Speed Limit On Sheffield Parkway Set To Be Cut?

[Cyclone 10]

Well done, you quoted me without adding any content.

[Padders 2,850]

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 .

[Guest makapaka]

Not at all. 

 

As you can see on the M4 it was reduced to 50 for a stretch for environmental purposes. Not to 5mph or 10mph.

 

its not sensible to suggest people drive at that speed or walking pace - which is why no one is suggesting it other than you. 

 

You don’t have to prove a road is unsafe to know that travelling at lower speeds is safer. 

 

The thread is about the parkway - which reducing to 50mph is in line with other environmental reductions in other areas - only extends what is already the existing speed limit in parts and would improve the environment.

 

 

[Padders 2,850]

3 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Well done, you quoted me without adding any content.

I know I was getting giddy over your reply.

[Cyclone 10]

3 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Not at all. 

 

As you can see on the M4 it was reduced to 50 for a stretch for environmental purposes. Not to 5mph or 10mph.

 

its not sensible to suggest people drive at that speed or walking pace - which is why no one is suggesting it other than you. 

 

You don’t have to prove a road is unsafe to know that travelling at lower speeds is safer. 

 

The thread is about the parkway - which reducing to 50mph is in line with other environmental reductions in other areas - only extends what is already the existing speed limit in parts and would improve the environment.

 

 

50 makes sense for environmental reasons, which is why I separately commented on your safety point.

If the argument is for safety then slower is safer, so 3 mph is safest.  So why not reduce speeds to that.  Over to you.  And since you say that slower is safer, full stop, why shouldn't we reduce all roads everywhere to the slowest speeds for safety reasons?  Can you make any argument as to why the danger of 50 is acceptable, but 70 is not?

[WiseOwl182 10]

5 minutes ago, makapaka said:

Not at all. 

 

As you can see on the M4 it was reduced to 50 for a stretch for environmental purposes. Not to 5mph or 10mph.

 

its not sensible to suggest people drive at that speed or walking pace - which is why no one is suggesting it other than you. 

 

You don’t have to prove a road is unsafe to know that travelling at lower speeds is safer. 

 

The thread is about the parkway - which reducing to 50mph is in line with other environmental reductions in other areas - only extends what is already the existing speed limit in parts and would improve the environment.

 

 

Why stop at 50 though? 40 would be even safer and environmentally friendly. It's only a few miles so losing another 10mph won't hurt much.

[Cyclone 10]

Your argument goes thus Makapaka;

 

Why reduce the parkway speed to 50?

You: It's safer.

Why not reduce all roads then?

You: Nobody said that.

Why not reduce it to 30?

You: Nobody said that.

 

But you can't actually make any argument as to why the parkway should be reduced and not all roads, nor why 50 and not 60, or 30, or any other arbitrary number.  You don't have any argument.  You just have vacuous soundbites.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Cyclone

[Resident 1,185]

Can I just say I have a sneaking suspicion that myself and Padders are in the same profession. 

 

At which point I'd like to point out that I qualified in May for this profession and within 2 weeks was given a safety award. 

It wasn't hard to achieve. 

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

50 makes sense for environmental reasons, which is why I separately commented on your safety point.

If the argument is for safety then slower is safer, so 3 mph is safest.  So why not reduce speeds to that.  Over to you.  And since you say that slower is safer, full stop, why shouldn't we reduce all roads everywhere to the slowest speeds for safety reasons?  Can you make any argument as to why the danger of 50 is acceptable, but 70 is not?

Yes. Slower is safer. But it would be foolish to expect people to drive at 3mph.

 

Some of the parkway is already 50mph - keeping the rest of it the same won’t significantly impact travel times and will mean people are travelling at lower speeds which allows for better reaction times / stopping distances etc. 

 

purely for environmental purposes it makes sense. So that’s the first plus point.

 

There is also the bolt on of added safety.

 

do you just like driving a bit fast? I remember a previous thread where you talked about flashing and undertaking a driver doing 50mph on the

parkway.

 

it might be fun for you - but I’d prefer a better environment and cars driving at lower speeds than your desire to drive at 70mph.

[ECCOnoob 1,021]

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

Yes. Slower is safer. But it would be foolish to expect people to drive at 3mph.

 

Some of the parkway is already 50mph - keeping the rest of it the same won’t significantly impact travel times and will mean people are travelling at lower speeds which allows for better reaction times / stopping distances etc. 

 

purely for environmental purposes it makes sense. So that’s the first plus point.

 

There is also the bolt on of added safety.

 

do you just like driving a bit fast? I remember a previous thread where you talked about flashing and undertaking a driver doing 50mph on the

parkway.

 

it might be fun for you - but I’d prefer a better environment and cars driving at lower speeds than your desire to drive at 70mph.

Well then you are completely selfish.    What you deem "a better environment" is impacting others. 

 

Do you ever stop to think that some of us would like to get to our destinations promptly, using the roads to their full safe and legally deemed limits and driving with the competence and confidence as we were trained to do and measured upon within our driving licence tests.

 

Just because people like yourself cannot seem to handle such limits and laughingly deem them unsafe does not give you the right to prevent nor preach others who are driving at speeds which are perfectly legal as assessed by professionals with a damn sight more knowledge and experience than you have.  

 

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Cyclone 10]

8 hours ago, makapaka said:

Yes. Slower is safer. But it would be foolish to expect people to drive at 3mph.

 

So the only argument you've presented there is that some of the parkway is already 50 and that 3 is foolish.  So basically, no argument at all.

[Resident 1,185]

I'd like to point out that my car, like many modern vehicles, are actually more efficient at 70 that they are at 50.

 

At 50mph in my car I'm still in 5th, at around 2200rpm & the turbo spooling bearing in mind it's diesel. 

At 70mph (well around 63)I'm able to engage 6th gear. This drops rpm to around 1300 and as it's not needed, the turbo shuts off. 

 

Less fuel + greater speed = greater efficiency + less emissions 

 

So these environmental arguments are baseless.