Thread closed. Please see vol XVI for further discussions.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=22127
Speeding (mostly excl cameras) XIV 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.
A list of previous volumes can be found here:-
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=18848
No Dosh
Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
The most recent road safety messages (maybe something that varies form one are to another) have been more general, for example TV campaigns highlighting the consequances of going too fast for the conditions (although within the limit) using the slogan "THINK!"; and another aimed at speeding, jumping red traffic lights and the risk of being intimidated by aggressive following drivers. There's also a very good illustration of the danger of being distracted for split second, even if you think you're a better driver than most, and are within the speed limit. Another slogan used in these is "Be your own man".
The problem is that for every piece of "education" aimed at telling drivers what to do, there is another influence telling them the opposite. Drivers have historically refused to obey speed limits, so these limits have been revised downwards and more enforcement measures taken. Result - certain people spend huge chunks of time encouraging people to break the law. Who do you think some drivers are going to follow? They will not accept being told that what they are doing is wrong until it affects them personally. An NIP will change their behaviour when they realise how much more their insurance will cost them and when they get close to losing their licence - it would chnage it more if the fines and penalty points were higher.
I agree with what you say about cameras not catching the worst offenders, but some of the responsibility for that has to lie with the individuals concerned, and with those who encourage them. I saw a quote recently from a senior police officer (can't remember which area) that if things keep going the way they are, we will go back to hidden, mobile cameras that will be harder to detect or track. Good move, in my opinion. That WILL change driver behaviour.
I would like to know what proprtion of NIPs issued are for those who only drifted over the limit by a couple of mph. This argument is often quoted, but I don't ever remember seeing any facts to back it up. I suspect that many people assume you get 10% (or 10%+2mph) leeway and try to use that to go aim at 35 - they will always push for the most they can get away with. Let's not foget that most people doing 31 would have a speedometer reading up to 34/35, and if they can't keep their speed at 30 there are a whole lot of other numbers below that to choose from! If they can't keep their speed below a given figure maybe they should use the bus!
|
I wasn't saying that accidents are the "fault" of the police - I was referring to the excuse used that bad driving is the result of there not being enough police around to educate people on the roads. Irony, or something like it....
I don't accept that education is the primary role of the police - after all, we wouldn't expect them to have a chat with burglars, point out the error of their ways, then let them go on their way with the loot!
|
SR - my apologies, but today is going to be a little busy so I can't engage in this to our normal level!
I'm glad to see you agree with some points - I did say some time ago that we were probably closer in our opinions than might seem to be the case.
I'm just going to pick up your last point re education of burglars. I think that one area where our view diverge is that I see speeding (within reason) and burglary as essentially different. Burglary is a deliberate and evil act intended to cause harm. Speeding at say 80-85 on a motorway is illegal, without question, but is on the same continuum as a legal activity (70), merely further along that continuum than is permitted.
Speeding is an offence that may result from a lapse of knowledge or a lapse of attention. Education is an appropriate response, as well as prosecution in appropriate circumstances. Burglary is a crime that results from a criminal intent - mens rea as the lawyers would say. There is a fundamental difference, which is why education is not an appropriate response for the beat bobby who chances upon a burglar.
|
'If they can't keep their speed below a given figure maybe they should use the bus!'
I live in rural Northamptonshire, could you tell me where these buses are?
To the point I think most citizens would be more in favour of zero tolerance policing on speed on us if we saw zero tolerance for all.
For example, a friend of mine (English) now lives in Thailand. When stopped for speeding recently in UK he produced his Thai driving licence and his return air ticket. Police thought about it for a few minutes then let him go. Why? Uneconomic to pursue the crime.
In the area where I live our friends who live in caravans drive 'pool' cars. Untaxed, unregistered, uninsured and no MOT. The police leave them to it because if they stop/arrest someone immediately on his release on bail he and the car disappear. Uneconomic again.
I would accept your point (should you make it) that never mind what someone else is doing a speeder is committing a crime persay but surely you can see that the police pursuing soft targets is undermining the general respect for law and order in this country and we are all suffering as a result.
Detection rates on burglaries in Brunstrom's area dropped from 42% on his appointment to 6% now. Unless they have reduced police numbers or they have become markedly less efficient or there has been a massive rise in offences then the police in his area and clearly doing something else, care to hazard a guess what?
I repeat my offer of £100 to any person who will target Brunstrom until he is caught speeding and forced out of his job.
|
|
|
|
Heard a message on the radio the other day - you know the ones - \"Think - don\'t drink\" and stuff like that. This one however, word for word, 7:59 am, Rock FM said:
\"1/3 of all accidents are caused by men under 30\" I suppose that sounds more catchy than
\"2/3\'s of all accidents are caused by men over 30....ahem...or women\"
--
\"Ah...beer - my only weakness - my achilles heel if you will\"
|
\"are caused by\"? So they collect statistics on all the drivers that cause an accident but don\'t actually get involved in the claim as they don\'t make contact with the car that skids off the road avoiding their random motoring moment?
Hmmm. Why do I suspect more spin than a roulette wheel...
|
Gee I don\'t know! Whatever are you suggesting ND? Please enlighten us ;-)
--
\"Ah...beer - my only weakness - my achilles heel if you will\"
|
|
I\'d better adjust my clothing - my cynicism is showing.
|
You? Cynical? Noooooooooooooooooooo
--
\"Ah...beer - my only weakness - my achilles heel if you will\"
|
No really. It has been said that I may sometimes display a small amount of cynicism. Couldn\'t see it myself, could have just been more spin.....
Ok, my tongue is starting to hurt from the strain of holding it in my cheek.
|
I can\'t see it either - it may well be more spin....ow - my tongue.
--
\"Ah...beer - my only weakness - my achilles heel if you will\"
|
|
|
Cynical .... bitter experience
Tomayto .... Tomahto
|
|
|
|
|
ND,
I agree that this kind of statement is too vague to have much relevance - how about this;
'Statistics consistently show that young drivers are the most vulnerable road users. One in three crashes involve young men under the age of 20 and although only 7% of road users are aged under 21, they account for 12% of drivers involved in injury road accidents'.
From Essex CC Safety Manager ' Unfortunately,though it is obviously too early in the year to identify any particular trend, 2004 is not faring too well so far.
Five out of fifteen deaths as of March 1 2004 invovlved young drivers'.
Matt35.
|
With such an obviously identifiable source of danger to themselves and others, it seems that the legal minimum age for driving should be made 25, as soon as possible.
|
25? 33, I'd say.
[For information, patently's 34th birthday was yesterday....]
|
|
Happy Birthday, just think you're nearly halfway to 70!!
|
|
And with children - I'd assumed you were closer to 60... 911 is a good sign of early 50s. #:o
|
That was one reason for geting it now - in about 10 years people will be mouthing "mid-life-crisis" as I drive past......
|
|
I've got that covered. When I got a 911 in my 40s and I get MLC mouthed at me, I'll simply mouth back "paid off mortgage"
|
|
The other option is to lower the right foot and mutter "just envious"
|
|
If the Essex toll is only 15 in the first quarter they are doing really well.
If I recall correctly last year's annual toll was 112.
The record was 123.
|
Right Brian,
2003 was 112 deaths - 2002 was 92 deaths = 26% year on year.
15 to March is - as a statistic - an improvement of sorts.
Chelmsford IAM Group are still offering a full refund on the £75-00 fee to under 21s and a £40-00 refund to under 26s who take the course and pass the IAM test...apologies for another plug...to try to catch them young.
Matt35.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I've got an 'intention to prosecute' for speeding. The car was being driven by a friend from abroad , so I put these details in the ticket.
They have now written to me , asking me to obtain proof that the driver was here by getting hold of the flight details , ferry crossings etc...
I've told my friend an he says ignore it, he is foreign and they won't bother...
What can they do to me ?
|
|
Prosecute you under s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for failure to provide information as to the identity of the driver. I have to say, it's convenient that a friend from abroad was driving - while I'm not doubting the genuineness of your case, how many people would try it on if there was no sanction?
|
|
He is right, they probably wont chase him down abroad, therefore there is no reason why he cant provide you with the details you require then is there, for if he doesnt you will get prosecuted and he wont be a friend any more.
|
|
Legal advice needed here - If you gave the details the first time, eg name and the correct overseas home address, surely you have done what is required by law? To ask you to provide info like ferry tickets etc is surely too much and taking a liberty! The police should write since you have given them the address. If you get taken to court and then get up and state that you provided the info, I'm sure that the judge would laugh the police out onto the street. This sounds like it could get interesting......
|
Exact wording is actually pretty vague. S.172 (a) says that
"the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police"
Normally this is just the form and that clarifies matters sufficiently, however in this case it appears that the police are within their rights to ask for more.
|
Exact wording is actually pretty vague. S.172 (a) says that "the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police"
As I understand it, there is an implicit reasonableness test in all legal powers of public authorities, unless specifically excluded.
So, the bare reading of the clause is that it gives the police any requested info, in practice this would be subject to a reasonableness test.
It may be that the police reckon that in this sort of case its not worth the hassle of prosecuting someone overseas ... but if so, it seems reasonable for them to seek some proof that the foreigner exists and was in the country at the time.
If it was me, I'd want to provide the info, and would be rather miffed if my friend didn't help.
|
I agree with NoWheels and if your friend won't help, go with PugUgly. Even if he does driver a beemer.
No Dosh
Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
At some point later today this will be moved to one of the speeding related threads.
DD. BR Moderator.
|
The obligation on the Reg Keeper in this case is to identify the driver which can be done by entering the details on the form and returning.
Where a driver with foreign address is involved then this causes some problems to the Ticket Office. Now bear in mind on the subject of speeding there is a thriving culture of lack of economy of the truth to such an extent that TO's do not believe and enter into a line of enquiry for the Reg Keeper to prove his point that J.F. was driving and who can blame them. Included in this are requests to prove the vehicle was Insured for JF to drive (IIRC quite correct under other law). Not strictly law but no case law as yet either way (unless you know different PU).
So the TO is faced with one of two options:
(1) File W.P.B.
(2) Process Reg Keeper for failing to name driver/and or lay information against JF for the offence and place his details on wanted for service of summons list so that if he comes back into the country action can then proceed. It will be for the Mags to decide (no stated case that I am aware of) as to whether Reg Keeper is telling the truth and deal with accordingly.
DVD
|
Stress to your 'friend' that either he provides the details or you will be prosecuted.
He should do everything possible to resolve this situation or, in my opinion, he should no longer be considered a friend.
If he fails to respond you will be held liable for points/ban and fines. I can't see the courts letting this one go because suddenly everyone would have a foreign friend who was driving without proof.
By all means seek legal advice but don't waste too much money on it!
|
So, your friend was driving your car and got caught for speeding.
It is most unlikely that they will pursue it, and even if they did it would be almost certainly a fine only.
But, he won\'t help you out by helping to show that he was driving.
Nice friends you have.
|
|
|
|
The ACC responsible for traffic in Gtr Manchester Police has been fined £450 and given 6 Penalty Points for travelling at 104mph on the M6 Toll.
He admitted the offence, apologised for his "error of judgement," and said he was driving safely at the time.
Enough said.
|
|
what's your point ??
|
|
that anybody else would have got a ban?....
|
|
The 19yr old up the road from me didn't last week, and he wasn't insured either.
|
The point for me would be that a policeman actually admits to being in a position to drive "safely" at such speed.
So, lets look at these ridiculous road traffic speeds, use technology and make them variable & sensible. 70 is slow for most motorways in normal traffic & dry conditions. However,we can use technology to make variable speed limits for varying conditions. Elsewhere, 60 is ridiculously fast down a windy country lane. Vast stretches of countryside on the outskirts of villages in suffolk where we're obliged to pootle along at 30 is bonkers.
Now they have agreed you can be safe beyond the current limits, lets do something about making them more sensible.
Splodgeface
|
|
|
|
that anybody else would have got a ban?....
You could look at it t'other way round, and be grateful that he was prosecuted. There are lots of countries where no action would be taken.
Years ago, I was a with a friend when she borrowed the car of a senior politician (with his permission, I stress). We parked carelesly, got clamped, and when we went to the clamping ofice my friend nudged me and said she'd try a bit of mischief to see what happened.
Friend: "I probably ought to tell you that this car belongs to a senior politician, Joe Blogs"
Clamping ofice clerk: "Yes, thanks for telling me. Good to know that he can afford to pay"
End of discussion.
We both had experience of countries where the law would be bent to allow the high-and-mighty to avoid the rules, so we were rather impressed with the integrity of the system in England. Somehow, the knowledge that it really was one rule for everyone made it made it easier to pay up.
|
|
|
|
what's your point ??
1. He never received a ban.
2. He asserted he was driving safely.
We all know that speed kills;)
|
ahh, Mark, the reason the 19year old didnt get banned is because he was not insured.
If he was fully road legal then they would have banned him. After all they only punish those who obey the law.
He would probably have got a lesser fine and points if he didnt have road tax and insurance either... ;-)
|
Perhaps I shouldn't judge the ACC so harshly as he may have been the influence behind the CC's statement.
"MANCHESTER'S chief constable is telling his officers to stop targeting speeding drivers and start catching hardened criminals." www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/62/62702_go_easy...l
|
I think it is perfectly possible to drive safely at these speeds in the UK given appropriate road conditions.
But then I've been practicing my defence against the day I get caught for a long time now.
:o)
|
What amazes me is his claim that he was part of a group of approx 15 cars all doing round about the same speed. This raises a number of questions:
1) What happened to the other 14?
2) At 104mph, how on earth could he be in a position to see another 15 cars doing the same speed? To my mind, the only way he could know this is if they were all police vehicles travelling in a convoy. Otherwise, there must've been some serious tailgating going on!
104mph equates to 152.5 feet per second. So, allowing the "2 second" rule, there should've been at least 305 feet between each car. Put him in the middle of the line and there should be at least 2135 feet (712 yards) to the first vehicle, and a similar distance behind. On a nice straight road, he might be able to see the first car, but I doubt his mirrors would give him the same view backwards!
Put him further back where you could accept that he could see the vehicles behind, say at number 11 in the line, the first car should now be 3050 feet (1016 yards) in front. Reckon you could see that far in front with another 9 cars in the way?!
This is somewhat academic as the 2 second rule isn't exactly rigorously followed, but I'd still suggest that the ACC is being economical with the truth about the number of cars doing the same speed and that he was actually driving safely at that speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought that speeds in excess of 100 mph in a seventy zone lead to an automatic ban.
Is this not the case ?
--
just 'cos I know what I'm saying doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about
|
No, still at the discretion of the court, very much depends what side of bed the mag got out.
My bro got tugged at 111 on the M25 and got points and a (hefty) fine.
I got tugged at 108 and got 3 weeks and a very hefty fine!
|
|
|
i got copped doing 100.1 mph on m20 down in kent, by black unmarked volvo t5. this was 2 years ago. i am still waiting to hear back from them to go to court. the officers said it was an automatic court decision. cannot deal with a fixed ticket & points. if it was 99.9 mph they could have given me points & Fine.
i did ring up after 2 months and ask Kent county constab about this, there were asking me gor my name, which i didnt give, and the guy was asking me my registration, i didnt give, and also what make and model my car was. i declined all this, saying how long before i hear anything, he said "it is taking up to 6 months to process!" so i waited another 4 months (waited, i meant to say sweated, i drive around 1000 miles a week, engineer!) but never heard anything back. and am still waiting 2 years on!!!!!!!!!
just glad i was doing another0.2 mph that day.
i do not condone speeding at all, i drive to the speed limits.
|
VTiredEyes
3 years ago yesterday I was pulled doing 95.23 mph on the M56, dashing to get to hospital before my mum went into theatre for a 50/50 chance operation.
Plod told me that had I been doing .23 mph less I would have got a fixed penalty, which differs from what you were told.
In any case, I asked for the video evidence, so that I could have an independant analysis. They had destroyed the evidence, so couldn't have prosecuted.
Ask to see the video evidence.
|
|
|
|
That sheds a little light
in case you are wondering, this is why I asked -
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3671161.stm
it's obviously safer in convoy - makes you wonder if the other 14 got nicked, and if so, what their punishment was ?
|
|
|
mods - I now see this has been covered elsewhere - feel free to move it {already have done. DD}
--
just \'cos I know what I\'m saying doesn\'t mean I know what I\'m talking about
|
|
|
|
www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/index.htm?news_id=1418
(News article to your right)
Oh joy. UK government is looking sympathetically at a request from la belle france for points/bans in France to be applied to the licence in the UK as well.
Now I don\'t have a problem with this per se, but I deeply resent the fact that the same standards aren\'t being applied in reverse. If a French driver gets pulled for speeding it\'s usually two fingers to the boys in blue and back to the land of liberté, égalité et fraternité with a clean licence.
égalité? They\'re having a laugh aren\'t they?
For reasons I\'m unsure of, an accented capital \"E\" gets replaced by \"...\". Must mean something odd in html. ND
|
"If a French driver gets pulled for speeding it's usually two fingers to the boys in blue and back to the land of liberté, égalité et fraternité with a clean licence
egalité? They're having a laugh aren't they?"
Sounds like you are having a go at our friends the French there ND which I find hard to believe. But surely the fault lies with us in that we don't apply the same penalties to foreign drivers as we do to our own? Easy to change I would have thought if we wanted to. Anyway, nowt wrong with penalising speeding/drunk drivers as you say and we would probably come out on top since our speed limits are lower than in France and I can't recall ever seeing a speed camera in France let alone cops stopping people on the autoroutes for speeding. What they do seem keen on is the limits through villages and towns - but then they also seem to have some good traffic calming measures which don't involve speed bumps and an incredible number of their towns and villages seem to have by-passes (probably paid for by our contributions to the EU!!).
Anyway - I thought French cars always broke down so they would be unlikely to break the speed limit (or was that Alfas........????!!!!)
|
Sounds like you are having a go at our friends the French there ND which I find hard to believe.
More of a pop at our toadying government and their approach to motorists here in the UK than anything else. Big fan of the French myself, plan to move there one day.
I'll ignore the remark about Alfas.....
|
ND
Legislation has already been made in UK for UK Drivers banned/given points in France to have the ban applied to them in UK when they return. All in Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, Part 3, Convention on Driving Disqualification.
Apparently no commencement date as yet.
DVD
|
The RAC Foundation reference was quite interesting, especially this "60 per cent of those who use speed detection devices say that they have become safer drivers since purchasing detectors and three quarters indicate that they are more aware of speed limits in the areas in which they are driving ? using them as a reminder to check their speed not as a device to allow them to speed with impunity.*
The research done was a telephone poll and the full picture is at www.driverstechnology.co.uk/Morisurvey.pdf -
Main point: the conclusion reached in the last sentence "using them as a reminder..." is not at all supported by the questions used. The RAC have taken an optimistic view of the issue, to say the least, as another use of radar detectors, to speed in the absence of cameras, was not put in the questionnaire.
|
What's the position in Germany?
I only ask as (ahem) I picked up two traffic violations there last month. Nothing roadside, they've just come via the car rental place (who have also charged me for the privilege). Nothing I have had says what the penalty is, just this admin charge of 23.2 euros each.
Could I be in trouble?
O
|
|
|
|
|
I have tried a saerch on the above, but not turned anything up, so please accept my apologies if I am repeating anything.
I am not condoning speeding or anything like that, but seeing as the Snooper s1 is only £79 in Argos, I was wondering if anyone had any experience of this model? It seems a good price for an entry level model for detecting Laser & Radar devices.
|
having just come out of a company car, and now getting cash for my miles, i drive at the speed limit wherever i go.
i used to have a radar detector, its a uniden laser sst superwideband? you can buy this from me if you want.
i will never use it again, i found it annoys me and it takes my eyes from concentrating on traffic. and because i drive up & down m6 brum to Manc, nearly every day, i never get to go faster than 70 anyway!
|
|
|
This is a personal opinion but I feel that radar detectors even at £79 are a waste of money and dying technology ( for the UK anyway). The fact they are becoming very much cheaper and cant command premium prices for what is a simple device supports this.
1/ they issue too many false alarms, and a driver becomes immune to its warnings.
2/ Biggest threat comes from fixed, or fixed site cameras. GPS locators fit this bill admirably.
3/ Most laser detectors are usless, when they warble you have already been "painted" and nailed.
|
Not sure I agree with point 2.
I drive fairly fixed routes and have become aware of most fixed cameras (nice of em to paint them high-vis yellow though).
Where I've nearly been caught is from camera vans and plods with laser guns.
Point 3 - "Most laser detectors are useless...", some are definitely better than others at detecting lasers, it also very much depends on the siting of the receiver.
No bargains here unfortunately, the more you pay the better they are generally.
|
I think RFs point is not that the device doesn't detect laser, it's that by the time you have responded the reading has already been taken and it is therefore too late.
I also know the location of local fixed cameras but nevertheless my warning is occassionally triggered when I have crept a few mph over the limit...so I believe GPS locators have a use for those of us who aren't obsessive about our speed...
|
|
now if they had one to pinpoint fish on a river, that would be handy! save me blanking!
|
I bought a detector for around £150 a couple of years ago, undoubtably the worst £150 I have (will) ever spend in my life. Detected everything BUT what it was supposed to, traffic lights, automatic doors, mobile phones etc.
I almost felt sorry for the mug that bought it off me (thank the Lord above for E-bay!)
|
Save yourself the money and use the free speed indicator supplied with the car - a speedometer.
It indicates to a driver what speed the vehicle is travelling at and, when used in conjunction with a brain plus hands and feet, it allows him/her to keep the vehicle within the posted speed restriction.
Mods - is this thread acceptable? To repeat my comment on other threads like this one, imo radar detectors have only one use, to help a law-breaking driver avoid detection.
I doubt that a thread on avoiding detection while breaking into and stealing cars would go down too well. What's the difference? Choosing which law to obey and which to ignore perhaps?
|
Mods - is this thread acceptable?
It certainly is.
To repeat my comment on other threads like this one, imo radar detectors have only one use, to help a law-breaking driver avoid detection.
Ah, but that, as you rightly say, is your opinion. Others would state with equal validity that these are merely an audio reminder to stay within the legal limit.
I doubt that a thread on avoiding detection while breaking into and stealing cars would go down too well.
See above.
What's the difference?
See above.
Choosing which law to obey and which to ignore perhaps?
See a.... oh, you get the drift.
No Dosh
Backroom Moderator
mailto:moderators@honestjohn.co.uk
|
I have an old Snooper which I bought in 1988 or 89 after getting caught on a wide, empty, dual carriageway. I never saw the guy with the gun - he was hiding behind a wall -although I saw the patrol car about half a mile or so up the road, and got a fixed penalty notice.
Since then it has saved me lots of times from hand held radar guns, but it's pretty useless for Gatsos and laser guns. I removed it from my previous car, and I haven't bothered to install it in my new one, mainly because I tend to stick to speed limits.
The Bel Euro 550 is supposed to be the one to go for, but it's pricey.
|
|
|
|
I would think that few BRoomer's could say that they don't exceed the speed limit on a regular basis.
On this premise we're all law-breaking drivers, it's just a question of degrees.
Interesting snippet found on the web about radar detectors:
"Both types are becoming more acceptable after research showed that claims of detectors being a licence to speed were unfounded. Sales figures show that these gadgets are bought mostly by older, experienced motorists with clean licences and substantial insurance discounts. And a recent UK MORI poll showed these drivers had 24 per cent fewer accidents."
This would suggest that these are used by responsible drivers who probably do a lot of mileage to justify the cost.
Apart from both being criminal offences, do you really think that TWOCing and speeding are equally wrong?
|
|
Main problem with radar detectors is very few forces use radar these days...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought someone here might be responsible...
www.chessell.plus.com/stuff/speed_limit.jpg
:-)
|
|
I must have been flying lower than I thought....
|
|
|
|
It's not that Belgian one that was reported the other week with the digit "2" missing from the front, is it?
|
We had one of these set-ups on the road to our office a few years ago.
An in-house competition sprang up as to who could get the fastest speed through, AND get a digital photo of the readout at the same-time.
87 mph was the best result with photo evidence. All others were dismissed as BS
Perhaps we had somewhat missed the point.
|
Perhaps we had somewhat missed the point.
just a little, perhaps ...
|
|
|
|
|
Does anybody know if there is a laid down statutary distance for the placement between speed limit signs within a built up area to remind motorists of their correct speed.
Any help or advice would be much appreciated after recently being caught in a mobile laser trap, after travelling half a mile in an urban area without any speed limit signs.
|
I believe that if there are no speed limit signs on a road with lights then that is, by definition, a 30mph limit. i.e. No signs required. Is that the type of road on which you were caught?
V
|
|
The speed on the road in question actually varied from 40 mph to 30mph, hence the confusion, particularly with no repeater signs for guidance.
|
|
|
|
I believe the converse also applies - some villages which decide against street-lighting are not permitted a 30 speed limit as a consequence.
|
We have several 30mph villages in West Oxfordshire without street lighting and the 30mph limit is posted at regular intervals through the village as well as at the entrance and exit.
So agrees with the speed limit sign rules described by others, and a 30 limit is allowed and policed. Dont rely on absence of street lighting to indicate a higher speed limit.
regards
Ian L.
|
|
|
|
|
Was there street lighting?? If so, along with no speed limit signs, then the limit is 30mph. There's been a lot of 'letters to the editor' locally about a local dual carriageway road - the council say it is against the rules to put up 30mph signs - even if it would slow people down.
www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103
* The 30 mph limit applies to all traffic on all roads in England and Wales (only Class C and unclassified roads in Scotland) with street lighting unless signs show otherwise)
|
"The 30 mph limit applies to all traffic on all roads in England and Wales (only Class C and unclassified roads in Scotland) with street lighting unless signs show otherwise)".
There is also a necessary maximum distance between street lamps, but I can't find the reference to it. I think it is something like 100 yards.
|
In a nut shell:
Speed on a "restricted road" is 30 mph.
Restricted road is one with street lights not more than 200 yards apart.
No repeaters necessary,
40 mph on a restricted road has to have repeaters at intervals
to show other than a restricted road.
So coming off NSL into road with lights as above, 30mph, no repeaters until hitting the 40 restriction, 40 sign and if lights continue then repeater signs at intervals. NSL and away like hell.
DVD
|
Sorry Dude, its early and just realised you wanted distances.
All the law states is that there should be repeaters "at regular intervals" and this is not defined under Traffic Signs and General Directions.These are laid down by HMG to LA"s in Traffic Advisory Leaflet 01/95. The distances can differ according to length of road and speed restriction.
For a 40mph limit:
Max distance bewteen consecutive signs on the same side of the carriageway - 500 metres.
Max distance between consecutive signs on alternate side of the carriageway - 350 metres.
Max distance between start of length of road required to be signed and first/last repeater - 250 metres.
DVD
|
|
Thanks for your replies, - the road in question was lit within both the 40 mph & 30 mph zones but not sure of the distance between the lamp posts. It would seem from your threads so far that repeater signs are not necessary in a 30 mph zone and so I can only conclude that where limits vary between 40-30mph, this is all part of plod`s grand plan to extract £60 from us hard pressed motorists. DVD your info re 40 mph limits is much appreciated, but I still can`t help feeling that there should be a statutary distance for repeaters at regular intervals within a 30 mph zone.
|
Repeaters in a 30 zone have only caught on in the last decade or so. I remember being surprised the first time I saw them. Does this tally with the experience of others?
|
One of the local councils round here has stated that 30 repeaters are illegal and refuse to put them up. They would appear to be more interested in making lots of money from one particular stretch of 4 lane divided road than in road safety. Local paper got a quote of 300 quid I think to sign the road as 30 - but no way.
|
I too have read somewhere that it was/is actually illegal to have repeater signs for 30 mph.
More than a few times I've found myself on an unfamiliar road and travelled for a couple of miles - making sure I stayed legal at 30 but in disbelief because it seemed incredibly, ridiculously slow - before I encountered a sign denoting a change to 40 say.
This almost seems like a petty exploitation of the rules, to lure drivers into breaking a 30 limit. If repeaters are illegal, then if 'they' really are concerned about safety, it can't cost much to put up 'full size' 30 signs at reasonable intervals.
|
|
|
|
Why should there be repeaters in a 30 zone? If there are no repeaters in a built-up area, assume you're in a 30. That's the logical conclusion. Why do you need to keep being reminded every few yards what the limit is?
Far from being part of plod's grand scheme, it's simple logic and available to anyone who cares to check and update their own knowledge.
God help us if they ever introduce widespread variable speed limits! How WILL people be able to keep track then - "this road was a 40 yesterday - how am I supposed to know it's a 30 today?!"
|
You've obviously never been up the A12 between Bow & the M11, SR. It has variable speed limit signs, and they don't work very well. Often there is a 30 hanging there, whilst a 40 is shown on the other side of the road; and maybe a 50 somewhere else as well.
I presume these have something to do with the rush hour - but I've never been up there at that time.
|
You've obviously never been up the A12 between Bow & the M11
terrible road, billions spent building it then it's made undrivable by absurd speed limits, tailgate centre of london if you try and keep to posted limit.
|
|
|
|
Why should there be repeaters in a 30 zone? If there are no repeaters in a built-up area, assume you're in a 30. That's the logical conclusion. Why do you need to keep being reminded every few yards what the limit is?
I'd agree that multiple repeaters should be un-necessary but I'd suggest that one would be a benefit. After all, how many times have you been too busy looking for a road / sign / at a nice pair of legs etc to miss the original sign. It's no real harm, no massive expense, should improve safety and will remove completely the moaning that people missed the original.
|
Many/most 30 limits near me have a big red 30 sign painted on the road as well as the normal signs on each side of the road. These are sometimes marked out using 'rumble' paint so you get a sound as you drive over. Added advantage is that it doesnt get obscured by trees/hedges.
Ian L.
|
My main concern is that there appears to be no common policy on the placement of repeater signs across the UK. Having just returned from a touring holiday in Scotland, not only do all the villages have repeater signs at 100 metre intervals, but also 3:2:1 countdown signs as per motorway exits, to advise you of the approaching speed restriction, which IMHO is absolutely superb.
The onus should not be placed on the motorist to ASSUME the speed limit to be 30mph, particularly when the limit is varying between 30 & 40mph within a built up area, - surely the cost of repeater signs at 100 metre intervals could be financed from all the speeding fines being fleeced from us poor motorists, and that is exactly the reason why nothing is being done to address the problem.
|
Why don't they paint a speed limit sign on the back of the camera ?
If they're all as visible as the partnerships maintain, then they'd be useful place for advising the speed limit as well.
|
Also, why doesnt a speed limit sign on the camera warning signs. Then they could advise on the current limit as well as warning of the possible existence of cameras.
I have seen these in some locations (here and in Oz) but not in most cases.
|
I have seen these in some locations (here and in Oz) but not in most cases.
We've got them round here (West Sussex). I don't understand how anyone could have a problem drivers being reminded of the limit and alerted to the presence of cameras (whether fixed or mobile - they use them on roads where the mobile traps operate too), but I understand that there have been the predictable ill-informed shrieks of rage from the anti-car lobby along the lines that provision of warning signs is somehow helping speeders get away with it.
If one of the more learned BRoomers could please explain that one in such a way that my limited intellect can grasp it, I'd be grateful; I had naively assumed that the point was to prevent the offence in the first place.
|
Ok so its Fri pm.
As experienced motorists you will have driven on illuminated motorways at night. yes? Lamp standards all at less than 200 yards apart. yes? So a restricted road is a road with lamps less than 200 yards apart and restricted to 30 mph. Yes.
So why do you do 70 mph?
DVD
|
|
70? That's a bit slow isn't it? :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
