Oxford's new 20mph speed limit is unenforceable

Colin Prickett

Colin Prickett

First published in News by

OXFORDSHIRE County Council has admitted new 20mph speed limits are not yet legally enforceable on some city roads — because insufficient signs have been put up.

Despite announcing in July the £300,000 scheme would begin on September 1, the council last night said that more than 150 repeater signs had yet to be fixed on to lampposts.

It means the new lower speed limits cannot yet be enforced in Morrell Avenue, East Oxford, and some roads in Rose Hill and Blackbird Leys.

However, County Hall refused to name the affected streets or say when the problem would be fixed.

Three years ago, a new 50mph speed limit on the Eastern Bypass was unenforceable because a sign had been missing for five months.

The limit was cut from 70mph to 50mph between Horspath Driftway and the Green Road roundabout after a crash in 2005 that killed three schoolboys and a 21-year-old student.

Colin Prickett, 58, a driving instructor from Headington, said: “This is typical, it’s the council all over. They do not think things through beforehand.

“They have not won the battle for hearts and minds, so people are not going to obey the limit, regardless of the signs.”

On the first day of the new scheme, our investigation found that 90 out of 105 vehicles (85 per cent) clocked on the Morrell Avenue cut-through from Headington to St Clement’s, were driving at more than 20mph.

The council claimed all terminal signs — which signify the beginning and end of speed limits — were in place, but some so-called repeater signs in between were missing.

Hugh Jaeger, Oxfordshire representative of the British Motorcyclists’ Federation, said: “This is disgraceful. This is like a lazy student asking their tutor for an extension so they can get their essay in on time.

“What do they expect the public to do when they can’t even finish the job for their own deadline?”

The chairman of Oxford Pedestrians’ Association, Paul Cullen, who fought a two-year campaign for reduced speed limits, said: “I’m surprised and disappointed.

“It isn’t a good omen for the start of this bold scheme.

“While there’s this half-hearted message, people will think they can carry on driving as they did before.

“This can only add to the confusion and it suggests the council isn’t behind the idea.”

Council spokesman Paul Smith said: “Our contractor is putting up signs in Rose Hill and Blackbird Leys. As such, this is a constantly ongoing and changing picture so there is no full list of streets to provide.

“Obviously, in areas where the 20mph repeater signs have yet to be erected, the limit is yet to officially fully come in to force.”

  • Road safety officers will be out and about in Oxford over the next two days to inform residents about the 20mph limits.

Today, officers from the county council’s road safety team will be in London Road, Headington, from 10am to noon, near Barclays Bank.

They will then move on to Cowley centre from 1-3pm.

Tomorrow, they will be in Summertown between 10am and noon and outside Tesco at the Oxford Retail Park in Cowley from 1-2pm.

Comments (50)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:53pm Wed 2 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

It doesn't matter whether they are enforceable or NOT - a limit is a limit and should be obeyed.
Agreed that there is a level of poor planning and incompetence here but this does not make it a bad idea to have the limits.

It is a sad indictment on British driving if people are unable or unwilling to adhere to such limits until they can technically be compelled to.

I despair sometimes of this selfish me-now society we have become.
It doesn't matter whether they are enforceable or NOT - a limit is a limit and should be obeyed. Agreed that there is a level of poor planning and incompetence here but this does not make it a bad idea to have the limits. It is a sad indictment on British driving if people are unable or unwilling to adhere to such limits until they can technically be compelled to. I despair sometimes of this selfish me-now society we have become. SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: -1

8:36pm Wed 2 Sep 09

Chris_SCG says...

If 'SickOfIgnorantIdiot
sOnNewsgroups' (a highly appropriate user name if I may say so) had bothered to both read and understand the situation, he or she would know that the speed limit does not exist yet because the appropriate signs have not been put up. The law defines the signs that have to be in place for a speed limit to be legal very precisely. It has to do this otherwise any cowboy or self-righteous meddling busybody could slap a post-it note on a lamp post and call it a speed limit sign.
The fact that this has not been done by the date the speed limit was supposed to go live indicates that the council and their contractors are incompetent, something we all knew anyway. I suspect that in their hysterical rush to force this in, some clown didn't spec the job properly in the first place, and they only found out when someone else checked the signage.
This city is run by meddling self-righteous incompetent busybodies, not by the people of Oxford.
This speed limit is a joke, it will not be respected, and will do nothing for road safety.
If 'SickOfIgnorantIdiot sOnNewsgroups' (a highly appropriate user name if I may say so) had bothered to both read and understand the situation, he or she would know that the speed limit does not exist yet because the appropriate signs have not been put up. The law defines the signs that have to be in place for a speed limit to be legal very precisely. It has to do this otherwise any cowboy or self-righteous meddling busybody could slap a post-it note on a lamp post and call it a speed limit sign. The fact that this has not been done by the date the speed limit was supposed to go live indicates that the council and their contractors are incompetent, something we all knew anyway. I suspect that in their hysterical rush to force this in, some clown didn't spec the job properly in the first place, and they only found out when someone else checked the signage. This city is run by meddling self-righteous incompetent busybodies, not by the people of Oxford. This speed limit is a joke, it will not be respected, and will do nothing for road safety. Chris_SCG
  • Score: 0

9:56pm Wed 2 Sep 09

tribalamazonian says...

Chris_SCG wrote:
If 'SickOfIgnorantIdiot sOnNewsgroups' (a highly appropriate user name if I may say so) had bothered to both read and understand the situation, he or she would know that the speed limit does not exist yet because the appropriate signs have not been put up. The law defines the signs that have to be in place for a speed limit to be legal very precisely. It has to do this otherwise any cowboy or self-righteous meddling busybody could slap a post-it note on a lamp post and call it a speed limit sign. The fact that this has not been done by the date the speed limit was supposed to go live indicates that the council and their contractors are incompetent, something we all knew anyway. I suspect that in their hysterical rush to force this in, some clown didn't spec the job properly in the first place, and they only found out when someone else checked the signage. This city is run by meddling self-righteous incompetent busybodies, not by the people of Oxford. This speed limit is a joke, it will not be respected, and will do nothing for road safety.
I quite agree - this is another shambles of laughable proportions like the farce with the High Street bus cameras. This 20mph limit will have no effect and is another waste of taxpayers money.
[quote][p][bold]Chris_SCG[/bold] wrote: If 'SickOfIgnorantIdiot sOnNewsgroups' (a highly appropriate user name if I may say so) had bothered to both read and understand the situation, he or she would know that the speed limit does not exist yet because the appropriate signs have not been put up. The law defines the signs that have to be in place for a speed limit to be legal very precisely. It has to do this otherwise any cowboy or self-righteous meddling busybody could slap a post-it note on a lamp post and call it a speed limit sign. The fact that this has not been done by the date the speed limit was supposed to go live indicates that the council and their contractors are incompetent, something we all knew anyway. I suspect that in their hysterical rush to force this in, some clown didn't spec the job properly in the first place, and they only found out when someone else checked the signage. This city is run by meddling self-righteous incompetent busybodies, not by the people of Oxford. This speed limit is a joke, it will not be respected, and will do nothing for road safety.[/p][/quote]I quite agree - this is another shambles of laughable proportions like the farce with the High Street bus cameras. This 20mph limit will have no effect and is another waste of taxpayers money. tribalamazonian
  • Score: 0

11:03pm Wed 2 Sep 09

Grundon Skipp says...

'Three years ago, a new 50mph speed limit on the Eastern Bypass was unenforceable because a sign had been missing for five months.

The limit was cut from 70mph to 50mph between Horspath Driftway and the Green Road roundabout after a crash in 2005 that killed three schoolboys and a 21-year-old student.'


...where yet again speed was not a causal factor in the tragic events, but the irresponsible stupidity of the woman who overloaded her car.

You cannot prevent casualties caused by stupidity or the breaking of existing laws by lowering speeds- the entire government and Council approach is based on completely erroneous false, simplistic or downright untrue 'links'.

The obssession with speed is simply down to the fact that a driver's speed between two points is easily measured and therefore easy to fine and punish, whereas the true causes of most accidents require well trained and funded traffic Police officers.

http://www.abd.org.u
k/onemph.htm

SickOf- your blind 'laws are laws and must be obeyed' attitude breaks down when the laws cease to be determined by any reasonable or sensible means after due consideration of and consultation with those who they affect.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I suggest that the World would be a better place if more people had rejected the laws made at Nuremberg in 1935 and those decreed by Stalin, the Taleban and various others who imposed their totalitarian will on people.

'Three years ago, a new 50mph speed limit on the Eastern Bypass was unenforceable because a sign had been missing for five months. The limit was cut from 70mph to 50mph between Horspath Driftway and the Green Road roundabout after a crash in 2005 that killed three schoolboys and a 21-year-old student.' ...where yet again speed was not a causal factor in the tragic events, but the irresponsible stupidity of the woman who overloaded her car. You cannot prevent casualties caused by stupidity or the breaking of existing laws by lowering speeds- the entire government and Council approach is based on completely erroneous false, simplistic or downright untrue 'links'. The obssession with speed is simply down to the fact that a driver's speed between two points is easily measured and therefore easy to fine and punish, whereas the true causes of most accidents require well trained and funded traffic Police officers. http://www.abd.org.u k/onemph.htm SickOf- your blind 'laws are laws and must be obeyed' attitude breaks down when the laws cease to be determined by any reasonable or sensible means after due consideration of and consultation with those who they affect. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, I suggest that the World would be a better place if more people had rejected the laws made at Nuremberg in 1935 and those decreed by Stalin, the Taleban and various others who imposed their totalitarian will on people. Grundon Skipp
  • Score: 0

12:03am Thu 3 Sep 09

Going_Digital says...

Another well thought out scheme by the council. Morrell Avenue is the main route from the Ambulance station so now they will have to go at 20mph.
Another well thought out scheme by the council. Morrell Avenue is the main route from the Ambulance station so now they will have to go at 20mph. Going_Digital
  • Score: 0

8:48am Thu 3 Sep 09

jonny1976 says...

i saw a 30 mph sign with a 20 mph sign next to it, i added the two together and drove at 50 :-)
i saw a 30 mph sign with a 20 mph sign next to it, i added the two together and drove at 50 :-) jonny1976
  • Score: 0

9:20am Thu 3 Sep 09

BartSimpson says...

There is a 20mph sign next to Barns road shops where you go behind the shops!! This bit of road is 30 yards long. You would need to be driving a rocket to reach 20mph. What a complete waste of money
There is a 20mph sign next to Barns road shops where you go behind the shops!! This bit of road is 30 yards long. You would need to be driving a rocket to reach 20mph. What a complete waste of money BartSimpson
  • Score: 0

11:27am Thu 3 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

Chris everyone in Oxford knows about the 'limits' so whether they are technically 'legal' or not is immaterial in my view.

Some deluded individuals think that personal freedom should extend to being able to drive as fast as you like on our roads with impunity and refuse to accept that speed exacerbates the potential for accidents.

For example Grundon quite rightly blames the stupidity of a driver overloading a car for an accident on the ring road but had the car been travelling at 20 30 or even 40 would that accident have been as serious - he conveniently chooses to ignore this because of selective stastics which support his political ideology of small govenment and emphasis on individual rather than community and society ?

All intuition and laws of physics and biology would suggest that lower speed does not remove accidents entirely but can reduce severity and number of occurrences.

My problem is that the attitude here is one of 'do whatever you can within the law and your conscience is clea'r and I think this is not a very nice attitude in relation to contributing to communities and the long term health of society.

Take another example - cyclist going thought red lights or pedestrians crossing on a red man sign - an oft-seen occurrence in this city.

I have NEVER seen this happen in Switzerland or Holland for example - funnily enough people there seem to obey signs and advice - why can't we - why does EVERYTHING have to be legally enforceable ?

I fail to understand why this is such an emotive subject - perhaps because of ignorance such as Going-Digital who thinks emergency service vehicles have to keep to speed limits when answering a call ????- this is precisely the sort of ignorance I seek to correct whopper - if you don't like it stop reading and responding to my posts - you will NOT bully me out of this group - someone has to be the sane and educated voice of reason.

Whopper your silly insults merit no repsonse except to report the post which is unnecessarily personally offinsive however many @ signs and anatomical terms you use - you need to grow up some.
Chris everyone in Oxford knows about the 'limits' so whether they are technically 'legal' or not is immaterial in my view. Some deluded individuals think that personal freedom should extend to being able to drive as fast as you like on our roads with impunity and refuse to accept that speed exacerbates the potential for accidents. For example Grundon quite rightly blames the stupidity of a driver overloading a car for an accident on the ring road but had the car been travelling at 20 30 or even 40 would that accident have been as serious - he conveniently chooses to ignore this because of selective stastics which support his political ideology of small govenment and emphasis on individual rather than community and society ? All intuition and laws of physics and biology would suggest that lower speed does not remove accidents entirely but can reduce severity and number of occurrences. My problem is that the attitude here is one of 'do whatever you can within the law and your conscience is clea'r and I think this is not a very nice attitude in relation to contributing to communities and the long term health of society. Take another example - cyclist going thought red lights or pedestrians crossing on a red man sign - an oft-seen occurrence in this city. I have NEVER seen this happen in Switzerland or Holland for example - funnily enough people there seem to obey signs and advice - why can't we - why does EVERYTHING have to be legally enforceable ? I fail to understand why this is such an emotive subject - perhaps because of ignorance such as Going-Digital who thinks emergency service vehicles have to keep to speed limits when answering a call ????- this is precisely the sort of ignorance I seek to correct whopper - if you don't like it stop reading and responding to my posts - you will NOT bully me out of this group - someone has to be the sane and educated voice of reason. Whopper your silly insults merit no repsonse except to report the post which is unnecessarily personally offinsive however many @ signs and anatomical terms you use - you need to grow up some. SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

11:28am Thu 3 Sep 09

Lord Palmerston says...

"Despite announcing in July the £300,000 scheme would begin on September 1, the"
300k-that's the council tax take from 150 detached houses. Is there really, really, nothing better to be done with it than this garbage? If there's not THEN GIVE IT BACK.
"Despite announcing in July the £300,000 scheme would begin on September 1, the" 300k-that's the council tax take from 150 detached houses. Is there really, really, nothing better to be done with it than this garbage? If there's not THEN GIVE IT BACK. Lord Palmerston
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Thu 3 Sep 09

thekraut says...

"SickOfIgnorantIdiot
sOnNewsgroups wrote: It is a sad indictment on British driving if people are unable or unwilling to adhere to such limits until they can technically be compelled to.
I despair sometimes of this selfish me-now society we have become."
I couldn't agree more, but I would even go further: it is a sad indictment of British people that they are unable or unwilling to adhere to any law or limit. There seems to be a general attitude amongst the posts here to be dismissive about any law or limit that has been reached in a proper, British, democratic process (democratic, Grundon Skipp, not Nazi,fascist, totalitarian or Taliban law-making). So if you take this thought further: most posters here actually prefer an anarchical, selfish, dog-eat-dog society. And not the great institution this British democracy is, or used to be (because it relies on the acceptance by its people). Thatcherism has a lot to answer for...
"SickOfIgnorantIdiot sOnNewsgroups wrote: It is a sad indictment on British driving if people are unable or unwilling to adhere to such limits until they can technically be compelled to. I despair sometimes of this selfish me-now society we have become." I couldn't agree more, but I would even go further: it is a sad indictment of British people that they are unable or unwilling to adhere to any law or limit. There seems to be a general attitude amongst the posts here to be dismissive about any law or limit that has been reached in a proper, British, democratic process (democratic, Grundon Skipp, not Nazi,fascist, totalitarian or Taliban law-making). So if you take this thought further: most posters here actually prefer an anarchical, selfish, dog-eat-dog society. And not the great institution this British democracy is, or used to be (because it relies on the acceptance by its people). Thatcherism has a lot to answer for... thekraut
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Thu 3 Sep 09

jamess says...

At best, it's an inconvenience, at worst it's a real libility that's likely to increase the dangers on the roads. A car overtaking abicycle at 30 can do so efficiently and safely, without inconvniencing either person. At 20, a car will take longer to overtake, spending more time further out in the road and creating more of a hazard. That's not the cyclists fault, or the car drivers, but an inherantly dangerous situation created by a misguided council. Therefore the new ruling will be more dangerous, not less, and more inefficient due to cars driving in lower gears. As such, it's already failed in its logic and is set to do the opposite of what it was originally designed to do.
As i said previously, my vote will go to the first party to repeal this lunacy.
At best, it's an inconvenience, at worst it's a real libility that's likely to increase the dangers on the roads. A car overtaking abicycle at 30 can do so efficiently and safely, without inconvniencing either person. At 20, a car will take longer to overtake, spending more time further out in the road and creating more of a hazard. That's not the cyclists fault, or the car drivers, but an inherantly dangerous situation created by a misguided council. Therefore the new ruling will be more dangerous, not less, and more inefficient due to cars driving in lower gears. As such, it's already failed in its logic and is set to do the opposite of what it was originally designed to do. As i said previously, my vote will go to the first party to repeal this lunacy. jamess
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Thu 3 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

If you ask me JamesS we are all in too much of a hurry in this country and should take a leaf out of our fellow Southern (and some Northern) Europeans and take a chill pill. Overtaking the cyclist may actually get you to your destination 60 seconds ahead of not overtaking - WOW thats a whole minute I have saved !!!! Ever been overtaken by a boy racer on asingle carriageway road about 200 metres fornm a set of lights that are on RED ???? WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT ???

Some people need to get a life and slow down - enjoy ! - it is not all about getting from a to b in supersonic time - we could develop a more relaxed slower pace of life as they have in other parts of the world - you know people might even enjoy it and live longer due to less stress.
If you ask me JamesS we are all in too much of a hurry in this country and should take a leaf out of our fellow Southern (and some Northern) Europeans and take a chill pill. Overtaking the cyclist may actually get you to your destination 60 seconds ahead of not overtaking - WOW thats a whole minute I have saved !!!! Ever been overtaken by a boy racer on asingle carriageway road about 200 metres fornm a set of lights that are on RED ???? WHAT'S THAT ALL ABOUT ??? Some people need to get a life and slow down - enjoy ! - it is not all about getting from a to b in supersonic time - we could develop a more relaxed slower pace of life as they have in other parts of the world - you know people might even enjoy it and live longer due to less stress. SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

1:51pm Thu 3 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

TheKraut - thanks for the support but be careful Grundon will think we are one and the same person :-)

Palmerston - usual horse poo from you - when will you ever add something positive to a debate rather than venting your clearly posioned spleen.

If this saves one child's life I think you will fond most people would agree it to be money well spent and when the temp speed cams start dishing out £60 penalties to those who are selfish enough not to care, it might even turn out to be a sound financial investment too :-)
TheKraut - thanks for the support but be careful Grundon will think we are one and the same person :-) Palmerston - usual horse poo from you - when will you ever add something positive to a debate rather than venting your clearly posioned spleen. If this saves one child's life I think you will fond most people would agree it to be money well spent and when the temp speed cams start dishing out £60 penalties to those who are selfish enough not to care, it might even turn out to be a sound financial investment too :-) SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

1:55pm Thu 3 Sep 09

sparky123456 says...

the reduction in limit to the eastern bypass was ridiculous, speed was not a major factor in that accident. It was driver error and an overloaded vehicle with a lack of sufficient central barriers. Now all drivers have to suffer.
For what i can see the new limit in oxford has been enforced for no real reason, it's confusing and in areas impossible to adhere to.
I live in Headington, 10 metres within the 20mph limit, if i turn left i'm in a 30 zone, right i remain in the 20 and straight ahead it's 30 but this soon changes to 20 then back to 30. I tried driving at 20 but got flashed several times by cars behind for driving so slowly, i also followed a police car through a 20 zone, the police car was travelling at 30.
The upshot is that nobody cares because nobody wanted it, it's poorly implemented and a waste of money. In the words of Peter Jones for that reason 'I'm out and I won't be investing' I'd rather have the points on my licence.
the reduction in limit to the eastern bypass was ridiculous, speed was not a major factor in that accident. It was driver error and an overloaded vehicle with a lack of sufficient central barriers. Now all drivers have to suffer. For what i can see the new limit in oxford has been enforced for no real reason, it's confusing and in areas impossible to adhere to. I live in Headington, 10 metres within the 20mph limit, if i turn left i'm in a 30 zone, right i remain in the 20 and straight ahead it's 30 but this soon changes to 20 then back to 30. I tried driving at 20 but got flashed several times by cars behind for driving so slowly, i also followed a police car through a 20 zone, the police car was travelling at 30. The upshot is that nobody cares because nobody wanted it, it's poorly implemented and a waste of money. In the words of Peter Jones for that reason 'I'm out and I won't be investing' I'd rather have the points on my licence. sparky123456
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Thu 3 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

Nice attitude Sparky ....and when your license is taken away ....????

Are you suggesting that you are not capable of learning the speed limits in your locality and are unable to read the number 20 30 40 50 ?

Come off it and say something sensible for goodness sake.

The Eastern bypass accident was horrific and the major problem was overloading however it is plain lunacy to suggest that if the car had been going 10, 20 or 30 mph slower the outcome would have been exactly the same.

Ever had a rear tyre blow out in the outside lane of the motorway at 70mph and got a punctiure in your car on a residential street ? -

I have - and can you guess which was the easier of the two events to control the car on ? Yes thought you might - the correct answer was of course the second one where I hardly noticed the deflation.

I wish people would try to detach their emotions and political ideologies from their rationality before posting in these threads then we might not get so much hogwash.
Nice attitude Sparky ....and when your license is taken away ....???? Are you suggesting that you are not capable of learning the speed limits in your locality and are unable to read the number 20 30 40 50 ? Come off it and say something sensible for goodness sake. The Eastern bypass accident was horrific and the major problem was overloading however it is plain lunacy to suggest that if the car had been going 10, 20 or 30 mph slower the outcome would have been exactly the same. Ever had a rear tyre blow out in the outside lane of the motorway at 70mph and got a punctiure in your car on a residential street ? - I have - and can you guess which was the easier of the two events to control the car on ? Yes thought you might - the correct answer was of course the second one where I hardly noticed the deflation. I wish people would try to detach their emotions and political ideologies from their rationality before posting in these threads then we might not get so much hogwash. SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: -1

2:58pm Thu 3 Sep 09

Chris_SCG says...

SickOfIgnorantIdiots
OnNewsgroups said "everyone in Oxford knows about the 'limits' so whether they are technically 'legal' or not is immaterial in my view."

Your view is irrelevant, it is what the law says that matters, and if the council and/or their contractors had read the law and complied with it, we wouldn't have this farcical situation. Are you suggesting councils should not have to comply with the law? The council doesn't think so, parliament doesn't think so, and neither do the police, but perhaps you know better.

And don't introduce this "some people think they should be allowed to do whatever speed they want" nonsense.

This is about maintaining the sensible and safe 30mph speed limit which has been in existence for 40 years without any problems.

The 20mph limit is not about road safety at all, it is about putting drivers under the thumb of political correctness.
SickOfIgnorantIdiots OnNewsgroups said "everyone in Oxford knows about the 'limits' so whether they are technically 'legal' or not is immaterial in my view." Your view is irrelevant, it is what the law says that matters, and if the council and/or their contractors had read the law and complied with it, we wouldn't have this farcical situation. Are you suggesting councils should not have to comply with the law? The council doesn't think so, parliament doesn't think so, and neither do the police, but perhaps you know better. And don't introduce this "some people think they should be allowed to do whatever speed they want" nonsense. This is about maintaining the sensible and safe 30mph speed limit which has been in existence for 40 years without any problems. The 20mph limit is not about road safety at all, it is about putting drivers under the thumb of political correctness. Chris_SCG
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Thu 3 Sep 09

jamess says...

helo Sick of - thanks for the advice about slowing down. sometimes it's relevant, and other times it's far less stressful to ensure a smooth safe flow of traffic. What i'm saying, regardless of the legal aspect, is that it's safer and more efficient to have a marginally faster limit, ie, 30mph.
There's a time and a place for speding, and it's such a minimal cause of accidents that emphasis and budgets could be spent more effectively elsewhere.
roughly 3,500 people (half the number on 1907)were killed on the roads last year, of whom 300 were attributable to speeding. Compare that to the 150,000 killed through drink and cigarette related diseases, and you have to ask, if saving lives was such a priority, why allocate so much money towards speed restrictions?
helo Sick of - thanks for the advice about slowing down. sometimes it's relevant, and other times it's far less stressful to ensure a smooth safe flow of traffic. What i'm saying, regardless of the legal aspect, is that it's safer and more efficient to have a marginally faster limit, ie, 30mph. There's a time and a place for speding, and it's such a minimal cause of accidents that emphasis and budgets could be spent more effectively elsewhere. roughly 3,500 people (half the number on 1907)were killed on the roads last year, of whom 300 were attributable to speeding. Compare that to the 150,000 killed through drink and cigarette related diseases, and you have to ask, if saving lives was such a priority, why allocate so much money towards speed restrictions? jamess
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Thu 3 Sep 09

sparky123456 says...

SickOfIgnorantIdiots
OnNewsgroups
wrote:
Nice attitude Sparky ....and when your license is taken away ....???? Are you suggesting that you are not capable of learning the speed limits in your locality and are unable to read the number 20 30 40 50 ? Come off it and say something sensible for goodness sake. The Eastern bypass accident was horrific and the major problem was overloading however it is plain lunacy to suggest that if the car had been going 10, 20 or 30 mph slower the outcome would have been exactly the same. Ever had a rear tyre blow out in the outside lane of the motorway at 70mph and got a punctiure in your car on a residential street ? - I have - and can you guess which was the easier of the two events to control the car on ? Yes thought you might - the correct answer was of course the second one where I hardly noticed the deflation. I wish people would try to detach their emotions and political ideologies from their rationality before posting in these threads then we might not get so much hogwash.
you are the biggest c u next tuesday in oxfordshire - ive had worse than a blow out, i've had another driver not paying attention, veer across my side of the road and head on in to my car at 55mph in a 60mph, i saw their face come through my windscreen bounce off the roof and into the car behind, they were flung some 30 ft from their vehicle. When i came around i rushed to give emergency first aid and they were pronounced dead at the scene.
my own father had a collision in oxfordshire doing 15 mph across a roundabout when a driver didnt give way and t-boned him, he broke over 90 bones and spent 9 months in traction, he now has a fused ankle, fused knee, 2 missing knuckles, a missing rib, over 100 screws and more than 2 metres of metal in his body.
if the speed limit on the eastern bypass was 40mph when that accident happened the result would have been the same, having more than the designated number of passengers in a vehicle without seatbelts and veering into the path of an oncoming vehicle will result in certain death, even at speeds of 30mph.
are you telling me that the 20mph speed limit has been introduced to aid drivers with a blow out, come off of it. I've had a blow out at 60mph on the A34 and managed to safely find the hardshoulder. the reason for the confusing implementation of the speed limit is simple: to catch drivers out and force fines upon them.

in addition to that i'd be interested to know the number of fatalities caused in the city of oxford as a direct result of excessive speed. I can almost guarantee it the percentage wouldn't register in double figures.

Its busy body idiots like you that cause this country to be such a PC ridiculous place to live. Why don't you say something sensible.

and why should my emotions or my ideologies be detached, isn't that what makes for a democractic society? If i remove them and listen to the establishment only then I'm living under forced rule.

I'm truely glad you survived the gastly fate of your nail in the tyre on an Oxford side road incident, perhaps on a slow day the Oxford Mail can write a story on how you managed it??
[quote][p][bold]SickOfIgnorantIdiots OnNewsgroups[/bold] wrote: Nice attitude Sparky ....and when your license is taken away ....???? Are you suggesting that you are not capable of learning the speed limits in your locality and are unable to read the number 20 30 40 50 ? Come off it and say something sensible for goodness sake. The Eastern bypass accident was horrific and the major problem was overloading however it is plain lunacy to suggest that if the car had been going 10, 20 or 30 mph slower the outcome would have been exactly the same. Ever had a rear tyre blow out in the outside lane of the motorway at 70mph and got a punctiure in your car on a residential street ? - I have - and can you guess which was the easier of the two events to control the car on ? Yes thought you might - the correct answer was of course the second one where I hardly noticed the deflation. I wish people would try to detach their emotions and political ideologies from their rationality before posting in these threads then we might not get so much hogwash.[/p][/quote]you are the biggest c u next tuesday in oxfordshire - ive had worse than a blow out, i've had another driver not paying attention, veer across my side of the road and head on in to my car at 55mph in a 60mph, i saw their face come through my windscreen bounce off the roof and into the car behind, they were flung some 30 ft from their vehicle. When i came around i rushed to give emergency first aid and they were pronounced dead at the scene. my own father had a collision in oxfordshire doing 15 mph across a roundabout when a driver didnt give way and t-boned him, he broke over 90 bones and spent 9 months in traction, he now has a fused ankle, fused knee, 2 missing knuckles, a missing rib, over 100 screws and more than 2 metres of metal in his body. if the speed limit on the eastern bypass was 40mph when that accident happened the result would have been the same, having more than the designated number of passengers in a vehicle without seatbelts and veering into the path of an oncoming vehicle will result in certain death, even at speeds of 30mph. are you telling me that the 20mph speed limit has been introduced to aid drivers with a blow out, come off of it. I've had a blow out at 60mph on the A34 and managed to safely find the hardshoulder. the reason for the confusing implementation of the speed limit is simple: to catch drivers out and force fines upon them. in addition to that i'd be interested to know the number of fatalities caused in the city of oxford as a direct result of excessive speed. I can almost guarantee it the percentage wouldn't register in double figures. Its busy body idiots like you that cause this country to be such a PC ridiculous place to live. Why don't you say something sensible. and why should my emotions or my ideologies be detached, isn't that what makes for a democractic society? If i remove them and listen to the establishment only then I'm living under forced rule. I'm truely glad you survived the gastly fate of your nail in the tyre on an Oxford side road incident, perhaps on a slow day the Oxford Mail can write a story on how you managed it?? sparky123456
  • Score: 0

5:14pm Thu 3 Sep 09

Roger Casement says...

"any law or limit that has been reached in a proper, British, democratic process "
But it's not, is it? It's passed by an elected body that is terrified of Single Issue Fanatics because they shout so loud. The same applies to the Labour "Banning Laws", the Conservative Dangerous Dogs Act and will no doubt happen in compelling 5 year olds to have sex education. The SIF always says "if you oppose my view you don't care about safety, health, children being eaten by dogs, all of us dying from having too much salt", you name it, no cause is too inane not to have its coterie of SIF's.
The ratchet effect makes it worse, you can't return to 30mph without SIF's ("campaigners") throwing themselves under the King's horse. So, the last 12 years have been really nasty in this country, but it isn't entirely the fault of ole labour
"any law or limit that has been reached in a proper, British, democratic process " But it's not, is it? It's passed by an elected body that is terrified of Single Issue Fanatics because they shout so loud. The same applies to the Labour "Banning Laws", the Conservative Dangerous Dogs Act and will no doubt happen in compelling 5 year olds to have sex education. The SIF always says "if you oppose my view you don't care about safety, health, children being eaten by dogs, all of us dying from having too much salt", you name it, no cause is too inane not to have its coterie of SIF's. The ratchet effect makes it worse, you can't return to 30mph without SIF's ("campaigners") throwing themselves under the King's horse. So, the last 12 years have been really nasty in this country, but it isn't entirely the fault of ole labour Roger Casement
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Thu 3 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

I am now convinced most of you are actually MAD !

Sparky there is no need for such silly abuse and if you persist I will report your posts. I am sorry for your bad experiences but fail to see how this in any way supports your claims about speeding.

Detaching emotion and ideology from rational thought is what educated and intelligent people are able to do to see facts and arguments in a dispassionate way - you will find it makes more sense to do this if only you could abandon your obsession with conspiracy theory and so called political correctness ( are you sure you aren't Grundon in disguise?).

You contradict yourself too - you control your vehicle in a blow-out on the A34 at 60 mph - well done ! but insinuate that at 40 mph the driver of a car on the bypass would not have been able to avoid crossing the central reservation at 40 mph - do you read what you have written or does your anger and bile prevent rational thought competely ?
I am now convinced most of you are actually MAD ! Sparky there is no need for such silly abuse and if you persist I will report your posts. I am sorry for your bad experiences but fail to see how this in any way supports your claims about speeding. Detaching emotion and ideology from rational thought is what educated and intelligent people are able to do to see facts and arguments in a dispassionate way - you will find it makes more sense to do this if only you could abandon your obsession with conspiracy theory and so called political correctness ( are you sure you aren't Grundon in disguise?). You contradict yourself too - you control your vehicle in a blow-out on the A34 at 60 mph - well done ! but insinuate that at 40 mph the driver of a car on the bypass would not have been able to avoid crossing the central reservation at 40 mph - do you read what you have written or does your anger and bile prevent rational thought competely ? SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Thu 3 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

Roger - your rant is ever so slightly repetitive and wearing -You seem to say the same thing in every thread I read where you have posted.

The ills of the country are not down to the last 12 years of Labour - we are a more selfish individualistic society as a result of the laissez-faire right wing Friedmanite ideas peddled and practised by Thatcher and Reagan in the 80s - when it became socially acceptable to be selfish - do you remember the 'no such thing as society' speech - and how about Harry Enfields Loadsamoney and the Yuppies ?

It is apposite at a time when we are commemorating the start of the second world war, what a community spirited country we used to have - it didn't start going wrong in 1997 Roger and you and those of your mindset must know this but choose to ignore it.
Roger - your rant is ever so slightly repetitive and wearing -You seem to say the same thing in every thread I read where you have posted. The ills of the country are not down to the last 12 years of Labour - we are a more selfish individualistic society as a result of the laissez-faire right wing Friedmanite ideas peddled and practised by Thatcher and Reagan in the 80s - when it became socially acceptable to be selfish - do you remember the 'no such thing as society' speech - and how about Harry Enfields Loadsamoney and the Yuppies ? It is apposite at a time when we are commemorating the start of the second world war, what a community spirited country we used to have - it didn't start going wrong in 1997 Roger and you and those of your mindset must know this but choose to ignore it. SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Thu 3 Sep 09

sparky123456 says...

she careered through the central reservation because she overloaded her car with children, didn't ensure they wore seatbelts and turned around to see what they were doing, resulting in her loss of control and crossing into oncoming traffic. if she was doing 15/30/50 or 80 the same would've happened. Speed did not cause that accident, driver error did. Similarly the point i was making was that the woman killed in my collision died because of her error, she crossed in to my lane but she was travelling below the limit. the same point applies to my own father who was seriously injured despite doing half the speed limit. It's not the speed of the crash it's where the impact occurs and again in that case it was driver error.
nothing I've written is stupid, ill thought out or bile. It's completely rational, why has the limit been reduced to 20mph? has there been an increase in speed related fatalities on the streets of Oxford? No. Is there a proven percentage of drivers that speed in Oxford? No. Were the taxpayers that contributed to the cost of this £300k scheme asked their opinions in a democratic poll? No.
You made the point that you had a blow out at 70mph or one at 20mph which is easier to control the vehicle. Obviously 20mph but what on earth has that got to do with a poorly implemented scheme at the cost of taxpayer? Absolutely nothing. You also talk about our northern european counterparts, have you got factual evidence to back up your claims, I've driven in Paris, Milan, Copenhagen, Basel, Zurich and countless other European cities and I have seen appalling driving as well as very good drivers. Only a few weeks ago in Germany they had a pile up on the autobahn involving literally hundreds of vvehicles, did they suddenly introduce a speed limit? no of course not. We don't need speed limits to reduce accidents, we need drivers with common sense to leave a big enough gap and drive within their limits. You even make my point entirely in an early post I think you will fond most people would agree it to be money well spent and when the temp speed cams start dishing out £60 penalties to those who are selfish enough not to care, it might even turn out to be a sound financial investment too :-)exactly, this is just a scheme to tax drivers more by introducing complicated signage in order to confuse them. plus if i spend my time driving around looking at the pavement to spot what speed limit im in then spending my time with one eye on the speedo making sure im under 20mph am I trully concentrating on my driving and the road? of course not and should I ever have a collision that would be my first line of defence! if there's one thing I hate more than ridiculous laws its people that believe they are the self appointed voice of reason. perhaps you should unveil your identity and invite others to meet you for a face on debate on this subject
she careered through the central reservation because she overloaded her car with children, didn't ensure they wore seatbelts and turned around to see what they were doing, resulting in her loss of control and crossing into oncoming traffic. if she was doing 15/30/50 or 80 the same would've happened. Speed did not cause that accident, driver error did. Similarly the point i was making was that the woman killed in my collision died because of her error, she crossed in to my lane but she was travelling below the limit. the same point applies to my own father who was seriously injured despite doing half the speed limit. It's not the speed of the crash it's where the impact occurs and again in that case it was driver error. nothing I've written is stupid, ill thought out or bile. It's completely rational, why has the limit been reduced to 20mph? has there been an increase in speed related fatalities on the streets of Oxford? No. Is there a proven percentage of drivers that speed in Oxford? No. Were the taxpayers that contributed to the cost of this £300k scheme asked their opinions in a democratic poll? No. You made the point that you had a blow out at 70mph or one at 20mph which is easier to control the vehicle. Obviously 20mph but what on earth has that got to do with a poorly implemented scheme at the cost of taxpayer? Absolutely nothing. You also talk about our northern european counterparts, have you got factual evidence to back up your claims, I've driven in Paris, Milan, Copenhagen, Basel, Zurich and countless other European cities and I have seen appalling driving as well as very good drivers. Only a few weeks ago in Germany they had a pile up on the autobahn involving literally hundreds of vvehicles, did they suddenly introduce a speed limit? no of course not. We don't need speed limits to reduce accidents, we need drivers with common sense to leave a big enough gap and drive within their limits. You even make my point entirely in an early post I think you will fond most people would agree it to be money well spent and when the temp speed cams start dishing out £60 penalties to those who are selfish enough not to care, it might even turn out to be a sound financial investment too :-)exactly, this is just a scheme to tax drivers more by introducing complicated signage in order to confuse them. plus if i spend my time driving around looking at the pavement to spot what speed limit im in then spending my time with one eye on the speedo making sure im under 20mph am I trully concentrating on my driving and the road? of course not and should I ever have a collision that would be my first line of defence! if there's one thing I hate more than ridiculous laws its people that believe they are the self appointed voice of reason. perhaps you should unveil your identity and invite others to meet you for a face on debate on this subject sparky123456
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Thu 3 Sep 09

sparky123456 says...

thought I'd just point this forgotten article out http://www.oxfordmai
l.co.uk/news/headlin
es/3803356.Survey_ba
cks_20mph_limit_acro
ss_city/
it's laughable that in a city with an estimated population of 150,000 people, 500 or so should be surveyed and 380 agreed that a 20mph should be implemented yet most of those were cyclists!
thought I'd just point this forgotten article out http://www.oxfordmai l.co.uk/news/headlin es/3803356.Survey_ba cks_20mph_limit_acro ss_city/ it's laughable that in a city with an estimated population of 150,000 people, 500 or so should be surveyed and 380 agreed that a 20mph should be implemented yet most of those were cyclists! sparky123456
  • Score: 0

7:14pm Thu 3 Sep 09

The Rockabilly Red says...

There is one important fact that the dogma-driven 'Sicko' is clearly unaware of. If he cares to do any research at all, he will discover that the safest roads in the UK are the fastest roads - motorways. No doubt, he'll deny this and continue to ridicule any who disagree with his him. However, that does not alter the facts.

Speed is not dangerous: The car driver is.
There is one important fact that the dogma-driven 'Sicko' is clearly unaware of. If he cares to do any research at all, he will discover that the safest roads in the UK are the fastest roads - motorways. No doubt, he'll deny this and continue to ridicule any who disagree with his him. However, that does not alter the facts. Speed is not dangerous: The car driver is. The Rockabilly Red
  • Score: 0

10:37pm Thu 3 Sep 09

Grundon Skipp says...

I must say- I feel considerably cheered up at the the sheer volume of common sense spoken on this issue, this newspaper' scomments section and any other time the controlled media allow us out tuppence worth.

Despite Sick Of Ignorant Idiots... name, I am genuinely encouraged and heartened to see that so many members of the British public demonstrate a far greater clarity of view, understanding of complex issues and grasp of the wider implications than the tiny minority of (increasingly professional and therefore lacking in wider experience) meddlers who make decisions 'on our behalf' ever display.

The recent expenses scandal illustrated how our politicians and those who run many of our quangos and public bodies are self- serving, arrogant hypocrites with no respect for consultation or democracy- preferring to impose their ill- considered and ill- conceived views and legislation upon us.

What I have noticed is that more and more controlled media sites are insisting that comments require registration, are pre- moderated and even then are often removed when the comments overwhelmingly oppose the 'approved' line. when 'The Times' allowed pre- moderated comments on the white South African who successfully claimed asylum in Canada, the response was that ALL racism was wrong, that ASfrica was torn by tribalism (pre-dating the White man) and that there was a reluctance to identify any white person as a victim of a racist incident, but if the white person was the attacker it was assumed that a racist motive existed. The comments were quickly removed- which pretty much confirming that your right to an opinion depended on your skin colour and political leanings.

British people are not the small- minded, ignorant, racist simpletons portrayed by the Left liberal condescending classes- we have a pretty good grasp of what's going on and why it's being done.

This lower speed limit is a poorly conceived, little consulted, clumsily implemented, stated- purpose defeating exercise foisted upon us to appease a majority and gather tax through fines. All who oppose it are subject to emotional blackmail.

This has become the norm in running the Country at all levels and we've had enough of it.

I must say- I feel considerably cheered up at the the sheer volume of common sense spoken on this issue, this newspaper' scomments section and any other time the controlled media allow us out tuppence worth. Despite Sick Of Ignorant Idiots... name, I am genuinely encouraged and heartened to see that so many members of the British public demonstrate a far greater clarity of view, understanding of complex issues and grasp of the wider implications than the tiny minority of (increasingly professional and therefore lacking in wider experience) meddlers who make decisions 'on our behalf' ever display. The recent expenses scandal illustrated how our politicians and those who run many of our quangos and public bodies are self- serving, arrogant hypocrites with no respect for consultation or democracy- preferring to impose their ill- considered and ill- conceived views and legislation upon us. What I have noticed is that more and more controlled media sites are insisting that comments require registration, are pre- moderated and even then are often removed when the comments overwhelmingly oppose the 'approved' line. when 'The Times' allowed pre- moderated comments on the white South African who successfully claimed asylum in Canada, the response was that ALL racism was wrong, that ASfrica was torn by tribalism (pre-dating the White man) and that there was a reluctance to identify any white person as a victim of a racist incident, but if the white person was the attacker it was assumed that a racist motive existed. The comments were quickly removed- which pretty much confirming that your right to an opinion depended on your skin colour and political leanings. British people are not the small- minded, ignorant, racist simpletons portrayed by the Left liberal condescending classes- we have a pretty good grasp of what's going on and why it's being done. This lower speed limit is a poorly conceived, little consulted, clumsily implemented, stated- purpose defeating exercise foisted upon us to appease a majority and gather tax through fines. All who oppose it are subject to emotional blackmail. This has become the norm in running the Country at all levels and we've had enough of it. Grundon Skipp
  • Score: 0

10:40pm Thu 3 Sep 09

Grundon Skipp says...

*appease a minority

apologies for typos..
*appease a minority apologies for typos.. Grundon Skipp
  • Score: 0

8:04am Fri 4 Sep 09

Roger Casement says...

Sick, a late reposte. I didn't say Single Issue Fanatics came into existence in 1997, if you bothered to read it. They, under the names of "activists""campaign
ers" as you will, are a post war phenomenon, and only one factor in making the failed Brown/Blair administration so unpleasant. Loadsamoney, as the Tooting Popular Front, was fiction. Left wing and right wing are both varieties of authoritarian socialism with extra tweaks and I'm really surprised at your approval of what this "community spirited" country did to Alan Turing, actually not to mention William Joyce of whom my nom de plume would no doubt greatly have approved. My father and his 3 brothers fought for this country and one brother died, even though they lived in the Irish Free State and weren't obliged to. None of the surviving brothers thought anything but ill of Single Issue Fanatics
Sick, a late reposte. I didn't say Single Issue Fanatics came into existence in 1997, if you bothered to read it. They, under the names of "activists""campaign ers" as you will, are a post war phenomenon, and only one factor in making the failed Brown/Blair administration so unpleasant. Loadsamoney, as the Tooting Popular Front, was fiction. Left wing and right wing are both varieties of authoritarian socialism with extra tweaks and I'm really surprised at your approval of what this "community spirited" country did to Alan Turing, actually not to mention William Joyce of whom my nom de plume would no doubt greatly have approved. My father and his 3 brothers fought for this country and one brother died, even though they lived in the Irish Free State and weren't obliged to. None of the surviving brothers thought anything but ill of Single Issue Fanatics Roger Casement
  • Score: 0

10:57am Fri 4 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

I am sorry if I am being thick here but look at the facts in the case and the judges remarks about the contribution of speed to the Oxford bypass accident.

http://archive.oxfor
dmail.net/2006/4/11/
93123.html

Sparky and others why are you being so stupid and pig-headed about speed ?
Just understand that it is obvious if she had been driving less than 70 mph she MAY perhaps have been able to control the vehicle and prevent it crossing the central reservation. I don't know - and neither does anyone else, if a 50mph speed limit would have been adhered to by this driver on this occasion. I don't even know if at 50mph she would have controlled the vehicle but what I DO know is that, given the laws of physics (speed /velocity) and biology (reaction times) and the linkage of these two she would have had a better chance of achieving recovery at 50 mph than 70 - just read your highway code.

Now for goodness sake all of you get off your conspiracy-theory ridden high horses and see what is plain from the laws of science NOT GOVERNMENT and remove the nonsense from your arguments - then we can have some sensible debate here about the pros and cons of the scheme.

To simply ignore that speed has ANYTHING to do with accidents is I am afraid completely stupid sparky and no amount of words you write in a response can alter that fact.

Unfortunaltely your prejudice bile and abuse do undermine the other more valid points you make about whether 20mph will indeed reduce accidents or the severity of resultant casualties but conflagrating different arguments and pretending speed 'per se' does not accect the outcome is not a tenable sensible position. I am sure on refection you will re-evaluate this opinion and stop making the inexperienced debater's mistake of conflagration of unrelated points.
I am sorry if I am being thick here but look at the facts in the case and the judges remarks about the contribution of speed to the Oxford bypass accident. http://archive.oxfor dmail.net/2006/4/11/ 93123.html Sparky and others why are you being so stupid and pig-headed about speed ? Just understand that it is obvious if she had been driving less than 70 mph she MAY perhaps have been able to control the vehicle and prevent it crossing the central reservation. I don't know - and neither does anyone else, if a 50mph speed limit would have been adhered to by this driver on this occasion. I don't even know if at 50mph she would have controlled the vehicle but what I DO know is that, given the laws of physics (speed /velocity) and biology (reaction times) and the linkage of these two she would have had a better chance of achieving recovery at 50 mph than 70 - just read your highway code. Now for goodness sake all of you get off your conspiracy-theory ridden high horses and see what is plain from the laws of science NOT GOVERNMENT and remove the nonsense from your arguments - then we can have some sensible debate here about the pros and cons of the scheme. To simply ignore that speed has ANYTHING to do with accidents is I am afraid completely stupid sparky and no amount of words you write in a response can alter that fact. Unfortunaltely your prejudice bile and abuse do undermine the other more valid points you make about whether 20mph will indeed reduce accidents or the severity of resultant casualties but conflagrating different arguments and pretending speed 'per se' does not accect the outcome is not a tenable sensible position. I am sure on refection you will re-evaluate this opinion and stop making the inexperienced debater's mistake of conflagration of unrelated points. SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

11:09am Fri 4 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

Grundon you never cease to amaze me - you got another race point into a debate about speed limits - get a new song we are bored of this one.

Roger what are these SIFs to which you refer - another true-blue pejorative coined by your lot to put down pele of passion and conviction.

there are few single-issue fanatics in my experience - most people who have a strong opinion on some issue tend to be the sort of people who have strong opinions period!

As a matter of interest would you put the suffragette movement into your SIF pigeon-hole and if not why not? If so were they too a POST-WAR movement ? I think I remember enough history to recall that this was some time before 1945 ?

As to your comments about a gay mathematician and Lord Haw Haw - I am afraid you will have to explain as it is too obscure for a thicko like me to understand.
Grundon you never cease to amaze me - you got another race point into a debate about speed limits - get a new song we are bored of this one. Roger what are these SIFs to which you refer - another true-blue pejorative coined by your lot to put down pele of passion and conviction. there are few single-issue fanatics in my experience - most people who have a strong opinion on some issue tend to be the sort of people who have strong opinions period! As a matter of interest would you put the suffragette movement into your SIF pigeon-hole and if not why not? If so were they too a POST-WAR movement ? I think I remember enough history to recall that this was some time before 1945 ? As to your comments about a gay mathematician and Lord Haw Haw - I am afraid you will have to explain as it is too obscure for a thicko like me to understand. SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Fri 4 Sep 09

Roger Casement says...

"what are these SIFs to which you refer - another true-blue pejorative coined by your lot to put down pele of passion and conviction."
I believe it was Bernard Levin in "The Times" circa 1970. I have no beef with Brazilian footballers. Joyce was executed on a technicality and Turing hounded to death as a cottager, by the "community spirited " country.The suffragettes were post First war but not a single issue group because the franchise is not a narrow matter. But you'll go on believing that this place was the garden of Eden until 1979 when the she-serpent arrived and it's nice to correspond with a Labour supporter-no,- believer, you're a member of a very tiny elite. Congratulations!
"what are these SIFs to which you refer - another true-blue pejorative coined by your lot to put down pele of passion and conviction." I believe it was Bernard Levin in "The Times" circa 1970. I have no beef with Brazilian footballers. Joyce was executed on a technicality and Turing hounded to death as a cottager, by the "community spirited " country.The suffragettes were post First war but not a single issue group because the franchise is not a narrow matter. But you'll go on believing that this place was the garden of Eden until 1979 when the she-serpent arrived and it's nice to correspond with a Labour supporter-no,- believer, you're a member of a very tiny elite. Congratulations! Roger Casement
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Fri 4 Sep 09

sparky123456 says...

sickof - did you swallow a dictionary that you failed to read? conflagration??? as in large destructive fire? prejudice? how are my points prejudice? I'm sorry I didn't realise you were the Oxford Times equivalant of Perez Hilton in this blogtastic stratosphere of common debate and personal opinion (of which we're all entitled to) are you a self appointed opinion censor or did the Daily Mail pay you? I think you're the confused one, speed does cause injury and death but rarely the accident itself. My point with the A34 incident is what actually caused it, not driving at 70mph. no. it was driver error and an overloaded vehicle. Yes at 50mph control MAY have been retained and lives saved. But had that driver OBEYED the laws and safety measures then even at 100mph the same accident wouldn't have happened, however if the speed limit was 10mph it still would've happened. So my point is why should everybody suffer because of a minority? You have no valid comeback, each and every time you do you claim every person's words are prejudice bile(?!) you are the prejudiced, out of touch one if you believe people aren't entitled to their opinion.
sickof - did you swallow a dictionary that you failed to read? conflagration??? as in large destructive fire? prejudice? how are my points prejudice? I'm sorry I didn't realise you were the Oxford Times equivalant of Perez Hilton in this blogtastic stratosphere of common debate and personal opinion (of which we're all entitled to) are you a self appointed opinion censor or did the Daily Mail pay you? I think you're the confused one, speed does cause injury and death but rarely the accident itself. My point with the A34 incident is what actually caused it, not driving at 70mph. no. it was driver error and an overloaded vehicle. Yes at 50mph control MAY have been retained and lives saved. But had that driver OBEYED the laws and safety measures then even at 100mph the same accident wouldn't have happened, however if the speed limit was 10mph it still would've happened. So my point is why should everybody suffer because of a minority? You have no valid comeback, each and every time you do you claim every person's words are prejudice bile(?!) you are the prejudiced, out of touch one if you believe people aren't entitled to their opinion. sparky123456
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Fri 4 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

Sparky - fair point on conflagrate I give you but you really do test my patience - how would the accident have happened at 10mph ? listen to yourself - did you really mean what you have written there - 10 mph ? even with 40 people in a mini you would be unlikely to lose control and veer across a central reservation at 10mph - you have lost it mate.

You are an exemplar of what I try to eradicate - the simplistic soul who looks for THE cause there is rarely ONE cause of ANYTHING.

FYI there are usually several contributory causes to EVERY accident and in this case speed was one of them - it usually is; but those of your mindset and narrow views (i.e. think the anti speeding lobby and local and national government are there to harass the motorist and take money from them in a paranoid sort of way) ignore and do not accept this plain scientific fact. I think there is no hope for you.

Sure people are entitled to an opinion but one of my goals in life is to try to help others to base their opinions on something more substantial than prejudices, political ideologies and other such things handed down to them by parents and the environment of their primary socialisation, all of which can detract from rational discussion which you have proven to be singularly incapable of.
Sparky - fair point on conflagrate I give you but you really do test my patience - how would the accident have happened at 10mph ? listen to yourself - did you really mean what you have written there - 10 mph ? even with 40 people in a mini you would be unlikely to lose control and veer across a central reservation at 10mph - you have lost it mate. You are an exemplar of what I try to eradicate - the simplistic soul who looks for THE cause there is rarely ONE cause of ANYTHING. FYI there are usually several contributory causes to EVERY accident and in this case speed was one of them - it usually is; but those of your mindset and narrow views (i.e. think the anti speeding lobby and local and national government are there to harass the motorist and take money from them in a paranoid sort of way) ignore and do not accept this plain scientific fact. I think there is no hope for you. Sure people are entitled to an opinion but one of my goals in life is to try to help others to base their opinions on something more substantial than prejudices, political ideologies and other such things handed down to them by parents and the environment of their primary socialisation, all of which can detract from rational discussion which you have proven to be singularly incapable of. SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Fri 4 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

Roger like the Brazilian footballer thing - I meant people of course. Not sure how the franchise is not a single issue really - seems simple enough to me - women can vote or they can't ? But anyways I don't think you can take two random examples of victimisation and intolerance as representative that we had an uncaring society. In many ways however, for example racial and sexual orientation intolerance, I am sure we are much better now than pre 1979 but surely you cannot deny that the rise of individualism (and from the legitimisation of a more self centred attitude) is not in some way connected with free market neo-liberalism?

I know loadsamoney was fiction but like most observational comedy it only works if it can be observed in current society - loadsamoney was indeed a charicature but he was very much alive and well in 1980s property-boom Britian - did you know of any poor builders or plasterers in the 80s ?
Roger like the Brazilian footballer thing - I meant people of course. Not sure how the franchise is not a single issue really - seems simple enough to me - women can vote or they can't ? But anyways I don't think you can take two random examples of victimisation and intolerance as representative that we had an uncaring society. In many ways however, for example racial and sexual orientation intolerance, I am sure we are much better now than pre 1979 but surely you cannot deny that the rise of individualism (and from the legitimisation of a more self centred attitude) is not in some way connected with free market neo-liberalism? I know loadsamoney was fiction but like most observational comedy it only works if it can be observed in current society - loadsamoney was indeed a charicature but he was very much alive and well in 1980s property-boom Britian - did you know of any poor builders or plasterers in the 80s ? SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Fri 4 Sep 09

sparky123456 says...

sickof, you're not understanding the facts. this is direct from what happened in that crash: "The court heard how Dublin had seven children in her car before she lost control and veered across Oxford's Eastern Bypass on May 28 killing three of the youngsters, Marshall Haynes, Josh Bartlett, Liam Hastings, and student Howard Hillsdon, who was coming the opposite way.

Neil Moore, prosecuting, described how Dublin's Citron Xsara had been travelling at the 70mph speed limit.

The weight of the seven boys and Dublin was the equivalent of five adults, but worsened by the movement of the children, he added.

Witnesses described seeing six of the boys in the rear of the Citron Xsara acting boisterously and swapping seats, before the car veered out of control." SEVEN CHILDREN! SEVEN!!!! without seatbelts. Speed was NOT the factor that caused that accident, she turned around to see what they were doing and veered straight across in to the path of oncoming traffic so yes it could have happened at virtually any speed. I dare you to drive at 20mph with 7 kids in the back jumping around then turn to look behind and continue in a straight path in a safe manner. it's impossible. so my point is entirely valid. The speed merely meant that the driver on the other side of the road didnt have sufficient reaction time. but i'm afraid you're missing the point, we're talking about a 20mph limit on select roads in a city that didn't have a problem with speed related accidents in the first place to the cost of £300k to the taxpayer and the potential of many thousands of pounds worth of fines to motorists confused by poor implementation of something they didn't even want. to say you're goal in life is to give others your opinion so it can help them make a decision which you perceive is right is akin to Hitlers massacre of the jews, he thought he was right and told everyone so. so essentially i have to listen to you otherwise there's no hope for me and I'm narrow minded? I'm afraid it's the other way around. I'd love to hear the other Daily Mail insights you have on drugs, the yoof, NHS and celebrity culture. an enlightening conversation I'm sure.
sickof, you're not understanding the facts. this is direct from what happened in that crash: "The court heard how Dublin had seven children in her car before she lost control and veered across Oxford's Eastern Bypass on May 28 killing three of the youngsters, Marshall Haynes, Josh Bartlett, Liam Hastings, and student Howard Hillsdon, who was coming the opposite way. Neil Moore, prosecuting, described how Dublin's Citron Xsara had been travelling at the 70mph speed limit. The weight of the seven boys and Dublin was the equivalent of five adults, but worsened by the movement of the children, he added. Witnesses described seeing six of the boys in the rear of the Citron Xsara acting boisterously and swapping seats, before the car veered out of control." SEVEN CHILDREN! SEVEN!!!! without seatbelts. Speed was NOT the factor that caused that accident, she turned around to see what they were doing and veered straight across in to the path of oncoming traffic so yes it could have happened at virtually any speed. I dare you to drive at 20mph with 7 kids in the back jumping around then turn to look behind and continue in a straight path in a safe manner. it's impossible. so my point is entirely valid. The speed merely meant that the driver on the other side of the road didnt have sufficient reaction time. but i'm afraid you're missing the point, we're talking about a 20mph limit on select roads in a city that didn't have a problem with speed related accidents in the first place to the cost of £300k to the taxpayer and the potential of many thousands of pounds worth of fines to motorists confused by poor implementation of something they didn't even want. to say you're goal in life is to give others your opinion so it can help them make a decision which you perceive is right is akin to Hitlers massacre of the jews, he thought he was right and told everyone so. so essentially i have to listen to you otherwise there's no hope for me and I'm narrow minded? I'm afraid it's the other way around. I'd love to hear the other Daily Mail insights you have on drugs, the yoof, NHS and celebrity culture. an enlightening conversation I'm sure. sparky123456
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Fri 4 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

Sparky you keep missing the point completely - I am now convinced you must have some learning difficulty or are on some very strong medications - there is NO,
I repeat NO ! RTA
that EVER has a SINGLE cause - how thick do you need to be not to be able to understand this ?

You also do not appear to be able to understand simple English language - my goal I stated is not to force my onions on others - re-read the sentence and go ask a friend to explain if you cannot see that I aim to get people to base their opinions on fact and evidence rather than other factors. i fear there is no hope because you just seem to repeat the same argument no matter what responses you get.

You are not clever enough to rewrite the laws of physics and biology old son and are confusing TWO issues

1) whether speed contributes to the frequency and severity of accidents 'per se' - which you deny and

2) whether the new 20mph limits will make a difference and are a good investment of public funds.

Now I grant you that the second of these points is debatable on a number of levels and angles but the first is not
unless you DO rewrite the laws of science I have alluded to

comprende ?
capisce ?

No ?

I thought not ......

Sparky you keep missing the point completely - I am now convinced you must have some learning difficulty or are on some very strong medications - there is NO, I repeat NO ! RTA that EVER has a SINGLE cause - how thick do you need to be not to be able to understand this ? You also do not appear to be able to understand simple English language - my goal I stated is not to force my onions on others - re-read the sentence and go ask a friend to explain if you cannot see that I aim to get people to base their opinions on fact and evidence rather than other factors. i fear there is no hope because you just seem to repeat the same argument no matter what responses you get. You are not clever enough to rewrite the laws of physics and biology old son and are confusing TWO issues 1) whether speed contributes to the frequency and severity of accidents 'per se' - which you deny and 2) whether the new 20mph limits will make a difference and are a good investment of public funds. Now I grant you that the second of these points is debatable on a number of levels and angles but the first is not unless you DO rewrite the laws of science I have alluded to comprende ? capisce ? No ? I thought not ...... SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Fri 4 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

Oh and Sparky - how does a left winger like me (see Roger Casement, GrundonSkipp and Plalmerstons attacks on me in other threads for being a pinko liberal lefty) come to read the Mail ?

Do you know the political affiliations of the UK newspapers ?
Oh and Sparky - how does a left winger like me (see Roger Casement, GrundonSkipp and Plalmerstons attacks on me in other threads for being a pinko liberal lefty) come to read the Mail ? Do you know the political affiliations of the UK newspapers ? SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

4:59pm Fri 4 Sep 09

The Rockabilly Red says...

SickOfIgnorantIdiots
OnNewsgroups
wrote:
Sparky you keep missing the point completely - I am now convinced you must have some learning difficulty or are on some very strong medications - there is NO, I repeat NO ! RTA that EVER has a SINGLE cause - how thick do you need to be not to be able to understand this ? You also do not appear to be able to understand simple English language - my goal I stated is not to force my onions on others - re-read the sentence and go ask a friend to explain if you cannot see that I aim to get people to base their opinions on fact and evidence rather than other factors. i fear there is no hope because you just seem to repeat the same argument no matter what responses you get. You are not clever enough to rewrite the laws of physics and biology old son and are confusing TWO issues 1) whether speed contributes to the frequency and severity of accidents 'per se' - which you deny and 2) whether the new 20mph limits will make a difference and are a good investment of public funds. Now I grant you that the second of these points is debatable on a number of levels and angles but the first is not unless you DO rewrite the laws of science I have alluded to comprende ? capisce ? No ? I thought not ......
'Sicko', your point 1 is complete and utter garbage of the worst kind. You speak of science, with clearly little knowledge of the subject. Vehicle speed does indeed have an influence on the frequency of road accidents in the UK. It is a FACT that roads with the highest average speeds have the lowest frequency of accidents.

Please, peddle your psuedo-science elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]SickOfIgnorantIdiots OnNewsgroups[/bold] wrote: Sparky you keep missing the point completely - I am now convinced you must have some learning difficulty or are on some very strong medications - there is NO, I repeat NO ! RTA that EVER has a SINGLE cause - how thick do you need to be not to be able to understand this ? You also do not appear to be able to understand simple English language - my goal I stated is not to force my onions on others - re-read the sentence and go ask a friend to explain if you cannot see that I aim to get people to base their opinions on fact and evidence rather than other factors. i fear there is no hope because you just seem to repeat the same argument no matter what responses you get. You are not clever enough to rewrite the laws of physics and biology old son and are confusing TWO issues 1) whether speed contributes to the frequency and severity of accidents 'per se' - which you deny and 2) whether the new 20mph limits will make a difference and are a good investment of public funds. Now I grant you that the second of these points is debatable on a number of levels and angles but the first is not unless you DO rewrite the laws of science I have alluded to comprende ? capisce ? No ? I thought not ...... [/p][/quote]'Sicko', your point 1 is complete and utter garbage of the worst kind. You speak of science, with clearly little knowledge of the subject. Vehicle speed does indeed have an influence on the frequency of road accidents in the UK. It is a FACT that roads with the highest average speeds have the lowest frequency of accidents. Please, peddle your psuedo-science elsewhere. The Rockabilly Red
  • Score: 0

5:33pm Fri 4 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

Rockabilly - you don't understand statistics do you ?

Have you done any GCSEs in physics or Biology - read my earlier posts - speed when related to the concept of reaction times clearly makes it more difficult to avoid loss of control of vehicles - if you cannot understand that you are indeed completely stupid. let me try to make it more simple for you.

Research across the world identifies a steep upward curve of frequency of accidents from the 85th percentile od speed upwards.

The actual time it takes for the brain to react to a stimulus such as say going into a skid or having to brake because brake lights come on in the car in front of you is relatively static in the individual. Different people react at different speeds and even the same people can react at different speeds to the same stimulus depending upon factors such as tiredness, consumption of alcohol or drugs / medications - all of these are fact.

So if you are travelling at a higher speed, the fixed reaction time means that you will cover more distance in the time it takes to react - so in simple terms for someone of your limited copmprehension - if i see a car braking in front of me and i have a reaction speed of 0.5 seconds and am 50 yards away my chances of avoiding the crash are better at say 30 mph than 70mph - do you understand this very simple science ??? It is clear in the highway code braking distance charts - you do drive don't you ?

You might want to look atr
http://www.ibiblio.o
rg/rdu/sl-irrel/inde
x.html
http://www.ite.org/s
tandards/speed_zonin
g.pdf

but I doubt you will be able to understand the big words.

So then what was your point ? expect for exposing your limitations in front of all the OM readers ?
Rockabilly - you don't understand statistics do you ? Have you done any GCSEs in physics or Biology - read my earlier posts - speed when related to the concept of reaction times clearly makes it more difficult to avoid loss of control of vehicles - if you cannot understand that you are indeed completely stupid. let me try to make it more simple for you. Research across the world identifies a steep upward curve of frequency of accidents from the 85th percentile od speed upwards. The actual time it takes for the brain to react to a stimulus such as say going into a skid or having to brake because brake lights come on in the car in front of you is relatively static in the individual. Different people react at different speeds and even the same people can react at different speeds to the same stimulus depending upon factors such as tiredness, consumption of alcohol or drugs / medications - all of these are fact. So if you are travelling at a higher speed, the fixed reaction time means that you will cover more distance in the time it takes to react - so in simple terms for someone of your limited copmprehension - if i see a car braking in front of me and i have a reaction speed of 0.5 seconds and am 50 yards away my chances of avoiding the crash are better at say 30 mph than 70mph - do you understand this very simple science ??? It is clear in the highway code braking distance charts - you do drive don't you ? You might want to look atr http://www.ibiblio.o rg/rdu/sl-irrel/inde x.html http://www.ite.org/s tandards/speed_zonin g.pdf but I doubt you will be able to understand the big words. So then what was your point ? expect for exposing your limitations in front of all the OM readers ? SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

8:57pm Sat 5 Sep 09

The Rockabilly Red says...

SickOfIgnorantIdiots
OnNewsgroups
wrote:
Rockabilly - you don't understand statistics do you ? Have you done any GCSEs in physics or Biology - read my earlier posts - speed when related to the concept of reaction times clearly makes it more difficult to avoid loss of control of vehicles - if you cannot understand that you are indeed completely stupid. let me try to make it more simple for you. Research across the world identifies a steep upward curve of frequency of accidents from the 85th percentile od speed upwards. The actual time it takes for the brain to react to a stimulus such as say going into a skid or having to brake because brake lights come on in the car in front of you is relatively static in the individual. Different people react at different speeds and even the same people can react at different speeds to the same stimulus depending upon factors such as tiredness, consumption of alcohol or drugs / medications - all of these are fact. So if you are travelling at a higher speed, the fixed reaction time means that you will cover more distance in the time it takes to react - so in simple terms for someone of your limited copmprehension - if i see a car braking in front of me and i have a reaction speed of 0.5 seconds and am 50 yards away my chances of avoiding the crash are better at say 30 mph than 70mph - do you understand this very simple science ??? It is clear in the highway code braking distance charts - you do drive don't you ? You might want to look atr http://www.ibiblio.o rg/rdu/sl-irrel/inde x.html http://www.ite.org/s tandards/speed_zonin g.pdf but I doubt you will be able to understand the big words. So then what was your point ? expect for exposing your limitations in front of all the OM readers ?
You've got me there 'Sicko'. I don't have any GCSE exams to my name. Luckily for me though, I took GCE exams. I then obtained an engineering BSc, followed by my MSc. I am a Chartered Engineer. I have worked for over thirty years in the automotive industry, including motor-racing. I have worked for the past 14 years on some of the fastest road cars in the World. I have extensive experiance of braking systems, steering and suspension, and crash worthiness.

Clearly, you are far better qualified to comment on such matters than I.
[quote][p][bold]SickOfIgnorantIdiots OnNewsgroups[/bold] wrote: Rockabilly - you don't understand statistics do you ? Have you done any GCSEs in physics or Biology - read my earlier posts - speed when related to the concept of reaction times clearly makes it more difficult to avoid loss of control of vehicles - if you cannot understand that you are indeed completely stupid. let me try to make it more simple for you. Research across the world identifies a steep upward curve of frequency of accidents from the 85th percentile od speed upwards. The actual time it takes for the brain to react to a stimulus such as say going into a skid or having to brake because brake lights come on in the car in front of you is relatively static in the individual. Different people react at different speeds and even the same people can react at different speeds to the same stimulus depending upon factors such as tiredness, consumption of alcohol or drugs / medications - all of these are fact. So if you are travelling at a higher speed, the fixed reaction time means that you will cover more distance in the time it takes to react - so in simple terms for someone of your limited copmprehension - if i see a car braking in front of me and i have a reaction speed of 0.5 seconds and am 50 yards away my chances of avoiding the crash are better at say 30 mph than 70mph - do you understand this very simple science ??? It is clear in the highway code braking distance charts - you do drive don't you ? You might want to look atr http://www.ibiblio.o rg/rdu/sl-irrel/inde x.html http://www.ite.org/s tandards/speed_zonin g.pdf but I doubt you will be able to understand the big words. So then what was your point ? expect for exposing your limitations in front of all the OM readers ?[/p][/quote]You've got me there 'Sicko'. I don't have any GCSE exams to my name. Luckily for me though, I took GCE exams. I then obtained an engineering BSc, followed by my MSc. I am a Chartered Engineer. I have worked for over thirty years in the automotive industry, including motor-racing. I have worked for the past 14 years on some of the fastest road cars in the World. I have extensive experiance of braking systems, steering and suspension, and crash worthiness. Clearly, you are far better qualified to comment on such matters than I. The Rockabilly Red
  • Score: 0

6:16am Sun 6 Sep 09

Whopper w/Cheese says...

Sicko wrote. "It doesn't matter whether they are enforceable or NOT - a limit is a limit and should be obeyed". Sorry mate but you have just shown your stupidity again, The limit on Morrell Avenue is legally 30 MPH, so if people drive at 30 MPH then they are NOT breaking the law.
I was going to to say that somtimes you are a self rightous silly person, but that would be unfair and untrue. It is actually all of the time. But the dangerous thing about yourself and that Cullen bloke is that our council are stupid enough to take notice of you. I don't quite know where you get off on trying to control peoples lives but as you can see from the abuse that you get, your views only reflect an extreme minority, so try to enter the real world, look at the full picture, and then make a comment that hasn't been copied from the Guardian. I am looking forward to the time that this will happen but I won't hold my breath. P.S. Can you get a spell checker for your Sinclair ZX
Sicko wrote. "It doesn't matter whether they are enforceable or NOT - a limit is a limit and should be obeyed". Sorry mate but you have just shown your stupidity again, The limit on Morrell Avenue is legally 30 MPH, so if people drive at 30 MPH then they are NOT breaking the law. I was going to to say that somtimes you are a self rightous silly person, but that would be unfair and untrue. It is actually all of the time. But the dangerous thing about yourself and that Cullen bloke is that our council are stupid enough to take notice of you. I don't quite know where you get off on trying to control peoples lives but as you can see from the abuse that you get, your views only reflect an extreme minority, so try to enter the real world, look at the full picture, and then make a comment that hasn't been copied from the Guardian. I am looking forward to the time that this will happen but I won't hold my breath. P.S. Can you get a spell checker for your Sinclair ZX Whopper w/Cheese
  • Score: 0

12:40pm Sun 6 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

Rockabilly if any of thet were true I cannot se how you could possibly disagree with the points I made earlier that you have chosen neither to agree or disagree with.

WWC you clearly are a simpleton - I am in here PRECISELY because my views are in a minority in the group _ but not necessarioy society asd a whole (if you think the views here are in some way able to be extrpoloated across the whole country popultation you are very much mistaken). There would be little point in my trying to educate other equally articulate souls who prepare argument based on evidence and fact would there ? and also it wouldn't be half so much fun.

A 'limit' may nmot be the same as a legally enforceable limit some for example are advisory - temporary signs for roadworks on suburban roads for example - why does everything have to have the force of law behind it to be obeyed - many people drive below the 'limits' in certain conditions because they demonstate good sense and awareness of potential danger to themselves and other road users - other tosspots drive past you at 70mph (on motorways for example) when the fog is so thick you cannot see the end of your car bonnet - do you defend these people's behaviour within the law ? Lots of the highway CODE is not law and not enforceable - does that make it irrelevant - wake up breadhead !
Rockabilly if any of thet were true I cannot se how you could possibly disagree with the points I made earlier that you have chosen neither to agree or disagree with. WWC you clearly are a simpleton - I am in here PRECISELY because my views are in a minority in the group _ but not necessarioy society asd a whole (if you think the views here are in some way able to be extrpoloated across the whole country popultation you are very much mistaken). There would be little point in my trying to educate other equally articulate souls who prepare argument based on evidence and fact would there ? and also it wouldn't be half so much fun. A 'limit' may nmot be the same as a legally enforceable limit some for example are advisory - temporary signs for roadworks on suburban roads for example - why does everything have to have the force of law behind it to be obeyed - many people drive below the 'limits' in certain conditions because they demonstate good sense and awareness of potential danger to themselves and other road users - other tosspots drive past you at 70mph (on motorways for example) when the fog is so thick you cannot see the end of your car bonnet - do you defend these people's behaviour within the law ? Lots of the highway CODE is not law and not enforceable - does that make it irrelevant - wake up breadhead ! SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Sun 6 Sep 09

EB says...

Speaking to some of the staff from the bus companies, they are saying the 20 limits are causing havoc.

Bus drivers are getting aggro from other drivers for the variable speed limits, more cars are pulling out in front of buses and cars take longer to overtake buses.

This 20 limit has clearly been pushed by people who don't drive and especially not through Oxford.

Nine months and it'll all come crashing down - and I want my share of that £300,000 back please!
Speaking to some of the staff from the bus companies, they are saying the 20 limits are causing havoc. Bus drivers are getting aggro from other drivers for the variable speed limits, more cars are pulling out in front of buses and cars take longer to overtake buses. This 20 limit has clearly been pushed by people who don't drive and especially not through Oxford. Nine months and it'll all come crashing down - and I want my share of that £300,000 back please! EB
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Sun 6 Sep 09

HeartilySickofSickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

I'll be very careful what I say here... I wouldn't want to get "reported" would I?
However, you can guess my feelings from my username.

Obviously the person in question loves the sound of their own voice, judging by the length of posts and is quite prepared to use terms of abuse at others when he/she can't cope with similar when directed at him/herself. ("WWC, you clearly are a simpleton". "Rockabilly - if you cannot understand that you are indeed completely stupid....I doubt you will be able to understand the big words",
"Sparky - I am now convinced you must have some learning difficulty"
etc. etc.

However, I will not be further drawn into SOIION's little game. There's a simple word for it "Trolling" and trolls usually go away when ignored.
May I suggest that anyone wishing to make rational comment on this important debate simply ignores SOIION's posts and we work round him/her?


Sound sensible?
I'll be very careful what I say here... I wouldn't want to get "reported" would I? However, you can guess my feelings from my username. Obviously the person in question loves the sound of their own voice, judging by the length of posts and is quite prepared to use terms of abuse at others when he/she can't cope with similar when directed at him/herself. ("WWC, you clearly are a simpleton". "Rockabilly - if you cannot understand that you are indeed completely stupid....I doubt you will be able to understand the big words", "Sparky - I am now convinced you must have some learning difficulty" etc. etc. However, I will not be further drawn into SOIION's little game. There's a simple word for it "Trolling" and trolls usually go away when ignored. May I suggest that anyone wishing to make rational comment on this important debate simply ignores SOIION's posts and we work round him/her? Sound sensible? HeartilySickofSickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Sun 6 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

I think you will find 'heartily' that I may respond to abuse with a little of my own although I do not instigate it nor do I refer to people as C U next tuesday's or TW@Ts as others do to me when they cannot counter an argument with any facts or evidence.

I do NOT 'troll' at all - and your incitement to others to ignore my posts smacks of your inability to engage in intellectual debate or counter sensibly, any points people make that disagree with you so 'yah boo sucks to you too' - puerile in the extreme !

Now I wonder if you are really Grundon or Rockabilly or WWC in another guise - perhaps all three ?????

Hypopcrites abound in here - pretend to have great deomctratic ideals but then try to shut someone up and exclude them from the disciussions if their arguments don't match yours and you are not clever enough to counter them without schoolboy / playground tactics -

" oh you don't want to talk to him or her, they are nasty...."

Heartily read what you have written and be ashamed - be VERY ashamed :-)
I think you will find 'heartily' that I may respond to abuse with a little of my own although I do not instigate it nor do I refer to people as C U next tuesday's or TW@Ts as others do to me when they cannot counter an argument with any facts or evidence. I do NOT 'troll' at all - and your incitement to others to ignore my posts smacks of your inability to engage in intellectual debate or counter sensibly, any points people make that disagree with you so 'yah boo sucks to you too' - puerile in the extreme ! Now I wonder if you are really Grundon or Rockabilly or WWC in another guise - perhaps all three ????? Hypopcrites abound in here - pretend to have great deomctratic ideals but then try to shut someone up and exclude them from the disciussions if their arguments don't match yours and you are not clever enough to counter them without schoolboy / playground tactics - " oh you don't want to talk to him or her, they are nasty...." Heartily read what you have written and be ashamed - be VERY ashamed :-) SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

9:20pm Sun 6 Sep 09

The Rockabilly Red says...

SickOfIgnorantIdiots
OnNewsgroups
wrote:
Rockabilly if any of thet were true I cannot se how you could possibly disagree with the points I made earlier that you have chosen neither to agree or disagree with. WWC you clearly are a simpleton - I am in here PRECISELY because my views are in a minority in the group _ but not necessarioy society asd a whole (if you think the views here are in some way able to be extrpoloated across the whole country popultation you are very much mistaken). There would be little point in my trying to educate other equally articulate souls who prepare argument based on evidence and fact would there ? and also it wouldn't be half so much fun. A 'limit' may nmot be the same as a legally enforceable limit some for example are advisory - temporary signs for roadworks on suburban roads for example - why does everything have to have the force of law behind it to be obeyed - many people drive below the 'limits' in certain conditions because they demonstate good sense and awareness of potential danger to themselves and other road users - other tosspots drive past you at 70mph (on motorways for example) when the fog is so thick you cannot see the end of your car bonnet - do you defend these people's behaviour within the law ? Lots of the highway CODE is not law and not enforceable - does that make it irrelevant - wake up breadhead !
So there it is! If you dare to disagree with 'Sicko', you must be a liar!

By the way 'Sicko', please go away and find out what a percentile is. When you finally understand what it means, you will see the stupidity of your statement re. the "85th percentile od speed" . It is an utterly meaningless comment, and simply underlines your ignorance.
[quote][p][bold]SickOfIgnorantIdiots OnNewsgroups[/bold] wrote: Rockabilly if any of thet were true I cannot se how you could possibly disagree with the points I made earlier that you have chosen neither to agree or disagree with. WWC you clearly are a simpleton - I am in here PRECISELY because my views are in a minority in the group _ but not necessarioy society asd a whole (if you think the views here are in some way able to be extrpoloated across the whole country popultation you are very much mistaken). There would be little point in my trying to educate other equally articulate souls who prepare argument based on evidence and fact would there ? and also it wouldn't be half so much fun. A 'limit' may nmot be the same as a legally enforceable limit some for example are advisory - temporary signs for roadworks on suburban roads for example - why does everything have to have the force of law behind it to be obeyed - many people drive below the 'limits' in certain conditions because they demonstate good sense and awareness of potential danger to themselves and other road users - other tosspots drive past you at 70mph (on motorways for example) when the fog is so thick you cannot see the end of your car bonnet - do you defend these people's behaviour within the law ? Lots of the highway CODE is not law and not enforceable - does that make it irrelevant - wake up breadhead ![/p][/quote]So there it is! If you dare to disagree with 'Sicko', you must be a liar! By the way 'Sicko', please go away and find out what a percentile is. When you finally understand what it means, you will see the stupidity of your statement re. the "85th percentile od speed" [sic]. It is an utterly meaningless comment, and simply underlines your ignorance. The Rockabilly Red
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Mon 7 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

Rockabilly the 85th percentile of speed is not meaningless - if you look it up you will find it used frequently in research into the setting of speed limits and in identifying speed behaviour of motorists

As a guide in the US fro excample and Canada speed limit setting is usuaslly done at the 85th percentile rule - research shows a high upward curve linking speeds above the 85th percentile and frequency of crashes.

I provide some references in an earlier post - maybe you were unable to access them.

As an active researcher and part time PhD student I am well aware of what a percentile is thank you.

You might look at http://www.safespeed
.org.uk/speedlimits.
html before responding with any more rubbish old chap .

Its no wonder the country is in such a state if qualified engineers with Masters degrees are all as ignorant as you appear to be.



Rockabilly the 85th percentile of speed is not meaningless - if you look it up you will find it used frequently in research into the setting of speed limits and in identifying speed behaviour of motorists As a guide in the US fro excample and Canada speed limit setting is usuaslly done at the 85th percentile rule - research shows a high upward curve linking speeds above the 85th percentile and frequency of crashes. I provide some references in an earlier post - maybe you were unable to access them. As an active researcher and part time PhD student I am well aware of what a percentile is thank you. You might look at http://www.safespeed .org.uk/speedlimits. html before responding with any more rubbish old chap . Its no wonder the country is in such a state if qualified engineers with Masters degrees are all as ignorant as you appear to be. SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Mon 7 Sep 09

sparky123456 says...

well a weekend with better things to do than sit on here. but just in response to sicko - yet again (yawn) no I'm not an ignorant fool with a learning diasability (slightly offencesive to anyone with one tho) I have many qualifications and degrees to my name along with an extremely high IQ. You seem to labour the point that you believe speed is the primary cause (of many causes) of all accidents and lowering the speed limit would reduce fatalities. You're simply wrong, I made the point about the bypass accident because speed didn't cause it. I made an earlier point that I had an accident of my own whereby somebody died BUT we were travelling BELOW the speed limit. Anyhow you're obviously right because you use 'intelligent' big words i can't understand and you answer back to all points. A bit like a child that can't admit they're wrong except I strongly suspect you're 50+ male with a narrow circle of friends outside of the socialist workers union. Nobody else here agrees with you and you're flogging a dead horse. The main issue here is the fact nobody wants this 20mph speed limit, its a waste of money, nobody was asked their opinion, it doesn't have a valid reason for its existence eg reducing fatalities, lessening accidents, easing congestion and it is impossible to enforce. So back to point can you 'argue' some good reasons why we should have it? who wants it and what features and benefits it delivers to the city and community? and what makes us so ignorant/stubborn/st
upid/mentally deficient in your opinion for arguing against it. AND in your answer please don't cite useless gash you've acquired from public portals such as wikipedia, what the americans/canadians/
swiss etc do because I couldn't give a monkeys, this is Oxford in the here and now.
well a weekend with better things to do than sit on here. but just in response to sicko - yet again (yawn) no I'm not an ignorant fool with a learning diasability (slightly offencesive to anyone with one tho) I have many qualifications and degrees to my name along with an extremely high IQ. You seem to labour the point that you believe speed is the primary cause (of many causes) of all accidents and lowering the speed limit would reduce fatalities. You're simply wrong, I made the point about the bypass accident because speed didn't cause it. I made an earlier point that I had an accident of my own whereby somebody died BUT we were travelling BELOW the speed limit. Anyhow you're obviously right because you use 'intelligent' big words i can't understand and you answer back to all points. A bit like a child that can't admit they're wrong except I strongly suspect you're 50+ male with a narrow circle of friends outside of the socialist workers union. Nobody else here agrees with you and you're flogging a dead horse. The main issue here is the fact nobody wants this 20mph speed limit, its a waste of money, nobody was asked their opinion, it doesn't have a valid reason for its existence eg reducing fatalities, lessening accidents, easing congestion and it is impossible to enforce. So back to point can you 'argue' some good reasons why we should have it? who wants it and what features and benefits it delivers to the city and community? and what makes us so ignorant/stubborn/st upid/mentally deficient in your opinion for arguing against it. AND in your answer please don't cite useless gash you've acquired from public portals such as wikipedia, what the americans/canadians/ swiss etc do because I couldn't give a monkeys, this is Oxford in the here and now. sparky123456
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Mon 7 Sep 09

sparky123456 says...

SickOfIgnorantIdiots
OnNewsgroups
wrote:
Rockabilly - you don't understand statistics do you ? Have you done any GCSEs in physics or Biology - read my earlier posts - speed when related to the concept of reaction times clearly makes it more difficult to avoid loss of control of vehicles - if you cannot understand that you are indeed completely stupid. let me try to make it more simple for you. Research across the world identifies a steep upward curve of frequency of accidents from the 85th percentile od speed upwards. The actual time it takes for the brain to react to a stimulus such as say going into a skid or having to brake because brake lights come on in the car in front of you is relatively static in the individual. Different people react at different speeds and even the same people can react at different speeds to the same stimulus depending upon factors such as tiredness, consumption of alcohol or drugs / medications - all of these are fact. So if you are travelling at a higher speed, the fixed reaction time means that you will cover more distance in the time it takes to react - so in simple terms for someone of your limited copmprehension - if i see a car braking in front of me and i have a reaction speed of 0.5 seconds and am 50 yards away my chances of avoiding the crash are better at say 30 mph than 70mph - do you understand this very simple science ??? It is clear in the highway code braking distance charts - you do drive don't you ? You might want to look atr http://www.ibiblio.o rg/rdu/sl-irrel/inde x.html http://www.ite.org/s tandards/speed_zonin g.pdf but I doubt you will be able to understand the big words. So then what was your point ? expect for exposing your limitations in front of all the OM readers ?
ps you're wrong on this point, reaction times are in no way virtually static. For example in the elderly it is different to that of the young and it can be quite a considerable difference. Others factors makea big play such as mental state. The simple thing is speed is not the issue at all. end of. leaving an appropriate amount of braking distance and knowing your and your vehicles limits is what matters.
[quote][p][bold]SickOfIgnorantIdiots OnNewsgroups[/bold] wrote: Rockabilly - you don't understand statistics do you ? Have you done any GCSEs in physics or Biology - read my earlier posts - speed when related to the concept of reaction times clearly makes it more difficult to avoid loss of control of vehicles - if you cannot understand that you are indeed completely stupid. let me try to make it more simple for you. Research across the world identifies a steep upward curve of frequency of accidents from the 85th percentile od speed upwards. The actual time it takes for the brain to react to a stimulus such as say going into a skid or having to brake because brake lights come on in the car in front of you is relatively static in the individual. Different people react at different speeds and even the same people can react at different speeds to the same stimulus depending upon factors such as tiredness, consumption of alcohol or drugs / medications - all of these are fact. So if you are travelling at a higher speed, the fixed reaction time means that you will cover more distance in the time it takes to react - so in simple terms for someone of your limited copmprehension - if i see a car braking in front of me and i have a reaction speed of 0.5 seconds and am 50 yards away my chances of avoiding the crash are better at say 30 mph than 70mph - do you understand this very simple science ??? It is clear in the highway code braking distance charts - you do drive don't you ? You might want to look atr http://www.ibiblio.o rg/rdu/sl-irrel/inde x.html http://www.ite.org/s tandards/speed_zonin g.pdf but I doubt you will be able to understand the big words. So then what was your point ? expect for exposing your limitations in front of all the OM readers ?[/p][/quote]ps you're wrong on this point, reaction times are in no way virtually static. For example in the elderly it is different to that of the young and it can be quite a considerable difference. Others factors makea big play such as mental state. The simple thing is speed is not the issue at all. end of. leaving an appropriate amount of braking distance and knowing your and your vehicles limits is what matters. sparky123456
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Mon 7 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

Sparky what is wrong with you that you cannot read something fully before posting - I said "relatively static in THE individual" that is ONE person - maybe you need to sign up for a GCSE in English ? - I then go on to say that different people have differing reaction speeds and that other factors affect even one individual's ability to react (tiredness drugs etc etc) - it is all very tiresome if people respond on prejudice or personality issues before actually attempting to read and understand what was written.

Sparky what is wrong with you that you cannot read something fully before posting - I said "relatively static in THE individual" that is ONE person - maybe you need to sign up for a GCSE in English ? - I then go on to say that different people have differing reaction speeds and that other factors affect even one individual's ability to react (tiredness drugs etc etc) - it is all very tiresome if people respond on prejudice or personality issues before actually attempting to read and understand what was written. SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Mon 7 Sep 09

SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups says...

Sparky I also wonder why you think I use wikipedia other than as a convenient put-down ? WRONG I don't actually - I use many reliable sources to find relevant information and my work enables me to access many research articles and databases across a variety of topics.

I have a very wide circle of friends who span a wide range of political opinions and include many races religions and differing sexual orientations so your silly insults are unnecessary and again WRONG.

You also mis-quote what I have written - I have NEVER said ANYWHERE that speed is the major or most important cause of RTAs - your prejudice against me makes you see what you want to see and in some cases what is not even there !

I simply say it IS a factor in many RTAs and to suggest anything other than that is plain stupid based on the science I have already referred to ad nauseam.

I have never actually said I support the limit and in fact some of the links I have posted suggest that research tends to support that view that other thanabove the 85th percentile and at very low speeds there is no great correlation between speed limits and accidents - if you had bothered to read my EVIDENCE you would see that this presents another view - not one you have attributed to me.

You say NOBODY wants it which is not strictly true is it ? - somebody MUST want it or it wouldn't happen (even if that somebody is the council and a local interest group ) so you are wrong again.

You say there is no consultation - again WRONG see www.oxfordshire.gov.
uk/wps/portal/public
site/news?WCM_GLOBAL
_CONTEXT=http://apps
.oxfordshire.gov.uk/
wps/wcm/connect/Inte
rnet%2FPress+release
s%2FPress+Releases+a
rchive%2F2008%2FSept
ember%2FPR+-+Consult
ation+on+Oxford+20mp
h+proposals

What probably happened is that few people could be bothered in this 'me-now-lazy-arsed society' to get up off their sofas and go to the meetings to voice their opinions - more armchair revolutionaries like many in this group perhaps ?

So PLEASE do try to read and consider the FACTS and EVIDENCE not just your opinions and prejudices and those of others who agree blindly with your views in here but provide no evidence - you may even find some enlightenment.

Sparky I also wonder why you think I use wikipedia other than as a convenient put-down ? WRONG I don't actually - I use many reliable sources to find relevant information and my work enables me to access many research articles and databases across a variety of topics. I have a very wide circle of friends who span a wide range of political opinions and include many races religions and differing sexual orientations so your silly insults are unnecessary and again WRONG. You also mis-quote what I have written - I have NEVER said ANYWHERE that speed is the major or most important cause of RTAs - your prejudice against me makes you see what you want to see and in some cases what is not even there ! I simply say it IS a factor in many RTAs and to suggest anything other than that is plain stupid based on the science I have already referred to ad nauseam. I have never actually said I support the limit and in fact some of the links I have posted suggest that research tends to support that view that other thanabove the 85th percentile and at very low speeds there is no great correlation between speed limits and accidents - if you had bothered to read my EVIDENCE you would see that this presents another view - not one you have attributed to me. You say NOBODY wants it which is not strictly true is it ? - somebody MUST want it or it wouldn't happen (even if that somebody is the council and a local interest group ) so you are wrong again. You say there is no consultation - again WRONG see www.oxfordshire.gov. uk/wps/portal/public site/news?WCM_GLOBAL _CONTEXT=http://apps .oxfordshire.gov.uk/ wps/wcm/connect/Inte rnet%2FPress+release s%2FPress+Releases+a rchive%2F2008%2FSept ember%2FPR+-+Consult ation+on+Oxford+20mp h+proposals What probably happened is that few people could be bothered in this 'me-now-lazy-arsed society' to get up off their sofas and go to the meetings to voice their opinions - more armchair revolutionaries like many in this group perhaps ? So PLEASE do try to read and consider the FACTS and EVIDENCE not just your opinions and prejudices and those of others who agree blindly with your views in here but provide no evidence - you may even find some enlightenment. SickOfIgnorantIdiotsOnNewsgroups
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree