Thread closed. Please see vol XI for further discussions.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=18...0
Speeding (mostly excl cameras) IX is closed and this thread has been started.
For the continued discussions around the subject of speeding, usually excluding cameras which are in another thread.
Older versions will not be deleted, so there is no need to repost any old stuff.
DD,
BackRoom Moderator
mailto:dave_moderator@honestjohn.co.uk
|
I have received a NIP this morning - which was expected. I was clocked south of Coventry (A46 dual carrigeway) on Sunday doing 82mph in 50 mph roadworks. No excuse I know. I don't for one moment think I'll get away with a £60 + 3 points. Will I get a short ban?
Thanks in advance for any info'.
Andy.
|
If you really think it is deserved and would feel guilty by not confessing, then go ahead and sign - you will probably get away with 3 point + fine.
Otherwise you could go down the 'not signing loophole' route that is sweeping the country.
|
>>the 'not signing loophole'
What's the latest with that ? I thought I'd read that it wasn't effective (despite the hype and publicity).
|
Mark
With the NIP I had a warning that if I did not complete and SIGN then I would be liable to a £1000 fine +points, they also quoted some 2002 case law so perhaps the loophole has been closed. However I am not keen to go down that route sounds risky. I did the deed, I just want to pay the fine or whatever and forget about it.
Andy.
|
|
|
The outcome was that the judge said that an unsigned form could be considered a voluntary confession under PACE. However, that in itself has now opened a new can of worms, as there is no caution on the form, which is a breach of PACE.
It's all there over at www.safespeed.org.uk/unsigned.html
Am currently going through the who malarkey with GMP. Got a letter last week, with a fresh copy of the NIP for signing, stating that the original NIP I had completed, but not signed, was not accepted and that I had to sign else be prosecuted for not signing.
Have returned the form incomplete with a letter asking just where in law it says I must sign.
It's all irrelevant in anycase, as the road on which I was clocked doing 47 in a 40 is incorrectly signed. One of the entry signs is missing, and as it's a dual carriage way both have to be present. If I do get to court my defence will be that a coach was to my right and blocked my view to the only sign. I guess then that all those done on that stretch in the past will have to have their fines re-imbursed. If it doesn't get to court I'll get the ABD on the case to bring the incorrect signage to light and achieve the same ultimate result.
|
Just to clarify, pdc...
Was there actually a coach to your right, obscuring your view of the only entry sign, and were there no repeaters further on?
|
|
The first repeater, again on just the righthand side, was directly opposite where the guy was with his mobile camera.
|
...and there was a coach?
Provided you're not familiar with the road you would have no way of knowing the limit, so I hope you get off!
|
|
I don't think that knowledge comes into it, as limits change. Years ago I got 3 points for doing 40 in a 30 zone that the week before had been a 40 zone. Infact it had been a 40 zone for many many years and they suddenly moved the 30 zone, which would have started about 400 yards down the road, without any warning. my knowledge then was that it was a 40, but as I had been doing the route for years I was on autopilot and didn't notice the change.
|
|
|
|
|
No, there wasn't a coach to my right, but there was a screaming baby in the passenger seat, which caused a lapse of concentration, but I doubt that would be a defence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got caught doing 50 in a 30 area and assumed it would be an automatic court appearance and 6 points ( as everyone told me) but when I explained circumstances and apologised ( 3am, no one else on road, late for a flight and not concentrating etc, all things I was told would not be taken into account when assessing the penalty) I was given
£60 fixed penalty and 3 points, so there is no guaranteed outcome, apologise, be humble and you never know what will happen. I think it far better to admit your fault immediately.
|
Did you have to appear in court to apologise?
Andy.
|
|
|
|
|
This\'ll get moved to one of the speeding threads later.
DD.
Done. DD
|
|
No court appearance, just sent a letter of explanation and apology with the signed form.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi There,
I'm new to the forums so I hope I can get some sound advice. A member of another forum that I visit made a recommendation to visit here.
I was caught speeding last month doing 101mph in a 70mph zone. That's 31mph over the speed limit. I was caught speeding about 5 years ago but this was a very minor offence. I have been reading conflicting stories about the type of punishment that I could receive. £1000 fine and points as well as a ban. Surely the court will take into consideration my previous driving record as well as any personnel circumstances that lead up to the speeding offence. Should I also take legal advice when I get the summons or should I just plead guilty and get it over with
Also, do I have to actually go to court in person? Can I just plead guilty and accept the punishment, or is it best to turn up and say sorry and then get punished.
Thanks for any replies.
Win
|
This website www.caughtspeeding.co.uk/ has a calculator to tell you what your penalty might be. I think 101 on a dual carriageway is margianally more harshly dealt with than on an empty motorway.
5 year old offences are not taken into account. In my case, the Clerk of Court gave me a "knowing look" when she read out from my licence that I had no "previous" (but there were two expired on it).
Seeing as you are guilty, all you can hope is for mitigating circumstances to be taken into account when sentencing. I engaged a local solicitor to plead my circumstances, I like to think it was £200 well spent, but not everyone would think this worthwhile.
For a court to ban you, you must appear in person. So even if you plead by post (if you have that option) then the case will be heard then adjourned for you to appear for sentencing (assuming you get a ban). So, for me, it was just a matter of timing - it suited me better to take the ban at the time of the initial appearance rather than later in the year, so I went along.
Good Luck!
PS for 108 I got two week ban and £180 fine, no points. That was 6 or more years ago so you may get more, but that's why I felt the solicitor was worthwhile. He estimated douible everything before we went into court. And he managed to get us in first, so I wasn't hanging about all day waiting to be called...almost worth the cost in itself!
|
|
|
Sorry about this but:
More than 30mph above the limit & a ban is definately on the cards,as is a compulsory court appearance. Don't think they're interested in whether you've been a good driver previously. The ban may not be for too long though...
You could try telling them that you were in desperate need of the loo or fleeing chasing papparazzi.....
Good luck...
|
|
|
Thanks for the info, it seems that a getting good representation is the key to all of this. I can handle a short ban but a six month ban would cripple me work wise.
Thanks again.
Win
|
If this post disappears Winston, check in the speeding thread...
I can't imagine you'll get six months!! One month maybe...
The link I gave appears to be not working, sorry.
|
Thanks again guys, It has kind of eased my mind quite a bit.
Cheers
Win
|
|
|
|
My brother got caught speeding. 110mph on a dual carraigeway at 5am in the morning. He got banned for 2 weeks and a fine (can't remember the amount.)
My father got caught speeding doing 101mph on a motorway and got points and about a £600 fine but NO ban.
I think it all depends on who represents you, admitting that you were in the wrong (explain your circumstances thought) and what side of bed the judge got out of!
|
Coincidentally a colleague of mine was caught doing 101mph in a 70.
Due to work mitigating factors he got a 56 day ban and a £500 fine. He was told he would normally have got 6 months and a similar fine.
|
|
|
I know in theory and best practice this shouldn't happen, but it is alleged in some circles that it also rather depends upon who else is on the court's list that day.
The sentencing has to appear consistent. So, for example, if the case before you is a real bad boy with a lesser specific offence but a heap of previous then his sentence will reflect that situation. You come along with no or little previous but a more serious offence and your sentence might just take a turn for the worse compared to the hypothetical situation if the court order had been reversed.
PU et al may like to comment further.
|
|
|
|
Some years ago I overtook an unmarked camera car at 104.6 mph on my motorbike on an A road. My heart sank as I spotted the drivers uniform as I sailed past. I appeared in court and was suitably repentent and got 6 points and £400 fine. My licence was clean and the copper who stopped me actually wrote in his statement that my riding was smooth and the road conditions were good. So that probably helped!
|
|
|
|
Winston.
Assoc of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Guidelines;
Exceeding 70 mph (NSL): Between 79 -96 mph Fixed Penalty
Notice.
: 97 and over is a Court appearance.
Magistrates can punish as follows:
1. Fine &1,000 (doesn't mean they impose the maximum but I would say your looking at three figures)
2. Licence endorsed - your old points now spent so have no relevance - may be 6 for you.
3. Disqualification - most probably for a month/month and half?
4. Compulsory re-rest. (Most doubtful)
Re the Disqualification. In the old days if this was to be imposed then your personal appreance would be required but I understand now that there are Courts that will Disqualify without an appearance being necessary.
If Disqualification is likely to cause great hardship i.e. loss of job, house , family etc. then Special Reasons can be put forward and Disqualification not imposed. For this I would recommend the use of a Solicitor well versed in Traffic matters.
I would also plead to you that you only use this course of action if genuine as abuse will lead to genuine claimants being denied.
The Summons, when it lands on your doorstep, will come with a Statement of Facts and other papers telling you where, when and how you deal with this.
DVD
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty pigged off about it really because I have only had my car three weeks when I got caught.
|
Is it something quick?
didnt bother with a running in period then ;-).....
|
|
I got the new Audi A3 2.0 FSI Sport. I had done quite a few miles in it before I got caught. But generally I took it easy. It does run like a dream though! I'll be well gutted if I get a long term ban!
|
I got caught doing 105 on a dual cariageway. Had to travel (from Reading) to Wales to court. Pleaded guilty, no solicitor, looked sorry. Thought the worst as I had two SP30s in previous 5 years. They were both expired, however, as over 3 years old. Got £200, 30 days and no points.
Now I try not to go over 100 for too long!
|
Just curious, as a few have mentioned getting a ban. What effect did it have on your insurance - refusals?, huge premiums?.
Thanks
Martin
|
No significant change to my insurance...
I'd expected otherwise...
|
|
|
|
|
Speed limits etc have become an obsession of police and public alike. Likewise governments are obsessed with innovation but it has never been applied to a rational consideration of speed limits.
Firstly I have no idea who sets the speed limits in my area, I've certainly never heard of consultation. Most limits are patently reasonable but some are not - where is the forum to express this? Certainly not with the officer enforcing.
Secondly there has been no imagination in matching the limit to the circumstances. Bus lanes and parking restrictions are usually time dependent, why not speed limits? Would the sky fall down if all speed limits were advanced by 10 mph between 2300 and 0700?
In school areas why not take a leaf from the americans' book - 20 mph when yellow lights are flashing and 30 mph or 40 mph at other times?
|
The difficulty with increasing speed limits is political.
Imagine the motorway speed limit was increased from 70 - 80. The first time a child was killed at 80mph, however careless or stupid anyone else involved was being, whatever caused the accident, it would only take one person to state that it wouldn't have happened at 70mph and the Sun and its ilk would hound and hunt down another politician.
|
|
Sad, but true. Our only hope is that Rupert Murdoch gets arrested for speeding...
|
The average car is easily capable of well over 100mph. If you increase the speed limit to say 80 this will not satiate anyone, all it will do is encourage more people to drive at inappropriate speed as they do now - i.e. 70 is regarded as the minimum rather than the maximum speed limit. So instead of tailgating at 80 these people will tailgate at 90 and so on. There'll always be someone along in a minute who wants to go faster than the limit wherever it's set.
If, with any increase in limits there was an equal improvement in driver behaviour I'd have less of a problem but with speed comes increased risk in the event of an incident so I'd prefer limits to stay where they are in most cases.
When you see so many drivers - most of whom would consider themselves to be reasonable, sensible people - hurtling along at 70mph and usually more in the fog, rain and ice, then smashing into eachother in great numbers because they didn't have time to react safely to what was perhaps even just a trivial incident up ahead I see only more reasons NOT to increase national limits and add to the carnage on our roads.
The sad fact is that we can all watch CCTV footage of motorway pile- ups and comment on how stupid those involved were for driving too fast/close but the very next day copy that behaviour, either deluding oursleves that we're not just as bad or kidding oursleves it's safe to do so.
|
|
v - you have taken all the words out of .. The only point I might add is that I suspect many drivers (however 'good') interpret a speed limit as an indication of how fast a road can be driven safely. In their nice new car, and with their superior skills, it must be OK for at least 10mph more than that. Sadly that is not what a limit means.
|
VMan on the nail again. The mindset exists that because this road is singlecarriageway and there are no limits posted it must be driven along at 60 plus 10% regardless of the fact the road in question is only 14ft wide and bends more than it is straight.Came back from Warfield on Sunday along M4. Have distinct impression is more luck than judgment not more pile ups
Happy Motoring Phil I
|
|
All good points, and I agree with most of them. However, there IS a strong case to be made for variable speed limits. If it's ok for speed limits to be variable on large stretches of the M25, then why is it not on other roads. Safe speeds do vary. 70 mph on a deserted, dry, daylight straight stretch of motorway IS more than safe ! Same road choked and wet/icy is definitely NOT safe. Also what about patently ridiculous limits ? eg the slip road from M5 to M42 (long gentle left hander) is signed at 50mph max. OK it's a 2-lane slip but it'd be quite safe in nearly all circumstances to take it at 80mph! Over-cautious limits could lead drivers a bit short of grey matter to believe that no limit is sensible.
|
|
|
Mr Webb
Circular Roads 1/93 should, I think, answer your question as to who sets speed limits,why and how.
Sit back and read www.tinyurl.com/hfva (may takesome time loading)
DVD
|
I think the reason many speed limits seem artifically low is that the authorities accept many people will break them, so they're set with this in mind - i.e. if they want to limit traffic on a particular stretch of road to 50mph, they'll post a 40 limit and hope most people don't exceed it by more than 10mph.
Can't help feeling it would be fairer all round to set the limit at the appropriate speed then hammer anyone who breaks it, but that would be unpopular with certain sections of the motoring community, wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't often have to go near London by road, thank goodness but I noticed last time that the M4 seems to have a 50mph speed limit now at the London end. I think this is outrageous; we pay more than enough to use our roads and now find that the "global" 70mph limit on motorways is being reduced by government as part of their plan to bring the roads and the nation to a grinding halt.
Similarly going up M3 to London, it turns into A316. Much of what used to be a 70mph limit on the A316 is now down to 50mph (well I suppose that's better than the 30mph limit imposed for over a year when the Sunbury flyover was being re-built).
|
|
I think the 50mph limit might only be there to stop you getting run down at the end of the bus lane by one of the many buses using it...ahem. I got caught in a traffic jam along that stretch the other day - did I see one single bus on the bus lane? Nope, not a one. One or two taxis maybe, and a couple of vans, and I was sorely tempted to join them. I don't suppose this utterly hare-brained scheme will be removed until the current government is also?
|
|
|
>Similarly going up M3 to London, it turns into A316. Much of what used to be a 70mph limit on the A316 is now down to 50mph
And all the better for it. The A316 used to be a death trap. Cars cresting over the last flyover at 70-80mph to hit a solid wall of cars jammed for the hospital bridge roundabout.
|
Very good letter in todays Telegraph.
Statistically (and we all know how the scamera operators love to quote statistics) most accidents happening in densely populated areas such as housing estates. Think we could have all guessed that anyway.
Where are the scameras? Mostly on wide open stretches of road usually with artifically lowered speed levels as well.
Its an obvious scam to extract money from car drivers and more and more people are prepared to step forward and say so.
The police are fooling no one and losing what little public support they have left.
|
But do these "most accidents" account for "most damage", "most injuries" and "most deaths"? Brilliant hypocrisy to condemn use of statistics while using statistics.....
Agreed more should be done in built-up areas, but it never ceases to amaze me how certain people who know nothing of the background are that speed limits have been lowered just to fleece them, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the 40 injuiries and 3 deaths over the last 3 years, has it?!?!
People will "step forward and say so" just as surely as turkeys would vote to abolish Christmas given the chance - for selfish reasons only.
People know the law, they know the limit, they know their own speed, they know where the cameras are, and they know the consequences. If they're still stupid enough to get caught then they deserve all that comes to them (or gets taken from them).
|
Rant all you wish SR but we all know the truth. None of the arguements for scameras can bear the slightest analysis.
Just one of the latest examples, the government has set targets for police forces to issue tickets. Or let me put that another way the government has stated the level of tax that the police must raise directly from motorists. If its a safety issue as you imply how can there be targets?
Sorry just doesn't add up does it?
By the way, yes most injuries/bad injuries/deaths occur in the urban areas, again we could have worked that out ourselves because of course in urban areas there are more people about...
|
Oh,yes, Thommo, we "all know the truth" as long as it's your version of the truth!! The great all-knowing one has spoken, eh?
The reason cameras are ineffective is that everyone knows where they are and how to avoid them, so the problem just gets shifted elsewhere. It's like telling burglars that it's OK on certain streets tonight..... Deterrent effect is now nil. Accidents still increase overall because they have reduced at camera locations and increased by a greater amount elsewhere - that's why mobile cameras should be used instead of fixed, visible ones.
If a group of people are causing a problem by ignoring the law, I don't see what's wrong with taking action against that group instead of some other measures that penalise everyone. Your so-called "tax" is not a tax, but a fine, being raised not from "motorists", but from "offenders" - if you don't break the law, you don't get fined. Simple. Much fairer than hitting the innocent motorist/non-driving taxpayer. Adds up quite nicely when you look at facts instead of selfish, simplistic propaganda.
When was the last time you saw a headline - "10 killed and 33 injured in multiple vehicle pile-up in the High Street"?? Pedestrians are more vulnerable in urban areas, but accidents at higher speeds have greater consequences for the occupants of vehicles. A collision between vehicles in an urban area is far less likely to result in injury or death. Depends how the "facts" you base your "truth" on categorise accidents.
|
|
I'm not in the mood for difficult moderating. So keep it calm or I'll simply take the easy way out and delete the thread.
|
|
|
I think we are missing the point.
Everyone knows the law and knows that if they break it they run the risk of being penalised. But everyone also knows that..
1. The 'safe' speed on any stretch of road varies depending on weather, time of day, type of vehicle etc and a camera does not take this into account.
2. Police focus has been completely removed from other traffic offences which is why we see increasing numbers of drink-drivers, jumping red lights, illegal parking, etc etc.
3. Speeding penalties are now completely out of proportion to other offences. See the example below.....
www.motorcyclenews.com/news/detail?sectionID=50677...1
|
|
|
|
|
|
I heard on the news this morning (local radio station in Reading) that Reading police are giving motorists who are caught speeding on camera the option of receiving points on their license or attending a "Speed Awareness Course". This did not apply for motorists caught doing "excessive speeds".
Apparently almost 100% of the motorists chose to do a speed awareness course. I know which I would choose, but does anyone know more details - is the course effective?
|
Dont know about effectiveness, but these things should be consistent. If I get caught here in Cleveland, there is no choice, its just 3pts. So you're getting "postcode justice" - rather like the postcode NHS!
I think it is a very good idea BTW!
|
Round here I believe its upto 37 in a 30 and you get the option of the course - over that and its points and cash.
|
|
|
|
Surely the ones in greater need of the training are those travelling at 'excessive speed' ???
Bora - what Bora ?
|
Such courses are a great idea - but make them compulsory, and in addition to any penalty, instead of yet another soft option.
Points and fine or someone pays for me to go on a course - hard choice, eh?
|
|
The gist of the news story on the radio this morning was that the offending motorist would need to pay for the course, but there was no indication of how much it would be.
|
The course is either 80 or 85 quid up here (I didn't get the choice). So 'paying me to go on a course' is not what you thought.
|
East Riding are charging 50 quid. The wife's on one this afternoon (even as I write) I'm sure she'll tell me about it this evening... I'll feed back.
I'm not giving her any grief about it either. To be honest, it was entirely down to luck that she got snapped (mobile unit) rather than me. So if you are being held up round here by a blue Passat or black Golf,that's why. Apologies...
Tim{P}
|
|
Also with goverment targets of everybody with at least 6 points by 2006 (or whatever they're trying to do) they'll kill the cash cow if more and more people are banned
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reading the caught speeding thread has prompted me to ask if what I remember as old rules still apply to speedos.
You used to be 'allowed' 10% leeway so for example you would be OK at 44 in a 40 limit. Is this still the case or is there no leeway at all?
Reason for asking - passed mobile camera at 75 in a 70 limit and I'm just wondering ....
|
It's *up to* 10% so you may or may not have been braking the limit.
However, if they gave 3 points for 75 in a 70 limit, we'd all be banned by now, wouldn't we?
|
|
|
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=16567&...f
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=16567&...f
|
Some forces use 10% plus 2mph - so don't book you under 35,46,57
etc...to 79mph.
A lot can depend on how you were driving at the time.
Matt35.
|
|
|
|
|
In my limited experience, most cars' speedos over-read, and I believe are intended to do so. All the checks I have ever done show that (a) distance measured is 0-3 % high, and (b) indicated speed is 5-10% high (this is harder to check accurately - see a recent thread).
|
A mate of mine always used this theory. He said that as there was a 10% allowance he could do 77 mph and be safe. I pointed out that if his speedo was out 10% the wrong way, he would therefore actually be doing something like 84 mph !
He still didn't get it.
|
Tat,
Your mate's speedo definately would not have been reading low (if it was working correctly and on original wheel/tyre sizes), as i beleive the main reason most manufacturers come out a few % high is that they are then safe from being liable if a customer got caught speeding and then could prove his speedo was under-reading to get him off.
|
|
|
|
I have it good authority that Norfolk speed (safety) cameras are operated to ACPO guidlines of limit+10%+2mph.
Don't think I will test this statement though!
|
For what it's worth I checked my speedo against a hand-held GPS, one of the latest models so pretty accurate. Over a reasonable distance at a steady indicated 85, the GPS showed 81.9. At a steady 30 the GPS also showed 30. Stupidly, I haven't yet checked at 70, which would be the most useful one to know.
AFAIK most speedos are reasonably accurate at 30 mph, then progressively over-read as speed increases.
Most police forces still use 10% +2.
|
|
At a steady 120mph showing (on cruise control) I was VASCARd at 108. Just about 10%...
|
|
In Derbyshire we allow the speed limit + 7 mph so for 30 its 37, 47, 57, but for higher limits im not sure as our fixed sites are restricted to area of 50 mph or below, I paid Lincolnshire s************ Partnership a visit earlier this year and they prosecute at + 9 mph above the limit, for fixed camera sites. Each County is different but some prosecute as low as + 5 above the limit.
|
|
|
|
I have checked mine against the GPS thus
Speedo GPS
30 28
40 37
50 47
60 57
70 66
80 76
90 85
So I happily cruise on motorways at 80 mph indicated knowing I am reasonably safe from prosecution at a real 76mph
|
What gets me when people criticise others for exceeding the 70mph limit is that they don't consider how safe it is to drive at 70 now, compared to 30 years ago. When the limit was set, most cars had pencil-thin tyres, primitive brakes, primitive suspension, etc. They would have been near the limit of their capabilities in terms of speed. But driving at 70mph was considered safe then.
Now, at 80mph, most cars are a lot more within their capabilities than a car in 1970 driving at 70mph was. But due to some people's blind acceptance that the law is right, get caught at 80mph (on empty, dry road) and you'll be told you deserved it.
One backroomer suggested that drivers believe the legal limit is "a bit" low, so they add 10mph to determine a safe speed. I suggest that because the law has remained unchanged for eternity, drivers (apart those who don't think for themselves) actually have no regard for the limit at all. They instead set their own limit, except when they might get caught. For some, they probably get it right. For others, this is dangerous. Perhaps if the legal limit bore a resemblance of sense, some respect for the limit may be restored and this practice of determining personal limits might be reduced?
Mattster
Boycott shoddy build and reliability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure this has been covered many times before, and as an infrequent user of our motorway system I'm not affected as much as those of you who have to drive hundreds of miles per week on them but it makes me realise why so few people take notice of temporary speed restrictions and the frustration you face every day.
On way to visit my son in Leeds via M1 today there was an overhead gantry displaying a 40 mph restriction, half a mile later we passed about 10 cones on the (grass verge )edge of the hard shoulder. The next gantry displayed the "End" sign. Near J28 there was a 3 mile 50 limit where more cones were at the (grass verge) edge of the hard shoulder for about 200 yards. Why was speed limited? And if work is in progress during the week and they can be bothered to move the cones to one side for the weekend, why can't they be bothered to "derestrict" the m-way? All it does is encourage people to take no notice of speed restrictions and thereby INCREASE danger where there is a need for speed limits.
|
I was on the M5 a couple of weeks ago and, as well as the speed restriction signs on the overhead gantry, there was the lane closed sign. Vehicles were moving from the third lane to the other two lanes. Looking ahead the lane appeared to be clear so I continued on, and of course it was clear. The same thing happened on the M62, near to the Asda complex, causing bunching and congestion.
Who is responsible for the operation of these signs?
|
I find that even when the speed restrictions are needed, I am driving at the given limit normally in the inside lane and being passed by every man and his dog including wagonds who beleive that the limit doesnt apply to them. What 90% of people fail to realise is that the limits are there to protect operatives working on the motorways.
I agree that some restrictions are not needed...... but people ignoring the limits that are needed is a far greater problem.
|
|
Exactly my point - that there will be people driving along today who see the limit is not necessary and will assume the same on Monday and hammer along at 90 increasing the danger to the workforce.
|
|
|
being passed by every man and his dog including wagonds who beleive that the limit doesnt apply to them.
But the limits posted on matrix signs are advisory, not mandatory, except those on the M25 which have a red circle around them. So people aren't legally obliged to stick to the limit.
|
|
|
|
|
The guy caught at 129.9 mph in Scotland has been banned for 5 years and jailed for 4 months.
Very harsh sentence - he only had finished a previous 5 year ban and only had a Provisional licence!
Matt35.
|
|
|
An arrest warrant has been issued to a Northern Ireland police station for racing driver Eddie Irvine who failed to turn up at court to answer a speeding charge.
The 38-year-old, whose address was given as Green Road, Conlig, near Bangor in County Down, is alleged to have exceeded a 30 mph limit on a scooter in London's Hyde Park in July this year.
He was also charged with having no licence or insurance.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3308183.stm
|
|
|
Hi - just thought that some may be interested, to a degree, in this.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3337407.stm
--
After death, hair grows but phone calls tend to taper off
|
I just so love this quote from that article.
"The Chief Constable, Richard Brunstrom, was told by retired assistant chief constable Elfed Roberts to "get a grip" and focus on catching criminals."
ROFPMSL
|
|
|
|
Found this on the telegraph site.
Not sure what to make of it myself.
Tories reveal plans to cut speeding penalties
(Filed: 30/12/2003)
Motoring organisations have given a mixed response to plans from the Conservative Party to axe penalty points for less serious motoring offences.
Under the proposals, fines would continue to apply but thousands of motorists would not get points on their licences from the majority of offences registered on Britain's 4,500 speed cameras.
An estimated two million people received £60 fines and three penalty points in the last year, according to police chiefs.
Motorists face losing their licence when they reach the 12-point limit.
Damien Green, the shadow transport minister, argued that points should only apply in areas where the risk of death was greatest.
While drivers would not receive points for speeding in most areas, the penalties for those breaking the limits near schools or in areas with high numbers of pedestrians would be increased.
"We would look at whether you would get four or five points rather than just three," Mr Green said in a newspaper interview.
"The fines could also be doubled in the most serious areas."
Mr Green was also critical of so-called "rogue cameras" which Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, has promised to clamp down on because they generate large sums with little impact on road safety.
Andrew Howard, from the AA, said he was "puzzled by the proposals" which sent mixed messages to motorists.
By creating a two-tier approach to "serious" and "less serious" speed cameras, people would be asked to effectively ignore cameras in apparent safe areas.
Mr Howard said it would be hard to categorise "safe" and "dangerous" roads and would lead to confusion for drivers.
"At the moment most people cannot look at a road and say that is safe and that is unsafe," he said.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$A1I...l
|
This, and other speeding-related matters, are the main item on The World at One on Radio 4 now.
After the programme ends, it should be available on the web at www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/wato/ (see the 'listen to the latest programme' link).
|
Sounds like the tories looking for populist claptrap.
The BBC reports that "only" 4 speeding offences in 3 years results in a ban - I would suggest that 1 offence is unfortunate, 2 should really concentrate the mind, 3 is careless, and 4 indicates terminal stupidity in the case of all but the unluckiest people.
Keep it simple - there should be no "good" places to break the law.
- more dangerous places should have lower limits, less dangerous higher ones.
- concentrate the enforcement on the more dangerous places, and those where residents actually want to see it, whether for road safety or quality of life reasons.
|
4 does indicate stupidity in the case of the nice generally law abiding person who'se car is registered in his name.
Meanwhile all the nutters in unregistered cars, drunk and drugged up can cruise around in the knowledge that they won't get pulled 'cause the police are concentrating on crimes where there on a slice of easy wonga.
Just brilliant...
|
I have to agree - on Saturday I had three near misses on a 40 mile journey. All were at speeds below the relevant limit. One was in fact caused by a recently installed chicane, put in to make the road safer. Very ironic - especially when you consider that my 2 and 4 year old children were in the back.
All of them constituted either dangerous driving or driving without due care. None would be of interest to the local plod who can only be seen on the road when (a) screaming along with blues/twos heading for an non-motoring incident or possibly late for teabreak or (b) refilling the plethora of speed cameras sited just after the good overtaking positions.
The journey was mainly on the A41 Bicester to Aylesbury - backroomers please take care in the bits that look safe. They're only safe for the car and its occupants, not your licence.
Funny - once I had respect for the police. Then they invented the Gatso.
|
Front page Telegraph today.
The Tories put forward an idea that only some speeding fines should carry points, those that relate to speeding in 'dangerous' zones and Labour have said that they think the idea has merit. Fines will naturally still apply.
Is it me or is this not an admission by the government that this whole thing is a scam.
Aren't ALL scameras supposed to be ONLY located in 'dangerous' areas? Plus isn't ALL speeding in any situation supposed to be double deadly dangerous? So should not any persistent offender be banned?
I'm sorry but for me they've just publically admitted this is just another tax on motoring.
|
|
|
|
