Interesting.
How many NIP's do they issue now? About 1m per year?
And how many licence holders do we have? 25m?
And how may NEW licence holders per year?
So, ignoring some drivers who get multiples, and the drivers who can't be traced, an interesting use of the term
"almost every driver in the country".
As to this Insurance question, I asked my Broker.
He is NOT aware of any insurance company taking such a view
(with the proviso, of course, of "at this time")
Nice bit of factual reporting.
|
The figure for 2001 was about 1 million.
The figures for 2002 haven't been released yet but is probably double that,
The target for 2003 is 3 million.
HTH
|
3 million loaded for five years.
15 million people who've been through the courts.
1/4 of the population!
Given that the courts should be the last resort for the worst offenders (shoplifters & drug users won't even see a court for offence number one which will warrent only a caution) we are becoming a dangerously lawless society.
15 million people who are *worse* than druggies or shop lifters.
Maybe deportation is the answer.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
You do realise that if nobody did any speeding for, say, 6 months then the whole system would cave in on itself and most of the cameras would disappear as being uneconomic ?
|
And if you applied it to other overtaxed commodities, if nobody smoked or drank for six months excise duties would come down.
And if nobody used their car for a month, fuel duties would do likewise !
|
|
|
|
Interesting logic.
"15 million people who've been through the courts."
So you multiple GUESS of 3m by this other insurance bit to get
Myth A x Myth B = Fact C.
Surely that stands at
"3m drivers affected for 5 years (allegedly)"
How does that equate with "almost every driver in the country"?
|
|
|
>>3 million loaded for five years.
>>15 million people who've been through the courts.
>>1/4 of the population!
Firstly you are assuming that the 3 million will happen.
Secondly you are assuming that nobody ever gets two or more speeding offences.
Thirdly, the insurers will not load your policy for 5 years, at worst it would be three, and much more likely to be one.
Fourthly I could get a job with a speding conviction, I would be unlikely to get one with a drug or theft conviction, whatever the punishment (and a caution is frequently official and recorded)
|
Mark: a) Yes, I think it would be a great idea for all to stop speeding and bring the system down. (Road tax would have to go up of course) Electronic limiters would be a great step forward in this. b) My figures are based on assumptions yes. The original figures that ushered in camera's we're actually distorted. AFAIA a caution isn't reported to a potential employer. The rehabilitation of offenders act allow us to lie about points after a certain number of years. Can't remember how many.
Trevor: I didn't say almost every driver. But a straw poll of active drivers around me suggests that anyone living in Oxford of the south east can expect points.
So yeah. I agree with 100 per cent of both your posts. You must both be reckless loons.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have tried to comment on this before.
Either this is opportunist profiteering by the insurers, or they have been put under pressure by the anti-motoring authorities.
Tomo.
|
|
I got flashed shortly after I got my car, my first. Concerned about what this would do to my insurance, I got two quotes from the Direct Line website. One was about £80, or 10%, higher, with a 35 mph speeding conviction and 3 points. (That's based on 1 year no claims, a driving licence held for 7 years, and no other convictions or claims).
|
|
|
>>Either this is opportunist profiteering by the insurers, or they have been put under pressure by the anti-motoring authorities.
Or they feel that speeding drivers represent a higher risk and therefore should pick up a larger burden of premium than someone without a speeding conviction.
Or are you saying that someone who has no speeding conviction should pay the same premium as somebody with one, therefore effectively subsidising the insurance premium of someone who cannot be bothered to remain within the law ?
And bear in mind we're dealing wiht an awful lot of "up to"s
I think 560 quid was quoted above. But it could equally be a fraction of that. You are not necc. fined 60, your insurer does not necc. load your premium at all. 560 is scaremongering.
M.
p.s. no pound sign, sorry.
|
Or are you saying that someone who has no speeding conviction should pay the same premium as somebody with one, therefore effectively subsidising the insurance premium of someone who cannot be bothered to remain within the law ?
Depends on whether he crashes more. I often stray a fraction over 70 I don't crash.
Others run people over, but only within the speed limit.
If I was an insurer I'd be more worried about the guy who's gonna have a kid claim millions for care following a broken neck than someone who hit 75 but didn't claim.
Maybe I just don't know much about commerce.
Fortunately all the other insurers stopped loading for points when cameras turned up - a few years back 9 points still left me on a minimum premium.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
Loading on a specific person is done considering his actual claims history.
However, overall rating is done using the statistical likelihood of him having an accident and the ramifications of that accident, irrespective of whether or not he has an accident.
And whether or not you crash at over 70, whether or not you claim, statistically you are more likely to have an accident and more likely to claim - I guess the rest of the drivers just aren't as good or luck as you.
It may not even be directly related to your speed. It *may* be that statistically people who speed also are more likely to disobey rule x which does cause accidents - I'm guessing, but it gets that complex.
|
Loading on a specific person is done considering his actual claims history. However, overall rating is done using the statistical likelihood of him having an accident and the ramifications of that accident, irrespective of whether or not he has an accident.
And they obviously feel 9 points on a guy approaching 30 with no claims ever who keeps his worthless car on his driveway is not any extra risk at all. Which I agree with. Luckily I don't have to tell them I was so dizzy after an epic squash match on tuesday that I couldn't see the petrol pump figures when I stopped!!!
And whether or not you crash at over 70, whether or not you claim, statistically you are more likely to have an accident and more likely to claim - I guess the rest of the drivers just aren't as good or luck as you.
Can't be better, must be lucky. Can I have discount for being lucky then? How do you measure luck?
It may not even be directly related to your speed. It *may* be that statistically people who speed also are more likely to disobey rule x which does cause accidents - I'm guessing, but it gets that complex.
Tailgating. If they ever ask me that I've had it.
I'd have thought mileage was by far the biggest factor for points. I'm clean because I do under 17k a year. Father + Brother do 200k between them. Even with company provided radar detectors they've picked up some...
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
And they obviously feel 9 points on a guy approaching 30 with no claims ever who keeps his worthless car on his driveway is not any extra risk at all.
I thought you started by complaining that the insurance companies would make someone with 9 points pay a lot more ? And I thought you thought that was unfair. But now you seem to be saying that someone with 9 points should be charged ? I am confused - as I suspect are you.
>>Luckily I don't have to tell them I was sodizzy after an epic squash match on tuesday that I couldn't see the petrol pump figures when I stopped!!!
Somewhat irresponsible of you, I'd say. However, I would now hazard a guess that there seems to be a correlation between someone who drives a little over 70mph and someone who is also prepared to drive whilst unfit to do so due to dizziness.
Therefore, I would think, in your case at least, loading your preimum would be quite justifiable.
Can't be better, must be lucky. Can I have discount for being lucky then?
Of course you can. To a large extent that is what your NCD is.
>>How do you measure luck?
Claims not happening.
I'd have thought mileage was by far the biggest factor for points. I'm clean because I do under 17k a year. Father + Brother do 200k between them.
I do 1000 business miles a week as a minimum. Not picked up any points while working yet. However, I could easily be either an exception or exceptionally fortunate.
|
I thought you started by complaining that the insurance companies would make someone with 9 points pay a lot more ?
- More fool you for staying in the debate, then!!! ;-)
And I thought you thought that was unfair. But now you seem to be saying that someone with 9 points should be charged ? I am confused - as I suspect are you.
-
>> Somewhat irresponsible of you, I\'d say. However, I would now hazarda guess that there seems to be a correlation between someone who drives a little over 70mph and someone who is also prepared to drive whilst unfit to do so due to dizziness.
Yeah but if it\'s ok to drive after a few spliffs driving exhausted or dizzy must be ok.
In the *real* world drivng at 71 is harmless and driving, as I did tuesday is inexcusable and should bring an immediate ban.
Therefore, I would think, in your case at least, loading your preimum would be quite justifiable.
Morally a ban for driving when your eyes don\'t focus would be lenient. [snip] don\'t be silly Toad Fortunately we live in a culture where only speed matters.
Of course you can. To a large extent that is what your NCD is. Claims not happening.
Whichever way you look at it that is scarily like the truth.
I do 1000 business miles a week as a minimum. Not picked up any points while working yet. However, I could easily be either an exception or exceptionally fortunate.
Maybe the leather policeman\'s flat hat and handlebar moustache puts them off?
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
>In the *real* world drivng at 71 is harmless and driving, as I
>did tuesday is inexcusable and should bring an immediate ban.
In the real world there is a correlation between tending towards one and the other.
Of course you can. To a large extent that is what your NCD is.
>>Claims not happening.
>
>Whichever way you look at it that is scarily like the truth.
It is the truth. I wasn't joking.
|
>In the *real* world drivng at 71 is harmless and driving, as I >did tuesday is inexcusable and should bring an immediate ban. In the real world there is a correlation between tending towards one and the other.
Utterly disagree. In my limited experience permanantly disabled people, people who are stroke victims, people who are elderly do not tend to speed more than average.
In fact I find that people who are a bit confused and perhaps should not be driving tend to drive slower.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
|
"I often stray a fraction over 70 I don't crash."
How do you get away with it?
Don't you know that if someone puts up a tin sign saying "70" you will die if you do 71?
|
"I often stray a fraction over 70 I don't crash." How do you get away with it? Don't you know that if someone puts up a tin sign saying "70" you will die if you do 71?
Yeah, I like to live dangerously.
I've put a self imposed 1mph limit on my driveway.
For kicks I like to drive on at 2mph.
Life's cheap to punks like me!!! ;-)
Those tin signs are the whole problem.
Speed kills. THerefore if you abolish all speed limits speeding is impossible and nobody can die. QED.
--
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Toads.
|
On a main road near me there is a 40mph limit, and there are signs at the start of it, which seem to be the standard size, fairy snuff.
BUT the repeater signs are tiny, they are "narrower" than the lamp posts they are attached to! Ive not gone and measured one, but i'd guess at 10cm across max.
Anyone know the minimum size these things are legally allowed to be?
(Of course this stretch of road is one that the s************ Partnership are targetting, surprise surprise!)
Tony :)
|
The following link gives a lot of information about speed limits, etc. Apparently, the sign should be 300 to 1500mm in diameter!
www.abd.org.uk/speed_limit_signs.htm#diagram670
|
|
|
Silly question maybe, but if you know it's a 40 limit (presumably because you've seen a larger sign to that effect at the start of the 40mph section) why does it matter what size the repeater signs are ? It's not as though you haven't seen them is it.
At the next point the speed limit changes there should be a large sign to that effect. Until you see that sign giving notice of the change, 40 mph is the limit whether there are repeaters along the way or not.
As to why the repeaters seem to be smaller, that's certainly my experience in this part of the world - perhaps it's just down to cost !
I often wonder why there are repeater signs in some areas and not others, seemingly irrespective of the location, type of road etc.
|
Careful there Volvoman, if you followed that exactly then that means our street has a 40 mph limit as there are no signs to say that you are entering a 30 limit.
Of course anyone who manages to get up to 40 mph in our street should be shot...
Blue
|
Volvoman is of course correct - with the addition of
"all built-up areas with street lighting are 30 mph unless signed otherwise"
|
|
Trev - which is precisely the reason why a 40 zone should have repeater signs, especially if the streets are lit - so that you know you may do 40 anstead of assuming you may not.
|
|
Silly question maybe, but if you know it's a 40 limit (presumably because you've seen a larger sign to that effect at the start of the 40mph section) why does it matter what size the repeater signs are ? It's not as though you haven't seen them is it.
I know of quite a few speed limit signs that are positioned where it is easy to to miss them if you don't know the area. Some of these are roads that would normally be NSL. The repeaters save you speeding if you do accidentally miss the sign for whatever reason.
|
|
|
|
|
This will get moved to the "speeding (mostly excl cameras)VI" Thread later.
|
I bow to all of your greater knowledge.
Yes I do know its a 40mph limit, but even so, if the signs are below regulation size then thats not right. Further along the road where it turns into a 50mph zone the repeater signs are "proper" size!
I will go out later and take some pix and measurements, and go from there.
Tony :)
PS Mark, will i still be able to find this later?
|
PS Mark, will i still be able to find this later?
Yes. Just look for the thread called "speeding (mostly excl cameras)VI"
|
Is there a requirement for the signs to be maintained in good order?
I'm asking this because in South Cambridge there is (was?) a road with a 40 mph limit, and the repeaters were in some cases weathered to such an extent that the '40' could not be read. I noticed this some years ago, and they are probably just the same now.
Similarly, in Maidenhead there is (was?) a sign with lighting inside, but the screen was broken, thus defacing the '40' legend. It was like that every time I saw it. (Again some time ago)
Now, my argument would be that if a sign is not legible, how can the instruction thereon be enforcable?
As a motorist I am obliged to keep my car's number plate legible, so does this cut both ways?
Over to the legal team.......
|
|
AS you enter a restricted section, there is a stonking great BIG speed limit sign, or where the speed changes there is a stonking great big sign. Mostly TWO in fact. THIS indicates a restricted section not the repeaters which are there just to remind you. NO EXCUSE about colour, dirt, size, etc. Try the old excuse of I didnt see the sign cos its too small or dirty will get you a ticket for Driving without due care because you missed all the others! As for lampposts, its 30 unless otherwise posted.
|
|
I know at least one area where a NSL seamlessly transits to a 40 without the obligatory 40 speed limit sign. The only reason I know this is because of a small repeated hidden away just before the 40 becomes a 30. I think someone fluffed up. I also know areas where the start of a speed limit sign is hidden by overgrown vegetation. It took quite a while for me to find it.
|
The regulations exists saying repeaters should be x size and y far apart and in good order, which it seems some people seem to think should apply to be applicable and others dont.
What do the 'dont's' feel about 'designer' number plates. The registration is still visible just because the fonts smaller and in italic doesn't make in completely non readable.
|
Way I look at it is this.
If the rule applies that it is not up to me to choose which law to obey and which to ignore, then the same rule applies to the authorities. (Possibly with the exception of the Crown, but then I don't necessarily agree that the latter situation is at all desirable)
If the signage is not in accordance with Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113 The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 then the limit is potentially unenforceable.
Convictions have been overturned because of this very reason thus setting precedent in my view.
No doubt Ratty is consulting with wise old Badger as we speak. ;-)
|
FiF
Ten out ten as per usual.....
Back to the Riverbank Hammock and contemplation...
DVD
|
|
There is a short stretch near me that has been downgraded from 40mph to 30mph for approx 75yards, but the 40 repeater sign is still there. As a matter of curiosity, I wonder what the enforceable limit is, bearing in mind it's a dual carriageway, with no houses accessible from it, leading to a motorway.
|
A slight aside - motorway road works speed limits.
Where roadworks have an enforceable limit, usually 50mph, the signs are obvious on entry.
On exit, I have found some roadworks terminate with just an 'end of roadworks' sign, while others have the 'national speed limit applies' sign as well.
I have also seen at least one set where there is an end of roadworks sign and then half a mile further on a 'national speed limit' sign.
So is the NSL sign mandatory or not? Which sign takes precedence? We should be told!
|
Sheppy bt the Sea.
This has been covered before and there is a long string of threads about same.
Speed limits for Roadworks are brought in by an Order.
Order states that it has to be signed.
Start of works with 50 sign.
End of works only needs end of roadworks sign to terminate speed limit for those works.
DVD
|
Funnily enough DVD on my merry way up to Bonnie Scotland a few weeks ago in the run up to Easter most road works had been abandoned. Nevertheless a nasty moment occurred.
Road works with reduced limit, end of road works sign, so NSL restored.
Not so much further, lots of cones along the grass verges, ie off the carriageway and hard shoulder, all the road works signs and repeaters had been removed leaving just empty frames in place.
So there FiF is thinking, better get a wiggle on going to be after 11pm when I get to Granite City, so kept at the indicated 72 (calibrated 70) when came upon a load of specs cameras with NSL signs just after. Every beggar was thinking DOH and hitting the anchors, quite frankly.. not keen!
Thanks to your excellent advice from the riverbank knew what the limit was and just kept going. Ta muchly.
PS: any more vino recommendations?
|
Thanks for your reply - I'm fairly new to HJ but should have searched...
|
|
The road from Stockport to Macclesfield, or the stretch between Poynton and Bollington at least recently had one limit on the main signs, another on the repeaters and a third painted on the road. I believe it was said that as a result *no* limit could be enforced. Most of it has been reduced from NSL to 40, but it doesn't really make that much difference as you always got stuck behind someone pottering along at 35 before so it's not that much slower.
|
|
Steve. I was fined for speeding the road you mention for doing 40 in a section which was apparantly 30. It was the first time I had been caught speeding and I genuinely thought the limit was 40 at that section (somwhere between hazel grove and pounton). That road is very confusing as the limit is constantly changing every half a mile. I have subsequently recieved three points and a fine. But if what you say is true with regards to the signing on that road, can I do anything about my points? When I was caught I simply accepted it as my mistake, but may be it wasn't. May be there was also a sign with 40 on it, and that is the one I saw. As I said previous to that I have never exceeded the limit and always even drive 5 miles below it for same measure. what do you think? any chance to get rid of the points? or am I stuffed?
|
|
I think you must have just missed the sign. The only change in limits between HG and Poynton is the bit after Fiveways where the NSL has been reduced to a 40. Where did you get caught? It's 30 all the way from Hazel Grove (well, Manchester actually!) to about Brookside, then this was NSL until it reached the dual carriageway section just before Poynton where it dropped to 40 (this is all 40 now) and at the end of the dual carriageway it becomes 30.
|
Right, below are links to pix showing the size of the \"offending\" speed repeater signs. By my measurement they are 15cm across, or the size of a Mars Bar (regular not King Size!) Sorry for the quality of the pix, these things are too high off the ground for short \'uns like I!
I havent found anything that states the minimum size for these things, but I will try!
Tony
www.j500ant.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/40sign.JPG
www.j500ant.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/40signruler.JPG
www.j500ant.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/40signmars.JPG
|
www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadnetwork/ditm/tal/signs/01...4
As the repeater signs that i have photographed are not 300mm across as stipulated by the above DfT leaflet, could anyone suggest the best course of action? I have not been caught by any speed enforcement, but i know that many others have!
Tony
|
|
Steve, I can?t remember exactly where it was, but it was defiantly after HG (from Manchester). I travel regularly from Manchester to a village called Wincle in the peak district, and I have to pass Macclesfield on the A6. Having said that, per say, what in general happens if you have been fined for speeding and at the time accept the police is right, but somehow later find out that it was not so clear cut. I mean, really what I am really asking is, once those points are in your paper, are they there to stay irrespective of, or could they be removed provided you could show the conviction was not right?
|
I'd assume that if you could prove you were not speeding then they would have to take the points off and reimburse the fine, plus I'd imagine you might get some legal fees back.
However, you'll have to prove the conviction was not right in the first place. I'd say it's unlikely they would not have spotted if they were trying to enforce the wrong limit on a stretch of road, as they would have caught hundreds of people. Personally, if I ever got a speed ticket, and I couldn't picture the circumstances and be sure I was actually speeding, I'd likely visit the area again to either work out the mistake I made, or find out if there was anything I could complain about such as hidden signs or misleading markings.
From what I can recall, BTW, the only 30 limits between HG and Macc are the stretch from HG to just after Fiveways, the stretch through Poynton (which now I think on, I believe has recently been extended to the edge of the housing), the 30 limits on the two roundabouts in Macc itself, and of course through Macc.
|
|
Thread now closed. Please see "Speeding (mostly excl cameras) VII" for continued discussion. M.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
