UK Conservatives defend right to break speed limit

One has to wonder who the stakeholders are in this report, certainly not the downtrodden citizens of the previously free nations of the eussr, but most likely the Sattelite owners, the electronic hardware manufacturers and the people who make the software to run the hardware.

The issue does not go far enough.

There are no reasons why people should speed on any roads at all. If they care about "Other People" rather than follow the "Me, Me, Me" selfish approach of the British Drivers then they would realise that there were other ways.

There is no reason why any car or other vehicle on roads should need an engine that could convey this lethal weapon forward at greater than 120 kilometres an hour. It is a nonsense and a farce for car manufacturers to continue with this myth that cars are more like status symbols and an extension of personal empowerment.

We are all forthis issue as the reduction in speed limits will reduce fuel usage and reduce oil consumption.

It is evident around the EU that the trials at placing FULLY MANDATED speed limits in Towns at 30 kilometres an hour work well. Adopting upper speed limits has to follow and remotely doing this is very appropriate.

The enforcement of these is the issue. As far as I have seen in the UK it is a joke for drivers to say oh yes I have two penalty infringement notices that were caused by speeding on a motorway as I was stopped at 150 kilomtres an hour, or that they always speed. This needs readjusting and the way for that to happen is to have a two-offence speeding control limit and an automatic disqualification for three years and a hefty fine at the second issue. Having seen two inocent people killed on motorways and ordinary rural toads killed outright with company car drivers and others speeding and then going to tell the relatives that this was an accident is not on. Speeding is not an accident it is a choice and as a choice its consequences are often disregarded and under the control of the driver when in fact the issue is.

The respondents here say this is against human rights (or some other pseudonym of freedom of choice) and they are not to be exploited. Motorcyclists have to wear helmets. You have to have insurance to drive a car. You need to demonstrate proficiency in driving.

Whether we kill 1900 or 5000 people on the roads each year is not the issue.

If we were to kill 15 people yearly on our construction sites (in the UK) there would be uproar, and the Hand SE would intervene.

If we were to kill 18 people in a train it is a major incident that then requires legislation.

If we were to kill 1,900 annually in air craft crashes in the UK (or 45,000 annually across the world) no one would fly.

This complacency of the issue that road deaths are accidents is misguided. They may not be contrived - as in a murder - but the results are just as traumatc. There is no compensation for a person killed in a road accident or his family. The perpetrtator is culpable and his insurance picks up the bill...or just part of it. In the UK the State picks up the bill for most of the damages associated with car accidents and the culprit driver often gets away with nothing more than increased premiums in his insurance on top of any fine and potentially penalty costs.

Of course it isn't just the fatalities that is the issue it is the other injured. Seriously-injured accounts for well over 50,000 a year in the UK and with each costing the state 10,000 to 100,000 a year the bill is expensive at around £1,500 to 4,000 Million a year and everyone else pays for this.

It is typical of the British to say this is unfair and it is typical of the motorist to say so.

As a single woman whose work involves having to travel late at night or in the early hours of the morning, I feel vulnerable sticking to the 20 or 30 mph limits and often exceed these limits when no-one is around, for reasons of personal safety. Also, occasionally one needs to accelerate quickly in traffic, to avoid danger. This system would make me and others like me, more vulnerable. This 'EU stakeholder consultation into Intelligent Speed Adaptation technology' is no doubt another black-hole into which the slaves of the EU's hard-earned money disappears. The EU needs to stick to the important things when it comes to spending our money, such as ensuring that the citizens of Europe (whether they wish to be so or not) can eat properly and keep themselves warm in winter and that we all have a reasonable standard of healthcare at our disposal. The accusations here that those involved in this consultation are the suppliers of the technology used to forceably limit speed, shows how much distrust the EU leaders have created amongst the ordinary people, doesn't it?

The question is not, I repeat not, relevant only to the british. When the Swedish minister of transports in the mid nineties authorized erecting up to 1000 automatic speed cameras, she had a slip of tongue. "The cameras will only be used to fine those exceeding speed limits, for starters."
These cameras today pose a significant threat to all road travelers. Since most drivers drive at a speed they find agreeable regardless of speed limits, everything is moving along smoothly until you approach a camera. Because you don't know who'll panic and slam the brakes in fear of the fines.
Keith finds no use for going faster than 120 kmh. Well, I do! On good roads 150 kmh is avery comfortable speed with a modern car. Even 200 is very practical, it gets you to your destination in a short time, in a good mood wtih energy left to do something useful when you get there.
The purpose of roads is to facilitate communications, transport, the exchange of goods, services and ideas, commerce. The eurocrats should look into how to enhance that purpose, not how to stifle it!

"Only 6 per cent of fatalities occurred on motorways, although they took 20 per cent of traffic."
http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-safety-annual-report-2011/rrcgb2011-01.pdf

Yet another infantile response by the British media and politicians to an interesting proposal from elsewhere. But commenting constructively is much less fun than the usual knee-jerk rejection, which anyone can manage without taxing their brains. Of course the extra costs of fitting and operating the suggested system needs to be calculated with care, but then set against the undoubted benefits that would result from fuel savings and fewer accidents. The objectors must logically be equally against the presence of police patrol cars and any other ways of enforcing the traffic laws; indeed, if personal freedom is paramount, why not abolish the police altogether - that would save billions, wouldn't it? If speed limits are unnecessarily low, then raise them, after sensible discussion. You can't delegate to individual drivers the right to decide what is the proper limit - who would then look after the rights of other road users e.g. cyclists and pedestrians, and how? And given that we all are much better drivers than the average, what would the consensus be for the right speed limit for say Piccadilly or The Mall in London? God preserve us from the tyranny of inconsiderate drivers.

Indeed I already crashed my own plane in a drunken and high state .Huh .Sorry would't do again . I wasn't aware until BBC told me what happen that day . Cars are less dangerous driving a delimited one is an democratic choice one whilst at the same time grass smoking in high speeding adrenaline state.

So you car haters choose to ignore facts? You did not notice Duke Ganote's link above. You have not learned of international experiences from countries like Denmark and the USA, that raised speed limits results in lower numbers of accidents and deaths?
Do you remember Ralph Naders infamous claim in the 1960's that automobiles were "unsafe at any speed"? That means in plain english that speed is not a part of the equation when assessing the dangers of motoring. But the only thing people remembers is the misconception that cars (and traffic) become more dangerous with increasing speed. This is also what research has been looking for and trying to confirm. Of course they have found what they were looking for, since they were not looking for anything else. Just like the IPCC and the climate hoax.

The slower you drive Andre the easier it makes it for potential car thieves, muggers, rapists etc to see that there's a young woman alone in the car and give chase. It's also easier for them to cause that lone woman to stop by perhaps pulling out in front of her and blocking her path (I'd thought it was common sense really but hey, never mind). These types of people would have ways to disable any speed-limiting software, whereas the ordinary law-abiding citizen wouldn't. And no it's not anti-EU, it's anti-big brother and anti-waste of money. There's so much more, that's really important, that our hard-earned taxes could (should) be spent on by the EU bureaucrats.

It's a made up story Barry. My comment on top of the page - do you see it. You should try reading it next time.

Antipopulist where do you think the eurocrats get their ideas from, they are so stupid they have none of their own.

@ Antipopulist
Quad erat demonstrandum

I'm no europhobic, but of course the story is made up. Look at the headline, a blatant lie. The tories do not want people to break the laws. They want the EU to respect the right of the british make their own laws, so that the british do not have brake european laws to live like the british prefers.
But the "journalists" att Euractive does not respect that position regarding the EU and the member states. This is a real democratic problem and is producing a growing loss of civil liberties in all of EU.

Anyway, full speed saves time!

Conservatives want to help people breaking the law and committing crimes... kind of like the punks or something!Rage against the machines....

I've been chased for miles by a couple of men in a car Andre (and yes they were chasing me because I zig-zagged all over the place to try and shake them off and they followed me for almost an hour until I was able to get someone to confront them and stopped my car so they stopped too. Who knows what would have happened if they'd managed to catch me while I was alone? And yes I do know people who've had their cars hijacked, so my comment was a valid one even if you feel it wasn't. Assuming you're a man, I gather you have little idea of what can make a woman feel vulnerable, so it's probably more sensible not to scoff!

Am xavi Gerad jude, Aiicco inssurance plc bir temsilcisi.
Size bir kredi ihtiyaci varsa bugün e-posta yoluyla bugün bize ulasin, istediginiz kredi ile size yardimci olabilir:
(xavigeradloanfirm@yahoo.com)
Yilbasi kredileri% 3 faiz orani sadece avelable vardir. Ciddi basvuran, ancak daha fazla bilgi için irtibata geçiniz. Biz renging krediler
sunuyoruz
3000 sadece US $ Euro ve pound 50,000.000 için.
Biz dahil kredi her türlü teklif
Bireysel krediler:
Isletme Kredileri:
Ögrenci Kredileri:
Insaati krediler:
Ev kredileri:
Is expandsion krediler:
Borç konsolidasyonu kredi:
Biz hizli ve dinamik test edilmis ve güvenilir bulunmaktadir.
Daha fazla bilgi için (xavigeradloanfirm@yahoo.com): E-posta Iletisim.

Sr Gerad jude görüyoruz.

Lets be honest unless you are a politician there is no good argument for any eussr law. They are the only ones who benefit from its existance.

Wouldn't put it past them they think they are above the law anyway. A serving commissioner can't be charged with a crime under the laws of the eussr.

Barry Davies, thanks for white knighting the nonsense Sally puts forward here.

So because women like Sally "feel vulnerable on their own", restrictions of driving speed shouldn't exist and anyone thinking differently is therefore a macho?

Concerning rapes or murders avoided because of the possibility for the victimes to break speed limits, there might be in the whole of the EU only a couple a year of such (lucky) cases, but on the contrary, it's a proven fact that in the mean time speed-limit breaks kill tens of thousends of lives (mostly from passegers, pedestrians or unresponsable other drivers involved), not mentioning the hundreds of thousends of people injured (often parlytic) and the milions of family members who have to live with the emocional and material consequences of other people's personal arrangements with speed-limit laws (because they felt kind of in a rush, you know)!

How many deads on the road before just one guy/lady happens to be saved thanks to the ability to break speed limits (trying to escape a terrorist attack for example)?

Following this logic one could also add that there is no point either in trying to limit rapes or murders of women through allowing speed-limit breaks, as it's always going to happen either in the car-park or at the petrol station.

So the statistics are..

Barry Davies writes 12 times...he definitely takes the laurel wreaths for stating that everyone should be allowed to speed.

Car manufacturers and the oil companies are in cahoots with each other to produce over-sized cars that have engines that can drive vehicles that can reach twice the reasonable speed limits so as to expand the egos of drivers who have fallen for the system.

Parading some of the nonsense set out in this series of statements is as though the tale is wagging the dog.

The statements about not being able to speed are faulted by anyof the statements paraded by Sally and the other writers for saying that drivers can feel threatened by other drivers. This is such a remote statement as to set up the pardigm oppositional statement that women should also be banned from driving cars. The argument is trite.

The discussions about speed limits do not only refer to the stupidity of driving at horrendous limits at the upper limits but equally in towns. There is no reason why any town should not have a universal fixed maximum speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour (20 miles per hour for the people who do not understand what that means) for at that speed anyone involved in an accident will have a reasonable chance of surviving. That solves the issues of speeding in the areas where most fatalities occur.

As for the issues about how these controls could be better managed then the proposition about externally controlling such speeds by outside intervention is valid. Enforcement of speed abusers at the current time is a farce - more so in the UK. Being given what is apparently a system of points on a driving record is about as useless as a chocolate kettle. Drivers ignore them all the time until they approach what appears to be a maximum. The use of athe accummulative totting up system, first offence 4 marks, second offence 5 marks and the third offence banning outright for three years would be a common sense approach. And anyone travelling under the current rules at more than 20% above the limit should be banned immediately (and thence stopped from driving her - his - vehicle away immediately has much going for it. Most speeding occurs in towns. Most deaths on the roads occur in urban areas.

We as a World have killed more on the roads since 1919 than all the deaths resulting from the Wars that have taken place since.

So remember this and the consequences to Society when it is the health and other services that pick up the costs and the destruction of family life that results.

Remind yourself of the four-year old child walking back from school with his brother and sister and parents that when he was run over and killed that the driver of the van was doing 35 miles an hour in a 30 mile per hour speed limit in London (UK, just to avoid the one in Ontario) or of the cyclist driving around a country road in France who was killed when a VW Polo ran into him on a blind bend and the driver was doing 40 kilometres an hour when the restriction was set at 30 kilometres an hour. Tell the families of these people that you do not care about these people's lives and that you have aright to speed. Be present when the police and others turn up to tell you at 0400 hrs that there is some bad news to report and your husband - or wife - or family member has been involved in an accident involving (the - euphemism of) "the car left the road on a bend" and that the driver will be left a paraplegic the rest of her or his life. Of course these are "unintentional" and "accidents" but Keith earlier reported about this and then remember how selfish Society has become with the Me Me Me issue and the statements about being able to speed.