Infrastructure, and not cause grievance to peoples pre-existant way of live. After all, who wants an, at best, 150 mile range with a 18 hour recharge time....

Humans like routine and if you change that routine everything gets messed up, and people's quality of life goes down. If you get up every morning at 7:30, shower, breakfast, grab keys and wallet, leave for work, and then one day you wake up at 8am...then your routine is ruined and you'd forget something or have to skip shower or breakfast. You could always eat breakfast in the shower. It's an option??

A stroke in this analogy would be a RTA. Equally, the more efficient the heart the slower it beats.

Quite the doctor you are, eh Andy?
There becomes a natural flow in blood (cars) which you force it to slower than it wants to be can cause bad things to happen. Say the natural flow is around 65-70beats per minute (or mph actually hah) and you try to force it to 50....well let's just say hope you have BUPA

[Andy Capp]

The obvious solution is a man with a red flag walking in front of everyones vehicle ! simple ! In fact lets all forget 100 years of progress and go back to the good old days altogether. Everyone gets a horse and cart, fitted with methane filters to please the greens, Everyone gets a job on the land and Adrian (look at me) Hollister can get his kids to sweep my chimneys ! All in the name of progress (of course). Its fools like this who got the incandescant lightbulbs banned. Beware idiots with agendas.

I'm not sure what is wrong in wanting to slow traffic down to reduce accidents - what is foolish about that? This isn't to say I agree with a 50mph zone, but hysterical rhetoric doesn't help this argument.

[Andy Capp]

There becomes a natural flow in blood (cars) which you force it to slower than it wants to be can cause bad things to happen. Say the natural flow is around 65-70beats per minute (or mph actually hah) and you try to force it to 50....well let's just say hope you have BUPA

I think it is your analogy that is flawed, rather than your argument. Slower speed limits will tend to mean fewer strokes, especially fatal ones. The fittest athletes have the slowest heart beats, but their cars carry a lot of oxygen!

[Blake]

I am wholeheartedly in favor of a speed limit on this road, preferably along the entire length.

I have seen some of the most dangerous and antisocial driving on this road known to man.

I am appalled at the staggering hubris with which some drivers demonstrate, as if somehow, the Highway Code, laws and climatic conditions have no application to their self-centered selves.

So yes, I am in favor of a speed reduction. It would also benefit the environment by giving us cleaner air as most vehicles reach peak gas mileage (and thus emit the least) at 50-60mph.

[Guest_xjay1337_*]

There is a speed limit. It's 70.

So Blake it seems the problem isn't the speed, it's the lack of safe driving based on conditions. 70mph in the rain is perfectly safe but depending on levels of spray you have to drive appropriately. In the dry you can do hundreds of miles an hour very safely.

Also you'd know most vehicles actually are most economical at around 35-40mph. So why don't we reduce the speed limit to there? In my car (I know as I've tested it) I get an average of around 57mpg on cruise control at 70mph, at 80 I get 54.8. Now I get about 60mpg with both when I'm driving with a manual throttle...so do you want to ban cruise control?
At 35mph I get about 110 mpg. What's not to like?

When most of the middle aged bad drivers grow old and end up in carehomes the roads will be much better I believe.

I think it is your analogy that is flawed, rather than your argument. Slower speed limits will tend to mean fewer strokes, especially fatal ones. The fittest athletes have the slowest heart beats, but their cars carry a lot of oxygen!

Fair enough. I watch a lot of House MD but sometimes I think they are lying. Because it's never Lupus.
You can see exactly why I dropped out of med school though.

[dannyboy]

Time for a variable speed limit. Works on other busy roads.

[Penelope]

The answer as I'm sure any thinking person (sorry if I excude people like Adrian Hollister) is not the speed but peoples inability to drive at speed, if you want to make roads safer you
1 Enforce the no mobiles ban (rigorously)
2 Increase police patrols to get the uninsured, untaxed and un mot'ed vehicles off the roads
3 Pull anyone with defective lights
4 Stiffer driving tests ( I mean seriously, you drive around for half an hour without actually killing anyone and thats meant to be good enough ?)
5 Retest the over 70's
6 Random breath testing at all times of the year
7 On moterways and dual carriageways, a 70mph limit ratcheted down to 60 in the wet
8 Stop allowing people who get caught speeding to,in effect 'get off' by attending a "speed awareness course". Hammer them instead.
9 Tighter restrictions (no's passengers, speeds etc) for newly qualified drivers
10 Stop idiots using "speed kills" to dictate road traffic policies

Oh and
11 20mph limits anywhere new schools, crossings etc
12 Educate children in road safety (seems to be in decline, not just in the shires but also in inner cities.

[Biker1]

Why when we have already done it?

Because there are some on here who disagree and think that speed DOES cause accidents.

Or do you just enjoy arguing?

Yes, as do you!!

[Biker1]

Speed didn't kill him. Speed does not kill.

What gets every you is rapid acceleration/deceleration.

Strange argument because the faster you are going the more severe the sudden stop leading to more damage.
So my argument is that speed IS a factor in the severity of crashes and yes it does kill.
If we all drove at say 4mph how many crashes would there be?
And if there were any, how sever would the damage be?

[Penelope]

Man with a red flag, anyway as a biker you should know that most fatalities to bikers are not caused by speed they are coused by other motorists not paying attention.

[Biker1]

Man with a red flag, anyway as a biker you should know that most fatalities to bikers are not caused by speed they are coused by other motorists not paying attention.

True, but I still say speed is the ultimate factor in EVERY crash.
As someone has pointed out, you don't hear of two stationary vehicles crashing!

[Strafin]

I am wholeheartedly in favor of a speed limit on this road, preferably along the entire length.

I have seen some of the most dangerous and antisocial driving on this road known to man.

I am appalled at the staggering hubris with which some drivers demonstrate, as if somehow, the Highway Code, laws and climatic conditions have no application to their self-centered selves.

So yes, I am in favor of a speed reduction. It would also benefit the environment by giving us cleaner air as most vehicles reach peak gas mileage (and thus emit the least) at 50-60mph.

So if they already ignore the laws, what makes you think they will adhere to a lower speed limit?

[oldharry]

Man with a red flag, anyway as a biker you should know that most fatalities to bikers are not caused by speed they are coused by other motorists not paying attention.

Absolute rubbish!

[Penelope]

What part ?

[Weavers Walk]

Its fools like this who got the incandescant lightbulbs banned. Beware idiots with agendas.

Really?

You're all fools I tells ya...fools!

[Andy Capp]

Strange argument because the faster you are going the more severe the sudden stop leading to more damage.
So my argument is that speed IS a factor in the severity of crashes

Agreed.

...and yes it does kill.

I'm not sure we could ever travel fast enough for speed to kill us!