Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    *cough*

    On TSR, cars can already do 80 on motorways. This is not an increase.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    Motorway speed limits should be raised as most people average about 80 anyway these days. It's a pity the Libertarian influence within the government didn't push for motorway speed cameras to be scrapped entirely though.
    We [Libers] already passed a Speed Cameras Act back in 2010 (?), which will have reduced the number of speed cameras on all types of road dramatically.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    For those objecting to the increase, it's already 80mph on TSR. This bill simply gives more detail and replaces that one (there'll be a change for second reading).

    (Original post by Birchington)
    Motorway speed limits should be raised as most people average about 80 anyway these days. It's a pity the Libertarian influence within the government didn't push for motorway speed cameras to be scrapped entirely though.
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1637006
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hgat)

    Alright, I see your point... It's a balance. I would say 70 is about right
    That's from a rather non-expert position, though, if you don't mind me saying. The full projections of such a move can be found on page 32 of this report, which was the one used by the RL government.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    No, for the simple reason that this would lead to more road accidents, and also increase fuel inefficiency.



    If you up the limit to eighty, most people will just average ninety. And the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety found that there was a forty per cent reduction in accidents on roads with speed cameras, equivalent to one-hundred lives being saved each year. Taking them down would lead to more deaths and be an incredible waste of money - with this in mind, what reason could you possibly have for wanting to remove them?
    The impact will be nothing like 100 hundred extra lives lost; the estimate is 18 extra lives.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    On a totally selfish note, I wouldn't have six points if this were the law!

    ... I'd only have three.

    ;;
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
    On a totally selfish note, I wouldn't have six points if this were the law!

    ... I'd only have three.

    ;;

    ...And if you obeyed the law, you'd have none.

    As a non-driver, this bill (like the one previous to it) has little direct bearing on my life so I shall abstain from participating in the debate and shall be voting thus in the bill.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    ...And if you obeyed the law, you'd have none.

    As a non-driver, this bill (like the one previous to it) has little direct bearing on my life so I shall abstain from participating in the debate and shall be voting thus in the bill.
    Yes yes tell that to 20 year old angsty T/J. Fortunately 22 year old slightly less angsty T/J is a) not as stupid, having not sped other than 80 on dual carriageways for two years and b) sold his car because why is everything so expensive.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    We [Libers] already passed a Speed Cameras Act back in 2010 (?), which will have reduced the number of speed cameras on all types of road dramatically.
    Fair enough. Good to see you back here.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I would just like to point out to the people who say higher speeds cause more accidents, it doesn't. Dangerous driving and ignorance to driving conditions (e.g. rain, frost,etc.) causes more accidents.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This bill represents a total disregard for the environment and for human lives. This is no less than that which can be expected of a raggedy right wing coalition held together by it's contempt for everything. A fitting first bill for what would be a disappointment of a government if my expectations of it had not been set so low to be nearly impossible to exceed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    This bill represents a total disregard for the environment and for human lives. This is no less than that which can be expected of a raggedy right wing coalition held together by it's contempt for everything. A fitting first bill for what would be a disappointment of a government if my expectations of it had not been set so low to be nearly impossible to exceed.
    Protip: having vandalised the Wiki pages of two of the Government parties and then apologised for it claiming it was a silly joke and not malicious or political, coming out with this *******s is hardly sensible.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jaki_B)
    I would just like to point out to the people who say higher speeds cause more accidents, it doesn't. Dangerous driving and ignorance to driving conditions (e.g. rain, frost,etc.) causes more accidents.
    Yes, but higher speeds are a part of dangerous driving. There is no need for this, it will lead to the loss of lives - the debate is simply how many. Not to mention the environmental impact. And to what benefit? People perhaps getting around a bit faster when we should be encouraging them towards public transport instead?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also how much money will be wasted on the pointless recalibration of speed cameras exercise?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Mad Dog)
    Also how much money will be wasted on the pointless recalibration of speed cameras exercise?
    Considering there are no fixed cameras on the motorways (the ones on the gantry, on the variables speed limit motorways like the M25, only turn on when the speed limit is lowered), er, nothing will be spent...but it does make the Section rather pointless.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Considering there are no fixed cameras on the motorways (the ones on the gantry, on the variables speed limit motorways like the M25, only turn on when the speed limit is lowered), er, nothing will be spent...but it does make the Section rather pointless.
    Shelly, it's great having you back

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CLS94)
    Yes, but higher speeds are a part of dangerous driving. There is no need for this, it will lead to the loss of lives - the debate is simply how many. Not to mention the environmental impact. And to what benefit? People perhaps getting around a bit faster when we should be encouraging them towards public transport instead?
    Hmm about the environmental impact... In my dads car, when cruising at 70 he gets less MPG then when curising at 80. This environmental thing is not strictly true
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It has to be said, what a lacklustre first bill for the coalition. To be fair, it's great to start as you mean to continue, anyone care to respond to my first post?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    as someone who doesn't drive, I should care because?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    what was wrong with 70 mph? most people drive 80 anyway, so if you'll raise it the'll just drive 90/100mph
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 17, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.