pppI am a car nut but I support the 70. If law is 80 then norm is 90. Over here the motorways are 130kph (80 in real money) and the ton is very often the norm.
And, the statistics above are unfair and misguiding. Car ACCIDENT deaths can’t be put alongside naturally (Even from smoking) occuring illnesses.
No I don’t think they are unfair or misguiding, they quite clearly show that roads deaths are an almost insignificant factor in death in the UK. It would be much better to continue working on cancer and heart disease! So another 20 or 30 people will die on the roads, but this will probably be offset by them spending less time inside their cars!
pppLance – To clarify are you saying that you’ve never exceeded 70mph on the motorway, I dont think I know anyone that can truthfully claim that.
Imo the reality with speed is that above 50mph the surviveability rate decreases exponentially. the percentage drop between 70 and 80mph is marginal. I dont know what the fuss is about :confused: The average speed on english motorways is 80/85mph, having done 34,000 motorway miles in the last 15 months In my mind, I can accurately make that statement.
….
All of the above in my mind make people that travel slowly along main roads just as much of a danger as people that speed.
(Flak jacket & helmet, donned, ill await the incoming fire from my trench)
I agree for the most part, though I don’t have much of a problem with people breaking the speed limit, providing they do so reasonably safely. IMO… the A34 should be made into a motorway and have widening works. It’s essentially the outside lane of a motorway, and the inside lane of a motorway, put next to each other, with lots of corners, and an A road designation. The Police should be made to focus on people that are actually dangerous rather than people breaking the speed limit (e.g tail gaters, DUI, “passive” causes of accidents, people paying little or no attention), but I think the “safety” partnerships would rather keep raking in the fine revenue! On the HGVs they could assign that to the highways patrols 🙂 Oh, and the “new” limits should be changed back to their original 60 or 70 limits, or raised in the event the national limit increases.
As you say, the average is about 80 to 85, so it would seem better to raise it to 85 to make it so they are no longer breaking the law. In that case drivers could safely do 85 and not have any worry of a ticket unless they reach 95.5mph.
According to the figures broadcast yesterday raising the speed limit could result in up to twenty deaths that wouldn’t happen if left at 70.
So who are we to condemn these people to death?
But
I would guess lowering the limit to 60 might save another twenty people, so shouldn’t we do it and allow them to live?
Of course 50 would save even more, 40 a lot more, 30 hundreds more, but we’d better go down to 20 hadn’t we? Once there we could halve the limit to 10 and hardly anybody would be killed. Sorted.
Motoring, like life, is not risk free. Nobody is compelled to go on motorways, (though some would find their employment short term if they didn’t) and anyway they are demonstrably safer then other roads.
There is nothing magical about 70. Just as there is nothing magical about 100. They are both just speeds. The 70 deriving from almost 50 years ago and the cars of that era.
Moggy
To give extra context to your figures, here are the causes of death in the UK:
Circulatory Diseases: 159,779
Cancer: 140,497
Respiratory diseases: 67,559
Digestive Diseases: 25,230
Mental Diseases: 18,021
Accidents: 17,878
Nervous System Diseases: 17,408
Genitourinary Diseases: 11,998
Other: 9,243
Nutritional/Metabolic: 7,123
Musculoskeletal: 4,141
Congential Diseases: 1,261
Blood and immune Diseases: 1.026
Of those 17,878 accidents
Car occupant: 922
Motorcyclist: 431
Pedestrian: 153
So really, the effect of even cutting all car and motorcycle deaths completely is still not significant. Actually, more people would probably die because of the delay in medical care due to there being no ambulances! Clearly the motorcycle group is the most at risk per road user, but unfortunately they don’t differentiate regular motorcyclists with licences from moped riders that aren’t old enough to get their car licence, and sunday riders that usually drive cars. That latter two groups I suspect make up a fair chunk of motorcycle KSI!
pppLance – To clarify are you saying that you’ve never exceeded 70mph on the motorway, I dont think I know anyone that can truthfully claim that.
Imo the reality with speed is that above 50mph the surviveability rate decreases exponentially. the percentage drop between 70 and 80mph is marginal. I dont know what the fuss is about :confused: The average speed on english motorways is 80/85mph, having done 34,000 motorway miles in the last 15 months In my mind, I can accurately make that statement.
….
All of the above in my mind make people that travel slowly along main roads just as much of a danger as people that speed.
(Flak jacket & helmet, donned, ill await the incoming fire from my trench)
I agree for the most part, though I don’t have much of a problem with people breaking the speed limit, providing they do so reasonably safely. IMO… the A34 should be made into a motorway and have widening works. It’s essentially the outside lane of a motorway, and the inside lane of a motorway, put next to each other, with lots of corners, and an A road designation. The Police should be made to focus on people that are actually dangerous rather than people breaking the speed limit (e.g tail gaters, DUI, “passive” causes of accidents, people paying little or no attention), but I think the “safety” partnerships would rather keep raking in the fine revenue! On the HGVs they could assign that to the highways patrols 🙂 Oh, and the “new” limits should be changed back to their original 60 or 70 limits, or raised in the event the national limit increases.
As you say, the average is about 80 to 85, so it would seem better to raise it to 85 to make it so they are no longer breaking the law. In that case drivers could safely do 85 and not have any worry of a ticket unless they reach 95.5mph.
According to the figures broadcast yesterday raising the speed limit could result in up to twenty deaths that wouldn’t happen if left at 70.
So who are we to condemn these people to death?
But
I would guess lowering the limit to 60 might save another twenty people, so shouldn’t we do it and allow them to live?
Of course 50 would save even more, 40 a lot more, 30 hundreds more, but we’d better go down to 20 hadn’t we? Once there we could halve the limit to 10 and hardly anybody would be killed. Sorted.
Motoring, like life, is not risk free. Nobody is compelled to go on motorways, (though some would find their employment short term if they didn’t) and anyway they are demonstrably safer then other roads.
There is nothing magical about 70. Just as there is nothing magical about 100. They are both just speeds. The 70 deriving from almost 50 years ago and the cars of that era.
Moggy
To give extra context to your figures, here are the causes of death in the UK:
Circulatory Diseases: 159,779
Cancer: 140,497
Respiratory diseases: 67,559
Digestive Diseases: 25,230
Mental Diseases: 18,021
Accidents: 17,878
Nervous System Diseases: 17,408
Genitourinary Diseases: 11,998
Other: 9,243
Nutritional/Metabolic: 7,123
Musculoskeletal: 4,141
Congential Diseases: 1,261
Blood and immune Diseases: 1.026
Of those 17,878 accidents
Car occupant: 922
Motorcyclist: 431
Pedestrian: 153
So really, the effect of even cutting all car and motorcycle deaths completely is still not significant. Actually, more people would probably die because of the delay in medical care due to there being no ambulances! Clearly the motorcycle group is the most at risk per road user, but unfortunately they don’t differentiate regular motorcyclists with licences from moped riders that aren’t old enough to get their car licence, and sunday riders that usually drive cars. That latter two groups I suspect make up a fair chunk of motorcycle KSI!
pppThe majority of people do not shop lift. The majority of people do speed. When so many people are doing it then the law is questionable. Besides, shop lifting has more health and safety issues, it’s hardly a one man lift 🙂
I wish you’d been on the Bench at Luton Magistrates Court a few years back.
They didn’t share your opinion 😮
Moggy
I bet they’ve all gone over the limit at some point though!
pppThe majority of people do not shop lift. The majority of people do speed. When so many people are doing it then the law is questionable. Besides, shop lifting has more health and safety issues, it’s hardly a one man lift 🙂
I wish you’d been on the Bench at Luton Magistrates Court a few years back.
They didn’t share your opinion 😮
Moggy
I bet they’ve all gone over the limit at some point though!
pppIf there HAS to be a “limit” then I’d stick it at 90mph, but I’d rather make people have to think for themselves and choose what speed they feel is safe for the road and conditions. Clearly doing 130mph on an empty road is NOT dangerous. BTW, 130 is not as fast as you think. The main problem is speed difference, so there should be a higher minimum limit for the outer two lanes. In times of heavy congestion the limit should be adjusted to something optimal like 50mph in specific areas as the congestion builds. The law needs to be tougher on those that tailgate or drive without paying any attention, those are truly dangerous.
And there is something wrong with that?
In truth, we will never get to, or past 100. The accident of the units of measurement would mean that the safety lobby would get all of a tizz over ‘triple figure speeds’
The only thing I would add is that we should follow the french and have a 90mph limit when dry, dropping automatically to 70 in rain or snow. A sensible bit of legislation by the French (for once)
Moggy
I go about 85 on motorways, I’d go faster, but the wind gets annoying past that on a motorbike with winter gear on!
And there is something wrong with that?
In truth, we will never get to, or past 100. The accident of the units of measurement would mean that the safety lobby would get all of a tizz over ‘triple figure speeds’
The only thing I would add is that we should follow the french and have a 90mph limit when dry, dropping automatically to 70 in rain or snow. A sensible bit of legislation by the French (for once)
Moggy
Agreed, although I don’t think one should get a ticket for 90 in the rain on a nearly empty road.
pppIf there HAS to be a “limit” then I’d stick it at 90mph, but I’d rather make people have to think for themselves and choose what speed they feel is safe for the road and conditions. Clearly doing 130mph on an empty road is NOT dangerous. BTW, 130 is not as fast as you think. The main problem is speed difference, so there should be a higher minimum limit for the outer two lanes. In times of heavy congestion the limit should be adjusted to something optimal like 50mph in specific areas as the congestion builds. The law needs to be tougher on those that tailgate or drive without paying any attention, those are truly dangerous.
And there is something wrong with that?
In truth, we will never get to, or past 100. The accident of the units of measurement would mean that the safety lobby would get all of a tizz over ‘triple figure speeds’
The only thing I would add is that we should follow the french and have a 90mph limit when dry, dropping automatically to 70 in rain or snow. A sensible bit of legislation by the French (for once)
Moggy
I go about 85 on motorways, I’d go faster, but the wind gets annoying past that on a motorbike with winter gear on!
And there is something wrong with that?
In truth, we will never get to, or past 100. The accident of the units of measurement would mean that the safety lobby would get all of a tizz over ‘triple figure speeds’
The only thing I would add is that we should follow the french and have a 90mph limit when dry, dropping automatically to 70 in rain or snow. A sensible bit of legislation by the French (for once)
Moggy
Agreed, although I don’t think one should get a ticket for 90 in the rain on a nearly empty road.
pppI’m going to errr on the side of “probably not”. With the nose cap it looks like it might foul the front landing gear. Here’s a random Google images of ASMPA on Rafale with the gear down
^^^^^^^^^^
The hook comes standard on all Rafale models, USS Novice.
It is there to provide the possibility of recovery on the CDG,
or any similarly equiped CV such as all USS carriers.It can thus be covered with no other drawback but making
a carrier landing nearly impossible. 🙂Tay.
Hi Tay!
It’s for emergency landings, I think even Typie has one 😀 If you landed a Rafale C on a CdG it wouldn’t want to bet on it staying on the deck, might do though 😉
pppRecent reports on BBC news online regarding Taranis under testing & evaluation in the UK. Maybe that’s what people have been mistaking for a UFO? Also heard rumor that this may have been responsible for that damaged wind turbine blade a while ago. Whilst on the subject will the manufacture of this be in the UK & will it safe guard UK jobs?
When that turbine was damaged I don’t think Taranis had even started its ground trials, let alone first flight or flight testing! It’s doing flight testing this year and early next IIRC.
Taranis is unmanned? I assume in that case it would be within similar restricted airspace as drones and wouldnt likely fly near cardington as thats near Cranfield airport which can be busy.
Taranis flight testing is being flight tested in Australia. If anything, it could be a test UAV from Cranfield University.
pppAs I know not the answer to the following, perhaps somewon can help.
The question is, is this ship in International waters?, and therefor the silver, for want of better words, “Up for grabs by anyone who can get it?.” or as it appeares to be registered in G.B. although out of our juristiction,(Due to it’s location) the ship and cargo remain the property of G.B.?.
Is this likely to lead to some International Maritime legal ruling, or is there legislation already in place to cover things like this.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
They have a licence from the DoT.
“Oh I’m all in favour of recovering it, but the vast majority of it should be taken by the government,….”
The two parts of that are contradictory. If the vast majority of the value is taken by the government then no private individual is going to recover it, are they? And the government is unlikely to do so. So your wish is unlikely to be granted. I think you shot yourself in the foot.
Not at all. If no other wants to recover it under those terms then it stays. If there is a major threat of theft then just blow the whole thing up.
Given that in the grand scheme of things, 30M is ****** all. maybe they should give it to the RNLI.
The majority of the money goes to the greedy recovery guy, and probably some will work its way to some Department of Transport people in some way or another. I doubt the taxpayer will see any benefit from it.
pppAs I know not the answer to the following, perhaps somewon can help.
The question is, is this ship in International waters?, and therefor the silver, for want of better words, “Up for grabs by anyone who can get it?.” or as it appeares to be registered in G.B. although out of our juristiction,(Due to it’s location) the ship and cargo remain the property of G.B.?.
Is this likely to lead to some International Maritime legal ruling, or is there legislation already in place to cover things like this.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
They have a licence from the DoT.
“Oh I’m all in favour of recovering it, but the vast majority of it should be taken by the government,….”
The two parts of that are contradictory. If the vast majority of the value is taken by the government then no private individual is going to recover it, are they? And the government is unlikely to do so. So your wish is unlikely to be granted. I think you shot yourself in the foot.
Not at all. If no other wants to recover it under those terms then it stays. If there is a major threat of theft then just blow the whole thing up.
Given that in the grand scheme of things, 30M is ****** all. maybe they should give it to the RNLI.
The majority of the money goes to the greedy recovery guy, and probably some will work its way to some Department of Transport people in some way or another. I doubt the taxpayer will see any benefit from it.
pppHard to just how good it is at sinking things from the video, since the warhead doesn’t seem to be used. Great video though!
These around the same warhead weight
Maverick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9RFebvQXd8
Pengiun
pppI wonder how they would feel if we went and dug up their family to check if there was any gold buried with them? I don’t think they would like it!
I think we have to be realistic about the costs of recovering this bullion and the fact that there are absolutely no guarantees that the salvor will get all, most, or any, of it to the surface.
As for what the government’s 20% should be spent on; does it really matter? In relative terms it is a tiny amount of cash and successive governments have wasted (and are going to waste) tens-of-billions more than this on NHS ‘Private Finance Initiatives’…
…but I really don’t want this to become another thread about the government and the NHS! 🙂
It’s the principle, but yes it could be put to good use. For example they could invest it in grit for the roads, or some cleaning trucks to clean the white line on the side of the road. These would actually reduce road deaths (moreso than the Police Talivans ever will).
According to the internet, some 81 men died who had been aboard the Gairsoppa. Of those some 32 are said to have boarded lifeboats. From that it appears that in the region of fifty of those men went down with the Gairsoppa. If that is so then surely it is a war grave? Bearing in mind that licences have been refused for aircraft recoveries in which it is suspected the body remains, how can a license even be considered when the graves of up to fifty men will be disturbed?
Or perhaps the British Government consider £600,000 per man to be an acceptable price for placing their morals in the back of some dark and dusty cupboard.
Disgusting.
Regards,
kev35
Oh I’m all in favour of recovering it, but the vast majority of it should be taken by the government, not some private individual. The treasures recovery should be done, IMO, to prevent anyone else recovering it or thinking there is a reason to go poking around there. Ideally it should then be put in museums along with whatever else can be found from the ship.
pppI wonder how they would feel if we went and dug up their family to check if there was any gold buried with them? I don’t think they would like it!
I think we have to be realistic about the costs of recovering this bullion and the fact that there are absolutely no guarantees that the salvor will get all, most, or any, of it to the surface.
As for what the government’s 20% should be spent on; does it really matter? In relative terms it is a tiny amount of cash and successive governments have wasted (and are going to waste) tens-of-billions more than this on NHS ‘Private Finance Initiatives’…
…but I really don’t want this to become another thread about the government and the NHS! 🙂
It’s the principle, but yes it could be put to good use. For example they could invest it in grit for the roads, or some cleaning trucks to clean the white line on the side of the road. These would actually reduce road deaths (moreso than the Police Talivans ever will).
According to the internet, some 81 men died who had been aboard the Gairsoppa. Of those some 32 are said to have boarded lifeboats. From that it appears that in the region of fifty of those men went down with the Gairsoppa. If that is so then surely it is a war grave? Bearing in mind that licences have been refused for aircraft recoveries in which it is suspected the body remains, how can a license even be considered when the graves of up to fifty men will be disturbed?
Or perhaps the British Government consider £600,000 per man to be an acceptable price for placing their morals in the back of some dark and dusty cupboard.
Disgusting.
Regards,
kev35
Oh I’m all in favour of recovering it, but the vast majority of it should be taken by the government, not some private individual. The treasures recovery should be done, IMO, to prevent anyone else recovering it or thinking there is a reason to go poking around there. Ideally it should then be put in museums along with whatever else can be found from the ship.
pppI’m sure they have “friends” in the Department for Transport, hence why they get to keep an astounding 80% of the British people’s silver bullion and march through our war graves!
Sign In
