Tiggs

Dogs, guns and hunting effects VERY small numbers of people....and no one gives a toss about TV licence.

This is on a scale MILLIONS times larger (as everyone has a car...not everyone owns a pitbull and an AK47)

I simply dont belive it will happen while we vote for our leaders.

T

Leslie

Tiggs,

Together with all the other examples of what has been forced on us, how about the Fat Controller with three homes and two Jags now ordering councils to accept gipsy encampments against all planning regulations?

The situation now is that Gipsies now know that they can ignore any planning regulations but those of us who live law abiding lives still have to obey them to the letter under pain of draconian penalties.

What's your take on that one Tiggs?

Time you woke up and saw what is really happening!

Les

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Logans Run anyone!!!!!

Seems this is what the UK is turning into. wonder how long it will be before the start terminting people when they reach 30 or 35, then there will be no old people to worry about.

Good luck anyway with ISA It will be ajoy driving my German plated impreza on the motorways in England when you lot are all restricted to 70mph I presume the Police cars will likewise be restricted so no chance of getting caught just think of all the extra deaths though when the fire engines and ambulances can't break the speed limit anymore.

As a sideline why not email men and motors and 5th gear and get VBH on the job aswell

Synthesiser Patel

Hold that thought...... luvverly luv....

Vegescoob

Iirc, I have heard that EU police forces have started a project to enable cross border enforcement of traffic laws.
Anyone have anything more concrete?

Vipa

Wurzel.... I'd love to get on the job with Vicky Butler-Henderson....

By the way... ISA looks like it's an EU project folks..... Not all EU countries are expected to mandate it but at a guess the likes of Germay, Holland, France & Spain (oh and that little pain in the *** bit of Germany.... Belgium) are likely to be takers to varying degrees!!!

Vegescoob... AFAIK speeding penalties are already enforceable cross border... if you get done in any participating EU country you still get points on your UK licence?

Paul

Tiggs

Try badger baiting....prob the closest thing.


I guess i am just going to have to wait and see.........we cant all be as worried as you lot....everyone would have a stress induced heart attack at 30! i'll live a long and happy life...in a police state

scoobydood

I have emailed TopGear with my concerns - pointing out that this has nothing to do with "speeding".... Maybe we should also contact 5th gear?

GC8

The real concern here should be that your ability to break the law has been removed; that is a fundamental right in a free country. Consider this carefully, whats next? Behavioural inhibitors perhaps.....? A little far fetched at the moment but then, so was satellite tracking and speed control only 20 years ago; when its available this and other legislation, will have set a precedent..... Frightening isnt it?

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Simon, you've never had the 'fundamental right' to break the law, don't be ridiculous.

The problem with ISA is that the law it's designed to enforce is a hugely over-simplistic one that totally fails to achieve what it sets out to do - namely reduce the number and severity of car accidents. Speed is easy to measure and quantify, that's why for practical reasons it's chosen for such emphasis by the authorities.

It's the law that's the problem, not the enforcement per se. Same goes for speed cameras too. There is no reason, for example, for it to always be illegal to travel at more than 70mph on a clear motorway - just ask the Germans.

GC8

It isnt ridiculous Andy; consider it; in a free society you are free to either observe the rules or to break them and bear the consequences. This freedom of choice is a cornerstone of any free society; of course, this doesnt imply that breaking the rules is acceptable. Im sure that a trip to the library will confirm this.

Regards

Simon

Vipa

Not a very good argument really... we are not 'free' to break any laws at all, laws are not there to be broken they are there to be adhered to... the fact that so many break the speed limit is irrelevant. If your argumant was valid then I have the 'right' to murder someone as long as I am willing to face the consequences.... In the US this could mean the death penalty.... This is not a right but actually a flaw.... If it was possible to stop the rules being broken before they were then that is what would and should happen. Unfortunately this is beyond us so we must resort to punishment and threat as a means of disuading offenders from commiting or repeating the crime!!!

Paul

Vegescoob

As an absolute statement, this is flawed. Are all laws just? Remember the Suffragettes. If the State had the means to ensure absolute compliance (who knows, this may come through digital technology and genetic manipulation) it could then pass any law that suited it. Just or not.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Guys: suggest you start a new thread for 'are we truly free?' or 'it it right to break an un-just law?' or similar. Let's not let this one go off track, please.

GC8

Im sorry that you dont understand my argument, but this doesnt affect the validity of my statement. Try your local library; youll find many a book that supports my argument.

Simon

Tiggs

Lets remove safes from banks...you should be free to take the money as long as you bear the consequence.

T

GC8

Another pointless antogonistic post from you Tiggs, serving what purpose exactly? Philosophy isnt your strong point is it?

Vipa

Not at all.... A very valid point from Tiggs...

GC8.... Being 'free' to do something is completely different to having an 'absolute right' to do something.

I am free... if I so desire to take my clothes off and run around the neibourhood shouting obsceneties...

I do not have 'the right' to do this... having 'the right' to do something infers legality (be that socially accepted behaviour or judicial). exposing myself to my neighbours is quite obviously not legal or socially acceptable behaviour.

So whilst you may currently have the freedom to speed... you most certainly do not have 'the right' to do so!

Paul

PS... is this thread real or are we all part of some giant computer program written to make us think we're alive whilst the machines use the energy produced by our dormant bodies............

GC8

Im in two minds whether to reply because I suspect that you understand exactly what I mean, however I will try to redefine my original statement: in a free society we have the absolute right to choose. When this is taken away from us we no longer live in a free society do we? Whilst the right of some f*ckwit to race past a school is something Im not going to champion; legislation like this is dangerous in that it sets a precedent; what might follow?

Simon

unclebuck

Ahem....

hedgehog

Already they are starting to show their hand in terms of the control systems they want in place. This from the Sunday Times today, while some may consider my assertion that soon only "party members" will have the right to use some roads a little paranoid this puts a slightly different light on it. I am sure those of you who are not concerned about the black box don't use motorways and trunk roads anyhow:

THE MAN who once accused car-driving commuters of being guilty of an “inappropriate use of road space” has been made Britain’s new traffic congestion czar.

Derek Turner will take over as the Highways Agency’s national traffic director from next month, charged with preventing the nation’s motorways and trunk roads from becoming gridlocked.

Turner was the chief architect of the central London congestion charge and his appointment comes at a time of growing government support for a national road pricing scheme to cut journey times.

Ministers have failed to meet targets on cutting congestion and the Royal Academy of Engineering predicted last week that traffic will increase by 50% by 2050, while the £15 billion annual cost of congestion will double within 10 years.

In his first interview since his appointment was announced, Turner denounced car drivers who clog up motorways by taking short trips. Highways should be the preserve of traffic of “economic importance” such as lorries, he said.

“A lot of the problem is to do with people joining the motorway at one junction and coming straight off at the next junction. These are strategic roads, designed for longer-distance traffic,” he said.

ajm

Our town is cut off by the M5 on one side, the Bristol Channel on another, and the River Avon on another. To get to work is 9 miles, including one junction of the M5, taking about 20 mins due to queues to get onto the motorway roundabout. This is using the M5 Avonmouth bridge, which is the closest bridge over the Avon.

If I (and everyone else leaving our town) was banned from the motorway the distance travelled (via the next nearest Bridge, the Clifton suspension bridge - single lane toll bridge) would double, the traffic would quadruple and the journey time would most likely octuple!!! So that would be efficient use of the roads then!

Fun times ahead

Clarebabes

It's actually of "economic importance" to us that my other half gets to work!

hedgehog

I think you will find that your economic importance will not really come into it :-)

However, I am sure that "party members" or Tony's cronies will be considered of economic importance and as trucks are restricted to the inside lanes they will have a whole lane on the motorway to themselves.

This is the same Derek Turner, remember, who admitted to making the Kengestion Charge deliberately hard to pay to try and force people out of their cars. So your other half had better find how to get to work on public transport.

Clarebabes

He probably could, he'd have to get up in the middle of the night to get there on time when, oh, there's probably not a train or bus running to take him where he wants to go!

Means we'll have to lower our standard of living and he'll have to get a job locally which pays crap, but accessible by non-existent public transport.

Probably have to ask for benefits to top up our incomes and become a burden on the system........ Oh well, at least the nasty car will have almost disappeared!

GCollier

With the road network already suffering from massive levels of congestion seemingly at all times of the day, and with this only going to get worse in future, is it any surprise that radical solutions are being investigated? I don't want the country to suffer from permanent gridlock in 20 years time, nor do I want half of it concreted over.

Personally I think dynamic road pricing could be a good idea. The roads are a resource like any other, and we already pay variable amounts for other resources such as air travel, rail travel, electicity and telephone calls depending upon both the time at which we want to utilise the resource and how much we wish to consume. Why should a contested resource such as the road network be any different?

With the ISA issue itself, I've skimmed through some of the links. Safety statistics are easily manipulated to paint the picture you want, whether its the government wanting to support its agenda or someone like the very vocal hedgehog wanting to support his.But I would say that after some events in my life in the last few years I know largely obey the speed limit and my average road speed has probably dropped by 10-20mph and I do feel safer as a result. So I guess the verdict is still out for me on this.

But I suspect that the real issue for many people here isn't really safety anyway. It's simply the perceived threat to the current freedom of being able to use the road network as a personal playground for high performance cars.

Gary.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

There's a couple of separate issues here.

Congestion may indeed be a problem, but proposals to reduce it by further taxing the motorist miss one very simple and obvious point: nobody queues in traffic out of choice. They do it because they need to be in a particular place at a particular time, and the alternatives (if they exist at all) are even worse.

Unfortunately, those who draft and enact the law, live in the one and only place in the country that both has exceptionally bad traffic congestion AND has a viable public transport system. No wonder they think and act the way they do.

I agree entirely on safety statistics, though it would be much easier to analyse them if more recent data were presented in a way as clear and complete as TRL report 323. Unfortunately I have yet to see ANY recent data from a source other than speed camera partnerships, who never release complete figures at all. Surely you can forgive me for suggesting that maybe there is one, and only one, reason for this?

I'm glad you feel safer as a result of slowing down. Maybe you actually are - especially if you ever did actually regard the roads as a 'personal playground' (not that I believe you'd be so foolish). Unfortunately one of the problems with ISA is that, coupled with the increase in bizarrely low speed limits, it may indeed reduce the act of driving to one of such dullness and drudgery that drivers' attention wanders - causing them to bump into things.

ISA is presented as a safety device, so IMHO it must be proven that it will actually do its job and improve safety, without major deleterious side effects. To do that, it needs to be shown that:

- otherwise sober and competent drivers cause a significant proportion of accidents simply because they are travelling in excess of the speed limit. Remember, that's all that ISA does.
- the presence of ISA does not cause unwanted side effects of its own. 90% of accidents are caused by human error (source: IAM), so if being bored and frustrated by an ISA device causes people to make mistakes, it could even make the roads more dangerous. I don't believe the trials taking place are actually equipped to measure this effect. I would also count that very boredom and frustration as a deleterious side effect, and I don't think you can blame me for that.