Nanny Knows Best

Nanny Knows Best
Dedicated to exposing, and resisting, the all pervasive nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the people of Britain.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

I Feel The Need For Speed!

I Feel The Need For Speed!I see that Nanny is about to cut the national speed limit from 60mph to 50mph, in her view this will reduce the number of deaths on the roads.

As her Roads Minister, Jim Fitzpatrick, said:

"..we are killing 3,000 people a year on our roads, it would be irresponsible not to do something about it...."

Well I wonder precisely who the "we" are that he refers to?

Doesn't he get the point that "responsibility" comes from the individual, and should not be imposed by the state?

Anyhoo, as to whether these 3,000 corpses a year are as a result of someone doing 60 on clear sunny day on an open road, or some prat doing 50 on a fog bound lane 1 metre away from someone's exhaust pipe remains a mystery that Nanny will not enlighten us about.

I am sure that by cutting the speed limit to 50, the 3,000 deaths per annum will magically stop!

That aside, here is rather an interesting factoid about Nanny's plans. Nanny will change the speed limit, but will not change the signs (a white circle with a black stripe).

Why would this be a problem?

Well, you see, local councils can if they wish apply to keep the speed limit at 60. Thus leaving the motorist a tad confused.

The good news for Nanny though is she will use this change to erect (can I say erect at this time of day?) more speed cameras, with a view to catching all who flout her new rules. Those who are caught will of course, kerrching!!, have to pay a fine.

A nice little earner by anyone's standards!

By the way, in case any of you are thinking that I am griping over this because it means I can't drive my sports cars at 60 down country lanes anymore, fear not.

I haven't driven since 1996, and do not own a car!

Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.

Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.

Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.

www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"

Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!

Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries

9 comments:

  1. Normally I'd say thank fuck I left the UK, but sadly it's no better here and arguably worse. But to be fair I don't think it's entirely about money. I think there's a real belief that car crashes really would just go away if they can just get drivers to obey arbitrary limits pulled out of someone's arse. Australia is somewhat further ahead than the UK on this, and when you've spent some time on an Aussie freeway surrounded by people driving like complete knobs at 100kph you just know it ain't going to work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kerching!!! That is what it is all about Ken....Nanny needs to get her tills ringing again, and quickly, because she has spent all the money she's taken from us and much more besides. Whilst I accept three thousands deaths a year are three thousand too many, I would point out that three thousand out of a population of sixty five million, is only a one in 21667 chance of becoming a cropper....With cancer affecting one in three of us, perhaps Nanny should concentrate her efforts there....Oh no, silly me, there's no nice little earner there is there......You're right Ken....It's all about cash....I expect we'll have a load of adverts, all emotionally blackmailing us about the dangers to children if we don't slow down....Oh, and incidently, I don't drive now due to a medical condition, so its not just sour grapes.

    One thing that always makes me think when this type of proposal is mooted....The national speed limit was put in place years ago, modern cars have anti lock braking, anti skidding devices, air bags and many other safety devices, cars are safer now than they've ever been....I once had a Ford Pop that I had to give ten minute notice to that I wanted to stop......'Elf'n'safety at it again....We give too much credibility and too much influence to single issue campaigners in this country....Rant over!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. What might cut deaths is if someone did something about all the roads where you have a sign indicating national speed limit and twenty yards on, a sign indicating a thirty MPH speed limit and a speed camera. This forces drivers to have to brake suddenly and in adverse conditions they are more likely to have an accident or end up with another car up their exhaust. However, I bet Nanny will not reveal how many accidents have been caused by sign positioning just like the above.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1:07 PM

    The government's own figures show that excess speed is a factor in less than 10% of accidents (that's speed that's too high for the conditions, not just in excess of the current limit). So what's being done about the other 90%?

    (Answer: nothing, until they can figure out how to make money or employ more Labour clients in the process)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:09 PM

    Quite a lot of places have already tried cutting the limit. For example the A4 near me used to be 60, and then went to 50. The accident rate went up. So now it's 40. And the accident rate has gone up again. How do I know? There's one of those "x many casualties in the last 3 years" boards on it!

    At what point do they decide this policy isn't working and try something else?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1:34 PM

    Most deaths on the road are caused by people breaking existing laws - why would making more restrictive laws to replace those that are already not observed by certain knobheads actually make any difference?

    I think most deaths on these kinds of roads are either caused by people driving substantially over the existing limits, overtaking where they don't have a clear - or any - sight ahead, or failing to slow down where their line of sight is impaired (sweeping corners with high hedges, tractor emerging from farm track - gebang!)

    Lowering the speed limit will only affect the last case, which I suspect is the rarest anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think the NHS kills more per year doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous8:17 PM

    Well I have not killed anybody yet in my 4x4 Death Machine (well clapped out old Landy) perhaps I am not trying. I get the righteous complaining that "if you hit a child..." well I always reply that the last time I looked the object was NOT to do so and I propose to continue in that vein. If they don't like it, don't eat the food I grow and don't call Mountain Rescue when you retards get lost "in the Lake District" I would like a better clue as to the search area! Sorry for the rant but I've had enough of this shower.
    TTFN and a stiff upper lip!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous1:45 PM

    You keep driving your Land Rover fellah! People whack on about what if you hit a child? Maybe the stoopid buggers shouldnt be in the road in the first place.
    All these shocking adverts on the telly try to make drivers look bad, but I cant remember the last time I saw the green cross code on telly. Teach the kids road sense instead of targeting drivers!
    Trouble is, you cant fine a child for running out into the road, just the poor driver for hitting them.
    Lowering the limits wont do jack. Speed related accidents are caused by excessive speed for the (very changeable)road conditions, not breaking some arbitry constant limit.
    Also, I read that speed was the cause in 7% of accidents - apparently britain used to have a world class traffic police force in the 70s but road deaths have steadily increased since we started to rely so heavily on "safety" cameras. (Scared to Death - Booker & North)
    Bunch of arse, I say.

    (Gasp)

    ReplyDelete