Speed Limit On Sheffield Parkway Set To Be Cut?

[Padders]

28 minutes ago, PRESLEY said:

Your incorrect I drive at safe speed I want to make sure I get to my destination.  Around about 45mph on the Parkway and around about   55-60mph on the Motorway.  They are not race tracks. 

Common sense Presley,

If Cyclone wants to take a spin with me, I will show him what real speed is, I"ll guarantee he will not call me slow again.

[FinBak]

1 hour ago, Padders said:

Common sense Presley,

If Cyclone wants to take a spin with me, I will show him what real speed is, I"ll guarantee he will not call me slow again.

I like that kind of talk. 

 

Besides that....The Definition of a Motorway is thus.  'A  dual-carriageway road designed for FAST TRAFFIC, with relatively few places for joining or leaving.!

[Guest makapaka]

6 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Notice that you again call people who drive AT THE SPEED LIMIT, speeders.  You know this is incorrect, you persist in saying it in the hope of misleading people.  You dawdle, driving dangerously slowly, everyone else is driving correctly.

But why not drive safer and more environmentally friendly on the parkway by making it 50mph?

[PRESLEY]

1 minute ago, makapaka said:

But why not drive safer and more environmentally friendly on the parkway by making it 50mph?

I agree, its not as though your on it for hours so a safe 50 would better than dangerous 70 because you wont have lost much time . 

[Guest makapaka]

16 minutes ago, PRESLEY said:

I agree, its not as though your on it for hours so a safe 50 would better than dangerous 70 because you wont have lost much time . 

Next to nothing in time. Safer and environmental impact is reduced.

 

no one has explained why that is a bad thing other than daft extreme counter arguments about plane travel and 10mph speed limits.....

[Cyclone]

6 hours ago, PRESLEY said:

Your incorrect I drive at safe speed I want to make sure I get to my destination.  Around about 45mph on the Parkway and around about   55-60mph on the Motorway.  They are not race tracks. 

You keep repeating this as if it's news.  Those speeds are inappropriate and would see you fail your driving test.  You've even had the relevant bits of the exam sheet quoted to you.  You're wrong, refusing to accept it won't alter it.  Your driving is poor, by your own admission.

23 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Next to nothing in time. Safer and environmental impact is reduced.

 

no one has explained why that is a bad thing other than daft extreme counter arguments about plane travel and 10mph speed limits.....

You've seen the counter, but you refuse to accept it.

If the argument is environmental then all speed limits should be lowered.

If the argument is that no time is lost then that's clearly falsifiable and nonsense.

If the argument is safety then either prove that the road is unsafe, or alternatively accept that the argument applies to all roads and explain why motorways shouldn't also have speed limits reduced.  Then accept that if slower is safer, why stop at 50 and explain why the argument doesn't result in speed limits of walking pace.

 

You haven't attempted to address any of these counters, you can't address them, and indeed you keep pretending that these points have not been made because they inconveniently destroy your argument.

5 hours ago, Padders said:

Common sense Presley,

If Cyclone wants to take a spin with me, I will show him what real speed is, I"ll guarantee he will not call me slow again.

I am unsurprisingly not worried by this.  But I'm free all next week if you'd like to pop over and take me for a drive.  Should I bring a crash helmet, or will a napping pillow be more appropriate?  Presumably we won't be breaking the speed limit at any point, so I can't imagine I'll find it very quick.

[Padders]

4 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

You keep repeating this as if it's news.  Those speeds are inappropriate and would see you fail your driving test.  You've even had the relevant bits of the exam sheet quoted to you.  You're wrong, refusing to accept it won't alter it.  Your driving is poor, by your own admission.

You've seen the counter, but you refuse to accept it.

If the argument is environmental then all speed limits should be lowered.

If the argument is that no time is lost then that's clearly falsifiable and nonsense.

If the argument is safety then either prove that the road is unsafe, or alternatively accept that the argument applies to all roads and explain why motorways shouldn't also have speed limits reduced.  Then accept that if slower is safer, why stop at 50 and explain why the argument doesn't result in speed limits of walking pace.

 

You haven't attempted to address any of these counters, you can't address them, and indeed you keep pretending that these points have not been made because they inconveniently destroy your argument.

I am unsurprisingly not worried by this.  But I'm free all next week if you'd like to pop over and take me for a drive.  Should I bring a crash helmet, or will a napping pillow be more appropriate?  Presumably we won't be breaking the speed limit at any point, so I can't imagine I'll find it very quick.

 

[Longcol]

46 minutes ago, PRESLEY said:

I agree, its not as though your on it for hours so a safe 50 would better than dangerous 70 because you wont have lost much time . 

And yet there have been as many serious and fatal accidents in the last 5 years on the couple of hundred yards of Handsworth Road by Aldi and Asda as there have been on the entire 70mph stretch of the Parkway.

 

Do a search here.

 

https://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search

[Cyclone]

Well done, you quoted me without adding any content.

[Padders]

1 minute ago, Padders said:

 

 

6 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

You keep repeating this as if it's news.  Those speeds are inappropriate and would see you fail your driving test.  You've even had the relevant bits of the exam sheet quoted to you.  You're wrong, refusing to accept it won't alter it.  Your driving is poor, by your own admission.

You've seen the counter, but you refuse to accept it.

If the argument is environmental then all speed limits should be lowered.

If the argument is that no time is lost then that's clearly falsifiable and nonsense.

If the argument is safety then either prove that the road is unsafe, or alternatively accept that the argument applies to all roads and explain why motorways shouldn't also have speed limits reduced.  Then accept that if slower is safer, why stop at 50 and explain why the argument doesn't result in speed limits of walking pace.

 

You haven't attempted to address any of these counters, you can't address them, and indeed you keep pretending that these points have not been made because they inconveniently destroy your argument.

I am unsurprisingly not worried by this.  But I'm free all next week if you'd like to pop over and take me for a drive.  Should I bring a crash helmet, or will a napping pillow be more appropriate?  Presumably we won't be breaking the speed limit at any point, so I can't imagine I'll find it very quick.

Nice bit of humour their Cyclone .