Car tax price Welsh v English

[morqthana]

Who's cracking a joke?

Well, if it's not a joke then the only other alternative is that it's an idiotic statement.

Which do you think will give the most economical figures and the worse pollution - a car going along at 20mph in second or one going 30/40mph in fourth/top?

That's a pointless question because who on earth would be such an idiot that they would drive in 2nd gear?

Plus when you take a holistic approach, and consider that vehicles no longer accelerate to 30 for short periods and then have to brake from 30, and that slower traffic speeds mean fewer car journeys as more people are more inclined to walk or cycle, there is a net reduction in fuel use, a net reduction in emissions, and a net reduction in particulates from tyres and brakes.

Myth busters: 20mph speed limits | ETA

Some drivers are very cross about 20mph speed limits. The idea that towns and cities are cleaner, safer for walking and cycling, and generally...

www.eta.co.uk

 

[morqthana]

Outside a school maybe, at school time.
Or around a care home, but surely not on a dual carriageway.

For anywhere currently a 30mph limit, 20mpg is appropriate.

I'm not aware of any suggestions to reduce 40/50/60/70 zones to 20mph.

That 20mph simply proves that the pollution narrative it's all a con to charge us more tax.
By "us" I mean those who pay tax, not the leeches who live on handouts and preach for more tax increase.

There's something wrong with you, isn't there.

 

[morqthana]

The new speed limit is a bit daft, that's what happens when Labour are in charge,

Oh for pity's sake

but my complaint is knowing what the speed limit is, when one sees a 20 or 30 MPH sign, one can drive at that speed, but neither seem to have repeater signs, so you have no idea what the speed limit is, some 20 stretches do have 20 MPH repeaters, and some 30 sketches also have 30 MPH repeaters, but there does not seem to be any consistency in how the limits are signed,

There shouldn't be problems in Wales as long as drivers are clever enough to understand that the default speed limit on restricted roads is 20mph, not 30, and clever enough to understand that just as some restricted roads had posted limits which were higher than the old 30mph default some have posted limits which are higher than the new 20mph default.

I suggest that drivers who are not clever enough to understand those things are probably not clever enough to be driving at all.

As for repeaters, according to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, 30mph repeater signs are not permitted on roads with street lighting that is no more than 200 yards apart. I imagine that the same would/should/will apply to 20mph signs in any country were the default for restricted roads has been lowered from 30 to 20.

IANAL, but shouldn't the Welsh government have modified their version of the TSRGD to give 20mph repeaters on restricted roads the same status that 30mph ones had when the default for those was 30mph? Didn't they?

There are logistical issues, for example where prior to a blanket change some roads had been made 20mph, repeater signs on those might be in place because the TSRGD 2016 permitted them, but after the change they have to go, as will 20mph gateway signs which would effectively now be repeaters. Restricted roads where 30mph remains the limit will require gateway signs at the end of the 20mph zone just like they do now at the end of a 40 or 50 etc zone, but now they will need repeaters in the same way that 40/50/etc roads do.

But these things are not hard to do.

And nor is it hard for drivers to understand that if they are on a restricted road and they have not seen signs indicating a higher limit then the limit is 20mph. They used to cope just fine when the default was 30mph but sometimes there was a higher limit signed.

 

[morqthana]

If you think about your average journey along 30mph roads, a large proportion of that would be driven at or below 20mph anyway. It really isn't a big deal to drop to 20.

Imagine the limit in a built-up area had always been 20 instead of 30. You wouldn't have an issue with it. 20 makes sense.

Many other countries have lower speed limits than us in built up areas. In some places the limit is 20kph, less than 12.5mph. Hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of drivers are in places with a 30kph/18.6mph limit.

johnny2007 and Mottie ought to think about the fact that those drivers do not find that their quality of life has been so destroyed that they take their own lives. They don't regard it as an attack on their rights as free people and rise up with flaming torches and pitchforks.

So it would be here. The refuseniks would be in the same position as the ones today who will not comply with the 30 limit.

 

[Brigadier]

Seriously - just where the )*$($& do you get off thinking

that

20mph IS appropriate.

?

Due to "not so much parked, as abandoned" cars where I live, 20mph is bloody reckless.

Hence why I trundle, in such circumstances

 

[johnny2007]

There are plenty of 30mph dual carriageways, but only in built-up areas. I have covered many miles in Wales since the law change and not yet travelled on a 20mph dual carriageway, but if there are any, they would be in a previously 30mph area.

You make it sound as if Welsh dual carriageways are restricted to 20mph along their entire lengths.

If you think about your average journey along 30mph roads, a large proportion of that would be driven at or below 20mph anyway. It really isn't a big deal to drop to 20.

Imagine the limit in a built-up area had always been 20 instead of 30. You wouldn't have an issue with it. 20 makes sense.

If you want to drive fast, go on a private road or track.

30mph is not fast.
Any car built in the past 20 years can stop from 30 within 6 foot.
I tested it last time with a fiat 500, drum brakes at rear.
My 2.3 ton A6 could stop in less than that.
And please, don't start with the reaction time rubbish.
If one has 5 second reaction time simply should not be driving.
I take that you don't drive.

For anywhere currently a 30mph limit, 20mpg is appropriate.

I'm not aware of any suggestions to reduce 40/50/60/70 zones to 20mph.




There's something wrong with you, isn't there.

No, nothing wrong with me.
A lot wrong with you though.

Many other countries have lower speed limits than us in built up areas. In some places the limit is 20kph, less than 12.5mph. Hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of drivers are in places with a 30kph/18.6mph limit.

johnny2007 and Mottie ought to think about the fact that those drivers do not find that their quality of life has been so destroyed that they take their own lives. They don't regard it as an attack on their rights as free people and rise up with flaming torches and pitchforks.

Name one sane country where they have 20 km/h limit in their highway code.
Some retarded politicians in Europe have set a 20km/h limit on a handful of roads, mainly to get their names on the papers.
That's about it.
We already have lowest speed limits in the world and the war on motorists continues by lowering them further.
Speed does not kill, it's reckless drivers who kill, the ones using phones whilst driving for example, or the cyclists trying to squeeze in gaps that don't exist next to lorries.

 

[securespark]

I take that you don't drive.

Not now. But in my day, I drove all sorts all over. From a Mini to a 7.5 T. Did a lot of commercial driving and deliveries. Easily covered several hundred thousand miles.

 

[morqthana]

that


?

Due to "not so much parked, as abandoned" cars where I live, 20mph is bloody reckless.

Hence why I trundle, in such circumstances

Oh come on.

I asked you to justify your view that it is right to ignore speed limits which you think are inappropriate.

Would you care to try again, only this time with something which might work?

 

[Brigadier]

I asked you to justify your view that it is right to ignore speed limits which you think are inappropriate.

When the speed limit was reduced in a blanket fell-swoop, it will de facto not be appropriate for some of the roads on which the new limit has been applied.

For it to be correct for a road now, you have to also agree that it was incorrect for that road before.


You have said that

20mph IS appropriate.

Emphatically so.


I am of the camp that speed limits must be appropriate, otherwise they will be ignored.
Which defeats any objective that they may have had.

 

[morqthana]

30mph is not fast.

Depends on the context.

Even Usain Bolt can't quite get there.

It would be a pitiful tennis serve.

You'd have zero chance of remaining upright getting onto an escalator going that fast.

And for vehicular traffic in built up areas the limit could usefully be below it.

Any car built in the past 20 years can stop from 30 within 6 foot.

Wow - that's impressive. An average acceleration of 5g.

I hope you'll understand if I say I don't believe you.

My 2.3 ton A6 could stop in less than that.

Nor do I believe that.

And please, don't start with the reaction time rubbish.
If one has 5 second reaction time simply should not be driving.

Nobody has mentioned it at all, least of all a rubbish 5s time, until you just did.

But then spouting rubbish seems to be the one thing you are good at.

I take that you don't drive.

You really are determined to prove that you and reasoned thought have never even heard of each other, aren't you.

No, nothing wrong with me.

You say that, and yet as we shall see, it isn't true.*

Name one sane country where they have 20 km/h limit in their highway code.

I can't comment on whether they have a "highway code", but they do have traffic regulations in Belgium (and Mexico, Macao, The Philippines, Ukraine, Switzerland, Georgia and Russia), and all have 20kph speed limits.

[Is this where you show that your edifice of false beliefs includes your attitude to foreign countries?]

Some retarded politicians in Europe have set a 20km/h limit on a handful of roads, mainly to get their names on the papers.
That's about it.

Wrong.

In Belgium, for example, a 20kph limit applies to all residential streets.

So whoever told you that about retarded politicians and a handful of roads was either stupidly ignorant, or was lying to you. Maybe they were "retarded politicians".

In any event you shouldn't listen to them - they are doing you no favours at all in encouraging you to go through life believing things rooted in falsehoods.

We already have lowest speed limits in the world

No, we really don't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_by_country

So that's something else you believe which is untrue.

* and the war on motorists continues by lowering them further.

And there it is.

There is no "war on motorists". Seriously - what is wrong with you?

Speed does not kill, it's reckless drivers who kill, the ones using phones whilst driving for example, or the cyclists trying to squeeze in gaps that don't exist next to lorries.

So to what do you attribute the reductions in accidents and casualties seen in areas where speeds have been reduced?

 

[morqthana]

When the speed limit was reduced in a blanket fell-swoop, it will de facto not be appropriate for some of the roads on which the new limit has been applied.

It's a decision that the default limit for restricted roads should be 20mph not 30mph. I wonder why you cannot understand that any road can still be given a non-default limit, just as it can now, if the default is not considered appropriate?

Actually, is it that you "cannot"? Or is it that you refuse to?

For it to be correct for a road now, you have to also agree that it was incorrect for that road before.

I see no problem with society deciding that what was considered OK in the past is no longer considered that.

We see that in any number of areas, and for any number of reasons. Only a moron shuts his mind to the idea of anything ever changing.

I am of the camp that speed limits must be appropriate, otherwise they will be ignored.
Which defeats any objective that they may have had.

The objectives can be achieved by enforcement.

If you were sitting on 9 points because you'd been caught 3 times exceeding a 20mph limit because you thought it was "inappropriate", would you go out and risk another 3?

Best though, if people comply without enforcement because they are good citizens. Think of those dozens of countries and hundreds of millions if not billions of drivers where there's a 20mph/30kph limit in urban areas - is there mass disobedience?

Who are the outliers - them, or asocial people like you?

Appropriate road engineering can help too.

Are there any other laws which you think we shouldn’t have on the grounds that people inclined to break them take no notice?

How about drink-driving? Between 2010-2020 there were on average nearly 42,000 convictions for drink-driving each year. So on average at least 115 bad drivers every day don’t care about the law.

Shall we not have it, then?

What about murder? Every day 1 or 2 bad people break that law. Another candidate for abolition in the strange world inside your head where we don’t have laws because some people ignore them?

 

[morqthana]

Just in case you're one of them, I'll put you on ignore.

That's it - you close your mind to anything which conflicts with fantasies you've created.

Now everyone can see that you're a walking embodiment of prejudice and wilful ignorance.

 

[Brigadier]

It's a decision that the default limit for restricted roads should be 20mph not 30mph. I wonder why you cannot understand that any road can still be given a non-default limit, just as it can now, if the default is not considered appropriate?

Actually, is it that you "cannot"? Or is it that you refuse to?




I see no problem with society deciding that what was considered OK in the past is no longer considered that.

We see that in any number of areas, and for any number of reasons. Only a moron shuts his mind to the idea of anything ever changing.



The objectives can be achieved by enforcement.

If you were sitting on 9 points because you'd been caught 3 times exceeding a 20mph limit because you thought it was "inappropriate", would you go out and risk another 3?

Best though, if people comply without enforcement because they are good citizens. Think of those dozens of countries and hundreds of millions if not billions of drivers where there's a 20mph/30kph limit in urban areas - is there mass disobedience?

Who are the outliers - them, or asocial people like you?

Appropriate road engineering can help too.

Are there any other laws which you think we shouldn’t have on the grounds that people inclined to break them take no notice?

How about drink-driving? Between 2010-2020 there were on average nearly 42,000 convictions for drink-driving each year. So on average at least 115 bad drivers every day don’t care about the law.

Shall we not have it, then?

What about murder? Every day 1 or 2 bad people break that law. Another candidate for abolition in the strange world inside your head where we don’t have laws because some people ignore them?

As you have built your entire post on a deliberately - I used that word intentionally, as you clearly have some intelligence, but even more dishonesty - false meaning of my answer, I won't bother responding to it.

 

[morqthana]

As you have built your entire post on a deliberately - I used that word intentionally, as you clearly have some intelligence, but even more dishonesty - false meaning of my answer, I won't bother responding to it.

I have not done that.

If you believe that I have, will you please show where, and how?

 

[Brigadier]

I wonder why you cannot understand that any road can still be given a non-default limit,

I perfectly well understand that.

That is why I was very specific when I said the introduction of a new limit in one

fell-swoop

My position is to apply appropriate limits as appropriate, whereas you are supporting what the Welsh assembly did:

"Fook everything up, then go around doing piecemeal fixes here and there".