UK Karting - Notice Board (Chat) : Re: Ok, you two!

Notice Board (Chat)

Re: Ok, you two!
Posted by 'davidmc' on 13 Aug 2010 @ 13:07

| View Message Thread | Reply to this message |

davidmcJoined: April 2003
Total Posts: 2
[ View User Profile ]

1) Whether the device already exists or not is irrelevant to the argument that it would be a better solution. It is obvious that the technical challenges of engineering a speed limiter are in no way disproportional to the same challenges faced in developing speed cameras.

2) It's not my responsibility to say how it would work for all the types of engines you listed, but since they all have a means of speed control, it can be done. Again, we required lorries to fit speed limiters and they now have speed limiters fitted. Why not for cars? Again, it can be engineered and it can be engineered cheaply if that is what we choose to do. Further, for new vehicles the responsibility lies with car manufacturers and this could be extended to cars of a certain age also.

3) Firstly RFID or similar would only transmit the current speed limit. The vehicle remains with no knowledge of where it is, only the speed limit that currently applies. Secondly, you are using double standards again. Almost all of your examples of the speed limiter system failing could be applied to speed cameras. Cutting down cameras, spray painting lenses, removing number plates. Added to this is the fact that cameras are only partially effective at stopping speeding also (as evidenced by the number of people caught). Thirdly, with less speed limit changes, and sensors/transmitters embedded in the road, interefernce from other cars wouldn't be a problem and the number of road installations would certainly be less than installing a SPECS system (one sensor/transmitter set at each limit change) or a network of cameras throughout the country, which you have previously supported.

4) Your limiter will be checked as part of the MOT. You always state "if it saves just one life it is worth it" with regards to speed cameras and speeding in general. Aside from SPECS, speed cameras have evidently failed to control speed over any significant distance of road. Speed limiters would do a much better job. Regarding checking, applying the same standards to cameras as you are to limiters, who is going to check those?

5) ID cards weren't scrapped because of costs per se. They were scrapped because the cost brought no benefit. The spending was unjustified since they did nothing to meet the objectives they were introduced to meet. The spending was frivolous because it was evident to anybody with half an ounce of sense that ID cards did nothing to meet the objectives set yet Labour ploughed on anyway.

6) I have no idea whether it is about cost cutting or not. If it is, then it is evident that your argument regarding the self-financing aspect of the cameras is false. If it isn't, then it is either because the Government figures suggest they do not work (the same figures you have been using to show they do work) or the Goverment think they can earn brownie points by removing them.

7) Again, double standards. The Gatso and Specs cameras had a one-off cost of installation to the UK taxpayer and was almost certainly paid for by ALL taxpayers, not just motorists. If the government will foot the bill for camera isntallations, why not for limiter installations? We all know it comes out of our pocket anyway but the argument is the same nonetheless. Secondly, you are happy for people to pay to be retested every five years at a cost of (lets say) Ł200 which could easily be Ł2000 or more over a lifetime, but not for people to pay for limiters to be fitted?

Message Thread:

We'll see....... by 'itpro' (10 Aug 2010 @ 17:53)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Aquila' (10 Aug 2010 @ 18:43)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (10 Aug 2010 @ 20:06)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Aquila' (10 Aug 2010 @ 20:45)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (10 Aug 2010 @ 21:12)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Aquila' (10 Aug 2010 @ 21:21)

Its 2010 by 'DavyBoy' (10 Aug 2010 @ 21:29)

Re: Its 2010 by 'Aquila' (10 Aug 2010 @ 21:36)

Re: Its 2010 by 'itpro' (10 Aug 2010 @ 22:03)

The oddest thing is. by 'AlfieMoon' (10 Aug 2010 @ 22:06)

Re: The oddest thing is. by 'itpro' (11 Aug 2010 @ 1:10)

Re: The oddest thing is. by 'AlfieMoon' (11 Aug 2010 @ 13:51)

Re: The oddest thing is. by 'itpro' (11 Aug 2010 @ 16:22)

Re: Its 2010.... Davy by 'itpro' (10 Aug 2010 @ 21:59)

Re: Its 2010.... Davy by 'DavyBoy' (11 Aug 2010 @ 14:17)

Re: Its 2010.... Davy by 'Traxtar' (11 Aug 2010 @ 15:10)

Re: Its 2010.... Davy by 'itpro' (11 Aug 2010 @ 16:29)

Re: Its 2010.... Davy by 'DavyBoy' (11 Aug 2010 @ 18:42)

Re: Its 2010.... Davy by 'RoadRat' (11 Aug 2010 @ 18:53)

Re: Its 2010.... RoadRat by 'itpro' (11 Aug 2010 @ 22:04)

Re: Its 2010.... Davy by 'itpro' (11 Aug 2010 @ 21:58)

Its not quite the same Ian by 'DavyBoy' (12 Aug 2010 @ 8:47)

Re: Its not quite the same Ian by 'itpro' (12 Aug 2010 @ 10:13)

Re: Its not quite the same Ian by 'DavyBoy' (12 Aug 2010 @ 11:46)

Re: Its not quite the same Ian by 'itpro' (12 Aug 2010 @ 13:33)

Re: Its not quite the same Ian by 'DavyBoy' (12 Aug 2010 @ 16:17)

Re: Its not quite the same Ian by 'itpro' (12 Aug 2010 @ 16:31)

Re: Its not quite the same Ian by 'DavyBoy' (12 Aug 2010 @ 17:53)

Re: Its not quite the same Ian by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 10:42)

Re: Its not quite the same Ian by 'davidmc' (13 Aug 2010 @ 14:06)

Of COURSE I support the development of limiters by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 14:53)

Re: Its not quite the same Ian by 'davidmc' (12 Aug 2010 @ 18:27)

Ok, you two! by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 10:55)

Re: Ok, you two! by 'DavyBoy' (13 Aug 2010 @ 11:29)

Re: Ok, you two! Hang on.... by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 11:42)

Re: Ok, you two! Hang on.... by 'DavyBoy' (13 Aug 2010 @ 13:56)

Re: Ok, you two! Hang on.... by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 14:43)

Re: Ok, you two! Hang on.... by 'DavyBoy' (13 Aug 2010 @ 15:13)

Re: Ok, you two! Hang on.... by 'davidmc' (13 Aug 2010 @ 15:17)

Re: Ok, you two! Hang on.... by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 15:40)

Re: Ok, you two! Hang on.... by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 15:51)

Re: Itpro by 'davidmc' (13 Aug 2010 @ 16:01)

Re: Ok, you two! Hang on.... by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 16:20)

Re: Ok, you two! Hang on.... by 'DavyBoy' (13 Aug 2010 @ 17:57)

Re: Ok, you two! Hang on.... by 'itpro' (16 Aug 2010 @ 14:09)

Itpro by 'davidmc' (16 Aug 2010 @ 15:00)

Re: Ok, you two! Hang on.... by 'itpro' (16 Aug 2010 @ 21:10)

Re: Ok, you two! by 'davidmc' (13 Aug 2010 @ 11:53)

Re: Ok, you two! by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 12:14)

Re: Ok, you two! by 'davidmc' << You are here!

Re: Ok, you two! by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 14:32)

Re: Ok, you two! by 'RoadRat' (13 Aug 2010 @ 15:06)

RoadRat by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 16:08)

Re: Ok, you two! by 'davidmc' (13 Aug 2010 @ 15:13)

Re: Ok, you two! by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 15:53)

Re: Ok, you two! by 'Traxtar' (16 Aug 2010 @ 18:10)

Re: Ok, you two! by 'itpro' (16 Aug 2010 @ 21:15)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Aquila' (10 Aug 2010 @ 21:31)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (10 Aug 2010 @ 22:01)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (10 Aug 2010 @ 21:56)

Re: We'll see....... by 'RoadRat' (11 Aug 2010 @ 11:23)

Re: We'll see....... by 'PaulMRotax' (11 Aug 2010 @ 20:55)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Newshound' (11 Aug 2010 @ 21:14)

Re: We'll see....... by 'PaulMRotax' (11 Aug 2010 @ 21:34)

Re: We'll see....... Newshound by 'itpro' (11 Aug 2010 @ 21:54)

Re: We'll see....... Newshound by 'PaulMRotax' (12 Aug 2010 @ 7:45)

Re: We'll see....... Newshound by 'itpro' (12 Aug 2010 @ 10:19)

Re: We'll see....... Newshound by 'PaulMRotax' (12 Aug 2010 @ 18:44)

Here's the 'WINNER' by Paul! by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 11:27)

Re: Here's the 'WINNER' by Paul! by 'PaulMRotax' (13 Aug 2010 @ 18:40)

Re: Here's the 'WINNER' by Paul! by 'itpro' (16 Aug 2010 @ 12:25)

Re: Here's the 'WINNER' by Paul! by 'PaulMRotax' (17 Aug 2010 @ 21:15)

Paul..... by 'itpro' (11 Aug 2010 @ 22:07)

Re: Paul..... by 'Doink' (12 Aug 2010 @ 0:11)

Re: Paul..... by 'itpro' (12 Aug 2010 @ 10:29)

Re: Paul..... by 'PaulMRotax' (12 Aug 2010 @ 18:47)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Newshound' (11 Aug 2010 @ 22:20)

Re: We'll see....... by 'stevenw' (12 Aug 2010 @ 1:08)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Aquila' (12 Aug 2010 @ 7:30)

Re: We'll see....... by 'PaulMRotax' (12 Aug 2010 @ 7:39)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Newshound' (12 Aug 2010 @ 8:58)

Newshound by 'stevenw' (12 Aug 2010 @ 9:05)

Re: Newshound by 'Newshound' (12 Aug 2010 @ 9:09)

Re: Newshound by 'stevenw' (12 Aug 2010 @ 9:20)

Re: We'll see....... by 'PaulMRotax' (12 Aug 2010 @ 18:49)

Re: We'll see....... by 'PaulMRotax' (12 Aug 2010 @ 7:51)

Re: We'll see....... by 'RoadRat' (12 Aug 2010 @ 8:38)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Aquila' (12 Aug 2010 @ 9:00)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (12 Aug 2010 @ 10:07)

Re: We'll see....... by 'RoadRat' (12 Aug 2010 @ 11:18)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (12 Aug 2010 @ 11:44)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Doink' (12 Aug 2010 @ 12:00)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (12 Aug 2010 @ 13:34)

Re: We'll see....... by 'RoadRat' (12 Aug 2010 @ 12:25)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (12 Aug 2010 @ 13:26)

Re: We'll see....... by 'davidmc' (12 Aug 2010 @ 18:51)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 11:01)

Re: We'll see....... by 'davidmc' (13 Aug 2010 @ 12:02)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 12:19)

Re: We'll see....... by 'davidmc' (13 Aug 2010 @ 13:12)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Aquila' (12 Aug 2010 @ 12:12)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Newshound' (12 Aug 2010 @ 13:41)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (12 Aug 2010 @ 13:48)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (12 Aug 2010 @ 13:45)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Aquila' (12 Aug 2010 @ 14:13)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (12 Aug 2010 @ 14:40)

Re: We'll see....... by 'PaulMRotax' (12 Aug 2010 @ 18:54)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 11:03)

Re: We'll see....... by 'buzzinrussell' (12 Aug 2010 @ 14:38)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Aquila' (12 Aug 2010 @ 14:41)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (12 Aug 2010 @ 14:47)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (12 Aug 2010 @ 14:45)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Gillard77' (12 Aug 2010 @ 16:36)

Re: We'll see....... by 'Newshound' (12 Aug 2010 @ 16:53)

Re: We'll see....... by 'davidmc' (12 Aug 2010 @ 19:04)

Newshound by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 11:33)

Re: We'll see....... by 'buzzinrussell' (12 Aug 2010 @ 20:54)

Be careful Russ....... by 'Newshound' (12 Aug 2010 @ 21:24)

Re: Be careful Russ....... by 'buzzinrussell' (12 Aug 2010 @ 22:15)

Re: Be careful Russ....... by 'PaulMRotax' (12 Aug 2010 @ 22:35)

Re: We'll see....... by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 11:45)

Firmly touching wood as I type. by 'RoadRat' (13 Aug 2010 @ 18:44)

Did I really say that....... by 'RoadRat' (14 Aug 2010 @ 7:40)

Re: Did I really say that....... by 'Doink' (14 Aug 2010 @ 12:21)

For those who think I claim to be perfect.... by 'itpro' (16 Aug 2010 @ 12:36)

Re: For those who think I claim to be perfect.... by 'Gillard77' (16 Aug 2010 @ 15:30)

Re: For those who think I claim to be perfect.... by 'itpro' (17 Aug 2010 @ 0:05)

Re: For those who think I claim to be perfect.... by 'PaulMRotax' (19 Aug 2010 @ 7:48)

Gillard by 'itpro' (13 Aug 2010 @ 11:29)

Re: Gillard by 'Gillard77' (13 Aug 2010 @ 13:01)

Post a Reply:

You may post a direct reply to this message which will appear in this thread.
To post a new or unrelated message use This Form. Top of Page
Notice Board Index

[ UK Karting Main Index ]


News	Karts & Karting	Notice Board	Market Place	Companies Directory	Tracks Directory	Events Calendar	Race Results	Photo Gallery	Links