Speed Limits: How Low Is Too Low?

Nuxx Bar

It seems to me that every single time a speed limit is lowered, the
trolls say it's "perfectly fair". Would this just go on indefinitely,
however far a speed limit was lowered? If not, where does it stop,
and why?

Many in-town speed limits, which were previously 30 or 40, have now
been lowered to 20. "Perfectly fair" growl the trolls in each and
every case. So what about 19, 18, 15, or 10? 5? 1? Are they
"perfectly fair", or do accidents suddenly magically stop at 20?
Which limit is "low enough", and why?

Many out of town single carriageway stretches, previously NSL, are now
50 or even 40. "Perfectly fair" apparently. So, how low is "low
enough" on these roads, and why? What about ex-NSL dual carriageway
stretches which are now 60, 50 or even 40? What about motorways? How
low can you go?

I can't wait to find out the answer. Do the trolls want every road to
have a 1mph limit, or would they be happy with us zooming around at
20mph everywhere (wow, how generous of them)? And is there a
scientific reason for whatever levels they come up with, or is it just
down to sheer blind prejudice (as if I need to even ask)? Will the
trolls agree with each other, or will they differ on the exact speeds
at which motorists should suddenly start being labelled child-
murderers (no matter what the conditions)? It's so exciting!

(Gets ready for trollisms like "I don't hate motorists, I just think
they should be made to go slower than cyclists"....)

Thanks in advance

Blobby Frightcycles

Duncan Smith

On Apr 13, 8:21 pm, Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that every single time a speed limit is lowered, the
> trolls say it's "perfectly fair". Would this just go on indefinitely,
> however far a speed limit was lowered? If not, where does it stop,
> and why?
>
> Many in-town speed limits, which were previously 30 or 40, have now
> been lowered to 20. "Perfectly fair" growl the trolls in each and
> every case. So what about 19, 18, 15, or 10? 5? 1? Are they
> "perfectly fair", or do accidents suddenly magically stop at 20?
> Which limit is "low enough", and why?
>
> Many out of town single carriageway stretches, previously NSL, are now
> 50 or even 40. "Perfectly fair" apparently. So, how low is "low
> enough" on these roads, and why? What about ex-NSL dual carriageway
> stretches which are now 60, 50 or even 40? What about motorways? How
> low can you go?
>
> I can't wait to find out the answer. Do the trolls want every road to
> have a 1mph limit, or would they be happy with us zooming around at
> 20mph everywhere (wow, how generous of them)? And is there a
> scientific reason for whatever levels they come up with, or is it just
> down to sheer blind prejudice (as if I need to even ask)? Will the
> trolls agree with each other, or will they differ on the exact speeds
> at which motorists should suddenly start being labelled child-
> murderers (no matter what the conditions)? It's so exciting!
>
> (Gets ready for trollisms like "I don't hate motorists, I just think
> they should be made to go slower than cyclists"....)
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Blobby Frightcycles

Eh?

Tom Crispin

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:21:13 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> wrote:

>It seems to me that every single time a speed limit is lowered, the
>trolls say it's "perfectly fair". Would this just go on indefinitely,
>however far a speed limit was lowered? If not, where does it stop,
>and why?
>
>Many in-town speed limits, which were previously 30 or 40, have now
>been lowered to 20. "Perfectly fair" growl the trolls in each and
>every case. So what about 19, 18, 15, or 10? 5? 1? Are they
>"perfectly fair", or do accidents suddenly magically stop at 20?
>Which limit is "low enough", and why?
>
>Many out of town single carriageway stretches, previously NSL, are now
>50 or even 40. "Perfectly fair" apparently. So, how low is "low
>enough" on these roads, and why? What about ex-NSL dual carriageway
>stretches which are now 60, 50 or even 40? What about motorways? How
>low can you go?
>
>I can't wait to find out the answer. Do the trolls want every road to
>have a 1mph limit, or would they be happy with us zooming around at
>20mph everywhere (wow, how generous of them)? And is there a
>scientific reason for whatever levels they come up with, or is it just
>down to sheer blind prejudice (as if I need to even ask)? Will the
>trolls agree with each other, or will they differ on the exact speeds
>at which motorists should suddenly start being labelled child-
>murderers (no matter what the conditions)? It's so exciting!
>
>(Gets ready for trollisms like "I don't hate motorists, I just think
>they should be made to go slower than cyclists"....)
>
>Thanks in advance

A good first step would be to properly enforce current speed limits.
Satellite tracking may make that possible in the near future, with the
registered keeper automatically issued with a fine for the most minor
of infringements. Less experienced drivers could have lower limits
set, and they would be identified by special 'just passed' plates
fitted to their vehicles which too could be tracked by satellite.

Cyclists, of course, would be exempt from speeding offences.

As a concession to the motorist, speed cameras could be scrapped.

Tosspot

Duncan Smith wrote:
> On Apr 13, 8:21 pm, Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> I can't wait to find out the answer. Do the trolls want every road to
>> have a 1mph limit, or would they be happy with us zooming around at
>> 20mph everywhere (wow, how generous of them)? And is there a
>> scientific reason for whatever levels they come up with, or is it just
>> down to sheer blind prejudice (as if I need to even ask)? Will the
>> trolls agree with each other, or will they differ on the exact speeds
>> at which motorists should suddenly start being labelled child-
>> murderers (no matter what the conditions)? It's so exciting!
>>
>> (Gets ready for trollisms like "I don't hate motorists, I just think
>> they should be made to go slower than cyclists"....)
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> Blobby Frightcycles
>
> Eh?

Nuxx is on the best drugs the internet can buy.

Alan Braggins

In article <2eo404l98gh2ol93ja5u0eo25qcdrllvi8@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin wrote:
>Cyclists, of course, would be exempt from speeding offences.

While obviously a speeding cyclist poses less danger than a speeding
ton of metal, I'd be happy for speed limits to apply to cyclists if
it meant the trolls would stop whining.
Also, I'd like a pony.

Duncan Smith

>
> >Thanks in advance
>
> A good first step would be to properly enforce current speed limits.
> Satellite tracking may make that possible in the near future, with the
> registered keeper automatically issued with a fine for the most minor
> of infringements. Less experienced drivers could have lower limits
> set, and they would be identified by special 'just passed' plates
> fitted to their vehicles which too could be tracked by satellite.
>
> Cyclists, of course, would be exempt from speeding offences.
>
> As a concession to the motorist, speed cameras could be scrapped.

Sounds awesome doesn't it? Not sure how close the technology is
though, a GPS receiver only costs the phone manufacturers about £7 to
fit. But that's a passive receiver - you've still got to trigger an
alarm and get that data to central(ised) location for processing
somehow. And when you scale it up to however many cars are on the
road - it'd be a pretty ambitious project (think NHS computer
system). Mind you, if they could pull it off it ought to generate
enough revenue to pay for itself. I'd actually favour a system
whereby no fines were generated but a signal to the engine would cut
power to maintain the speed limit (force new cars to support this
before they can be sold in UK/EU)

It would probably kill the market for sports models overnight too, and
I can't see the manufacturers taking that lying down - so you'd have
lobbying groups that would need to be appeased over decades (like the
FOREST/ASH battles with no smoking)

And then anyone determined would disconnect the unit somehow (like
taking off the catalytic converter between MOTs to let the engine
breathe more).

All takes thought..

Regards,

Duncan

burtthebike

"Tosspot" <Frank.Leake@esa.int> wrote in message
news:fttqoe$8po$01$1@news.t-online.com...
> Duncan Smith wrote:
>> On Apr 13, 8:21 pm, Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Blobby Frightcycles
>>
>> Eh?
>
> Nuxx is on the best drugs the internet can buy.

No, he's free and it's way too expensive.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:53:59 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in
<99325f3b-933c-4dff-a54b-b83aa43dacad@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:

>Just to add that Crapman can reply if he wants but I doubt I'll read
>it. I've rarely if ever encountered anyone so utterly malicious and
>odious. What causes him to be *such* a motorist-hater?

I hate very few people. I had contempt for Smith, but I didn't hate
him, and I consider you a hilarious diversion. Every now and then I
drop by to see if you're still foaming at the mouth, if that's where
you talk from (which is open to dispute) and find that yes, indeed,
you are.

Don't worry, though, there's no danger of you doing any damage
because, just like Smith, your ravings are so self-evidently the
work of a madman that they are unlikely to be taken seriously.

In other news, I have been promoted and am now the senior engineer
for enterprise storage and virtualisation for Europe, the Middle
East and Africa, for a Fortune 500 company. I will be working in a
nice office high up in a modern skyscraper in London and riding my
Brompton from Paddington through the City every day, which I will
enjoy immensely.

I hope you don't get your license back until you learn to control
your anger, though.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

_

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:13:54 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:53:59 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> <derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in
> <99325f3b-933c-4dff-a54b-b83aa43dacad@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>Just to add that Crapman can reply if he wants but I doubt I'll read
>>it. I've rarely if ever encountered anyone so utterly malicious and
>>odious. What causes him to be *such* a motorist-hater?


> I hope you don't get your license back until you learn to control
> your anger, though.
>
> Guy

I must have missed something; mostly because TrollNx is not something I
read very often.

What did he do, and how long is he banned?

Paul - xxx

Nuxx Bar wrote:

> It seems to me that every single time a speed limit is lowered, the
> trolls say it's "perfectly fair". Would this just go on indefinitely,
> however far a speed limit was lowered? If not, where does it stop,
> and why?

You already seem to have formed answers for yourself, so why ask?

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
'98 Suzuki DR 200 Djebel 'Small but perfectly formed'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'

Matt B

Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <2eo404l98gh2ol93ja5u0eo25qcdrllvi8@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin wrote:
>> Cyclists, of course, would be exempt from speeding offences.
>
> While obviously a speeding cyclist poses less danger than a speeding
> ton of metal,

That is a rather irresponsible generalisation. It may be true that a
car + motorist travelling at 21 mph has more kinetic energy than a bike
+ cyclist travelling at the same speed, but the level of danger depends
on many other factors.

--
Matt B

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:24:27 +0100, Matt B
<matt.bourke@nospam.london.com> said in
<66gib1F2kb1teU1@mid.individual.net>:

>> While obviously a speeding cyclist poses less danger than a speeding
>> ton of metal,

>That is a rather irresponsible generalisation. It may be true that a
>car + motorist travelling at 21 mph has more kinetic energy than a bike
>+ cyclist travelling at the same speed, but the level of danger depends
>on many other factors.

Not really, no. The number of people killed or seriously injured by
bicycles is low enough that the generalisation is entirely valid.

It would be a pretty unlikely collision where swapping a bike for a
car would /reduce/ the level of danger.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:39:38 GMT, _
<jtayNOSPAMlor@hfDONTSENDMESPAMx.andara.com> said in
<s1avb33udfxl$.rvnas11k8adl$.dlg@40tude.net>:

>I must have missed something; mostly because TrollNx is not something I
>read very often.
>What did he do, and how long is he banned?

Pure conjecture on my part, I admit. Not denied by him, mind.

I'm always amused at the idea that drivers with multiple
prosecutions are better drivers than those with none, but we know
well enough that drivers routinely overestimate their own skill
levels.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Matt B

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> It seems to me that every single time a speed limit is lowered, the
> trolls say it's "perfectly fair". Would this just go on indefinitely,
> however far a speed limit was lowered? If not, where does it stop,
> and why?

Speed limits are like curfews, they are blanket measures targeting the
good and the bad in society without distinction, and legitimising
indiscriminate, ruthless, machine-gun-like enforcement methods. They
have criminalised millions who have caused no danger, whilst condoning,
even encouraging, reckless and dangerous driving within an arbitrary
speed limit + 10% + 2.

--
Matt B