20 mph speed limit on the way?

[John Ponting]

We all do that, to the extent that we have a legal right to. To argue that you're somehoe 'special' and you have the right to take action outside of the law, do illegal things... Do I really need to explain why thats not such a great attitude?

I personally don't need you to preach to me about behaviour. I was responding to Elmer.

 

[Cab]

I personally don't need you to preach to me about behaviour. I was responding to Elmer.

If you've got something private to say to someone and you don't want people responding to it, say it by PM.

If you don't want people to tell you that breaking the law by speeding is wrong, don't back it up by responding to someone saying they're a speeder talking about personal responsibility being all important.

In truth, personal responsibility is very important, which is why anyone condoning speeding is likely to be taken to task on these boards.

 

[Elmer Fudd]

Gone Fishing !!!

 

[col]

The father of a friend of my son is a cycle copper. Last week they staked out a bus lane leading to a major junction on a main road into Birmingham. They were there for an hour in the morning rush hour, and ticketed 42 drivers for using the bus lane to cut the queues.

The competent drivers were cheering, clapping and thanking the police.

He also stopped a guy for speeding past the primary school while on his phone. The guy asked him not to do him, as he already had 6 points. He's got 9 now.

Nice one,more more

 

[andy_wrx]

If you've got something private to say to someone and you don't want people responding to it, say it by PM.

If you don't want people to tell you that breaking the law by speeding is wrong, don't back it up by responding to someone saying they're a speeder talking about personal responsibility being all important.

In truth, personal responsibility is very important, which is why anyone condoning speeding is likely to be taken to task on these boards.

Oh dear.

That (last statement) is exactly what John was doing, you've completely misunderstood it and flamed him. Well done.

I understand what you meant John !

 

[col]

Oh dear.

That (last statement) is exactly what John was doing, you've completely misunderstood it and flamed him. Well done.

I understand what you meant John !

Oops,

 

[domtyler]

Ahh, yes, bus lanes. That cyclists share. Or in Cambridge the 'only parking here for five minutes, I'll be in and out in a juffy' lanes, otherwise known as the 'filtering to turn left oh who'd have thought there would be bicycles here' lanes.

Such a good idea in practice, so badly enforced though.

Come to London, they are enforced and work brilliantly.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

I personally agree with the reduction in limit, so long as it is limited to more minor roads, i.e. where it is appropriate. There are a number of roads near me that would not suit 20mph, i.e. there is little need for it due to good visibility, wide road, etc.

Tete,

People generally don't keep within speed limits. In general people appear to aim for about 10 mph above the limit. Obviously this is wrong, but it is a fact of life. I think if limits were reduced to 20, then realistically we could expect that most folk would drive at 30mph. So I am sure that reducing the limit would have an effect, just not the effect that is quoted.

It's possible Magna (but not backed up by fact), and kind of supports what I was getting at; that on the surface these things are prescriptively reported on, i.e. reducing the speed limit will result in fewer accidents. When in actual fact it's not necessarily as clear cut as that. More the case that someone thinks it's a good idea.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

Your point?




Different sets of people. Can't change the attitude of the hardened speeder with enforcement of lower limits, but you can give the pedestrians and cyclists their crack of the whip that way.

My point being that you accused me of missing the point in your usual arrogant style. I didn't. In fact your OP asked for thoughts on the article you linked. I gave some and you accuse me of missing the point. Take that stick out of your arse.

As for different sets of people, shifting the goal posts. Did I say "change the culture of hardened speeders"? NOPE. You did. So you disagreed first, as is your nature it seems, and then agreed by forcing a set of Cabulous conditions on it. Good for you!

 

[Cab]

My point being that you accused me of missing the point in your usual arrogant style.

I'll miss a lot more too if you take that tone.

(further cut unread, I'll see you again in this thread if you quit the insults)

 

[Tetedelacourse]

I'll miss a lot more too if you take that tone.

(further cut unread, I'll see you again in this thread if you quit the insults)

Cab you are one of the most antagonistic posters on this forum. Take a good look at yourself.

 

[John Ponting]

If you've got something private to say to someone and you don't want people responding to it, say it by PM.

If you don't want people to tell you that breaking the law by speeding is wrong, don't back it up by responding to someone saying they're a speeder talking about personal responsibility being all important.

In truth, personal responsibility is very important, which is why anyone condoning speeding is likely to be taken to task on these boards.

Once again you have ignored what was written, made up the quote you wanted to see and then responded to it in your bombastic, arrogant and condescending manner.

Read my comments to Elmer and respond to what I actually said if you feel you really must or just ignore this post. Whatever.

 

[Cab]

Cab you are one of the most antagonistic posters on this forum. Take a good look at yourself.

Oh give it a rest. I responed fairly and reasonably to what you said, you didn't like it so you called me arrogant as a get out. You could either engage in a real discussion or just get insulting, you chose the latter. And now I'm the antagonistic one?

 

[bonj2]

This argument's getting a bit silly. Am I right in presuming John's original reply to Elmer on page 10 about taking responsibility for your own actions was meant with sarcasm, which wasn't understood?

 

[Cab]

Once again you have ignored what was written, made up the quote you wanted to see and then responded to it in your bombastic, arrogant and condescending manner.

Read my comments to Elmer and respond to what I actually said if you feel you really must or just ignore this post. Whatever.

Ahh, yes, your comment to Elmer. Where he said he does 90 on the motorway and you said:

Possibly not the best thing to say on here Elmer - it's almost as though you feel you can make decisions about, and take responsibility for, your own actions

So... You're telling him what, not to say that kind of thing here because we don't condone people making their own decisions and taking responsibility? When he's just said that he's a speeder, a law breaker, you suggested that he shouldn't say that here not because he's breaking the law but because we don't condone people taking responsibility? You're right, I hope, in that most of us wouldn't condone someone taking personal responsibility to the point where they ignore the law.

If I've interpreted what you've said wrongly... What did you mean? I can't see any other obvious interpretation of what you said.