20mph To Become The Default Urban Speed Limit (Instead Of 30mph) ?

[HeHasRisen]

1 minute ago, ThaBoom said:

20mph is ridiculous and just a cash making opportunity for the police.

They have no resources to enforce it.  Apologies for the source of the link - https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/uk-drivers-speeding-20mph-zone-unenforceable

Edited September 15, 2023 by HeHasRisen
typo

[Chekhov]

24 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

That’s a very suppressionist point of view.

I don’t see why you suppressionists should dictate how everyone else behaves.

It's a proportionate thing to do.

It has minimal effect on people's freedoms, but a significant, and provable, effect on people's safety. 

I could give countless examples of disproportionate restrictions, which significantly affect people's freedoms for no significant gain in people's safety, but I do not want to side track this thread any sooner than it will, inevitably, get sidetracked....

 

6 minutes ago, ThaBoom said:

20mph is ridiculous and just a cash making opportunity for the police.

It's ridiculous on, say, Langsett Rd (in front of my shop).

But not on, say, Dodd St (behind my shop). If anything, 20mph is too fast on there.

 

22 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

My car doesnt allow cruise control until the speed gets to 25mph. There is a speed limiter option though, maybe that does allow 20mph, I rarely use it.

Nobody should be using cruise control on an urban road anyway.

 

20 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

It interferes with my civil liberties. I’m not going to be subjugated by the authoritarian, cotton wool fascists.

It is indeed a tragedy that you, and millions of others, do not adopt that position more universally, particularly about stuff which has no significant effect on anyone's safety.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Chekhov

[Prettytom]

7 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

It's a proportionate thing to do.

It has minimal effect on people's freedoms, but a significant, and provable, effect on people's safety. 

I could give countless examples of disproportionate restrictions, which significantly affect people's freedoms for no significant gain in people's safety, but I do not want to side track this thread any sooner than it will, inevitably, get sidetracked....

 

 

It’s not proportionate at all. Interfering with driver decisions remotely using GPS. Aside from the obvious safety issues it is cotton wool fascist, Wokey, suppresionism gone mad.

 

 

[HeHasRisen]

13 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

It is indeed a tragedy that you, and millions of others, do not adopt that position more universally, particularly about stuff which has no significant effect on anyone's safety.

[Chekhov]

9 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

It’s not proportionate at all. Interfering with driver decisions remotely using GPS. Aside from the obvious safety issues it is cotton wool fascist, Wokey, suppresionism gone mad

You're trolling without any doubt. 

You always, and I mean 100% of the time, argue in favour of all restrictions, bans, regulations etc, in fact anything that the powers that be see fit to introduce "to keep us safe". You even support stuff that has no concrete basis in fact, like banning parents using cameras at their kids school performances or even if they are swimming at a gala.

 

The alternative explanation is your knowledge of risk probability is so poor you genuinely think people are at more risk from having their photo taken at a swimming gala than they are on the roads.

Solution : study risk probability

 

But in actual fact we all know you are trolling.

 

>>Aside from the obvious safety issues [with GPS speed limiters]<<

 

What safety issues ?

Edited September 15, 2023 by Chekhov

[Prettytom]

5 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

<I’ve removed the whiny, ad hom nonsense. We’ve seen it all before and it is tediously dull>

 

>>Aside from the obvious safety issues [with GPS speed limiters]<<

 

What safety issues ?

There are plenty of circumstances where speeding up slightly helps to avert accidents. Any competent driver must know that.

 

In your cotton wool fascist, suppressionist world, drivers could be left without the ability to avoid trouble by moving swiftly out of the way.

 

It is a brainless idea. Have you been putting your head out of train windows again?

[Chekhov]

7 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

<I’ve removed the whiny, ad hom nonsense. We’ve seen it all before and it is tediously dull>

What you mean this bit where I prove you're trolling ? :

 

You're trolling without any doubt. 

You always, and I mean 100% of the time, argue in favour of all restrictions, bans, regulations etc, in fact anything that the powers that be see fit to introduce "to keep us safe". You even support stuff that has no concrete basis in fact, like banning parents using cameras at their kids school performances or even if they are swimming at a gala.

 

The alternative explanation is your knowledge of risk probability is so poor you genuinely think people are at more risk from having their photo taken at a swimming gala than they are on the roads.

Solution : study risk probability

 

But in actual fact we all know you are trolling.

[Prettytom]

8 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

What you mean this bit where I prove you're trolling ? :

 

 

There you go again. Misunderstanding the meaning of “proof”

 

You suppressionists are all the same

Edited September 15, 2023 by Prettytom

[Anna B]

Speed should be proportionate to the conditions and surroundings. Which is why we have different speed restrictions on different roads, which is OK by me. But a 20mph blanket coverage is not practical.

 

We have to pack so much into our day to get everything done, which is why there's such reluctance to give up our cars. We need to do stuff. (A 20 minute car journey would take 2 hours by public transport.) Care workers for example will have to visit less people during a working day, and so some needy people would have to do without help. Would you be happy if that was you? Less deliveries in a day so shops would have empty shelves, etc.

 

Life is not just about 'safety.'  In a 'just in time' economy, time is important to everyone.

 

 

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Anna B

[Chekhov]

14 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

There are plenty of circumstances where speeding up slightly helps to avert accidents. Any competent driver must know that.

Cobblers.

And you do not mean "speeding up slightly", you mean breaking the speed limit.

The only possible time when that may be true is if overtaking on a single carriageway road. But, if you have to exceed the speed limit to overtake then one wonders why any driver should bother overtaking anyway. I get this often on Woodhead. Some driver overtakes you because you're "only" doing 50mph, but 10 miles later at the lights in Mottram they're still in front of you, or, at best (from their point of view) about one more car ahead....

 

2 minutes ago, Prettytom said:

There you go again. Misunderstanding the meaning of “proof”

You are not kidding anyone, everyone knows you are trolling.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Chekhov