Monday, 7 November 2011

I use dead people – The M5 crash, Labour and 65mph limit

The Multi Car Pile up on the M5 was just too good a bandwagon for Labour to avoid. Before they have finished scraping the last of the dead off the road they’re jumping up and down saying the speed limit should be reduced to 65 Mph when it rains. Nice one Labour, very tasteful; ignoring the fact that it looks like this pile up was caused by a) Fog rather than wet roads and b) what the fucking fuck is 5mph difference going to make? The state of the Car, how much rain, whether the car has ABS, the age and reaction times of the driver and the tyre wear are going to affect stopping distances far more that a measly 5 mph difference that is within the margin of error for most cars speedometers. What will also affect the stopping distance is the stupidity of the driver, and the degree to which they are driving like a cunt, but legislating on that would mean Labour voters being shoe horned into cars fitted with pedals which would be discriminatory.

A bunch of Nanny State pricks using deaths as political leverage, thank God these knee jerk idiots are in opposition now. When it’s pissing it down (or foggy) I have no problems with reducing the speed limit down to 60 or even 40. They’re called variable limits, you just click a button and all the signs on the M25 change. It’s already legislation; it requires no more training, very little extra cost; and has been shown to work both here and in Europe. But (and this is a big but) the minute the problem clears you put the speed limit back to a more reasonable speed. The Conservatives are right to move the speed limit up – not down – when the weather is good. But blanket legislation on rain is the dumbest idea I’ve heard in a long time, who decides how much rain actually constitutes “Rain”, “Your Honour, I’d like to call Ian McCaskill in my defence regarding getting off this speeding ticket”. Who is going to legally define when the roads are still piss wet through?

Educate drivers at the start to stop driving like nobs and you'll stop far more accidents than a blanket speed limit.



5 comments:

startledcod said...

Speed limits, I think you'll find it was caused by that other great under-regulated evil - fireworks. They're dangerous and should be banned.

There is one compulsory modification that could reduce road deaths at a stroke; the compulsory removal of all air-bags and the installation of a razor sharp 4 inch jaggedy spike in the middle of every steering wheel hub and, on deluxe versions add a spike on the passenger's part of the dashboard and in the backs of the front seats.

Simples.

John Galt said...

Labour really are a bunch of twats.

If you notice from the picture, the vast majority of the pillup was trucks (not unreasonable for the M5 at that time of day).

These will have inevitably been travelling at <60 mph. Since most are fitted with speed limiters set at 56mph.

This has nothing to do with speed and everything to do with unfortunate weather conditions, possibly with some smoke contamination thrown in.

However, from Labours fascist perspective speed is a good answer. Its exactly measureable and you fine people for exceeding it, so more money into the coffers to pay for Labour clients (Warble Gloaming diversity advisors, etc.).

Last time I checked, it was very difficult to sue the weather and of course Labour don't believe in God except in the most offensive morally relativistic way.

Cunts.

Lord T said...

I hate those variable speed limits. They get set to 60 then you drive for a bit and then they are 50 with no changes other than the fucking signs. You don't even notice them until the guy in front slams on as he gets to them.

You say they are proven to work? Where is that then?

Longrider said...

Lord T - on the M27 around Birmingham in the rush hour they have the effect of reducing the Mexican wave effect. Everything is moving at around 50mph as opposed to the stop/start effect that usually happens. So, in that respect, yeah, they work.

John Galt - speed will have been a factor. According to eyewitnesses, vehicles were travelling at about 60mph. In dense fog this is too fast if the driver cannot stop in what he can see to be clear. So, yeah, speed will likely prove to be a factor in that drivers didn't adjust their speed for the conditions - nothing to do with speed limits.

France has a dual limit - 130kmh reduced to 110kmh in the wet. the trouble is as mentioned in this post - I find myself wondering whether it applies in drizzle or do I have to wait for a downpour? Or, do I do the sensible thing and apply common sense and drive according to the conditions? Yeah, maybe that...

Single acts of tyranny said...

If you tell someone the limit is X then you remove the need to think from the driver, i.e. "yes I smashed into the back of the bus carrying disabled toddlers your honour but I was under the speed limit" etc.

No speed limits mean people have to think, juts as no road markings have been shown to lower speeds. Thus no speed limits.

(Declaration of personal interest: In 2008, January 1st, 9.45am I was nipping along the M4. It was EMPTY by virtue of the fact everyone else had a hangover in bed. Seriously, minutes passed when I did not see other cars. Conditions were fine, my TT was new and I exceeded the speed limit quite a bit. Could I reason with the Avon & Somerset Constabulary? Nope!)

There was an error in this gadget