There is one instance where you could do 20 mph over by accident. NSL areas with lampposts but missing/hidden repeaters. Arguably it might not be a legal limit but at the same time who would challenge it? Especially as this lot have decided even if you are successful at challenging a speeding conviction they are going to refuse to pay your legitimate legal expenses so more are going to take dodgy convictions on the chin.
It also seems strange to have the fixed 20mph over for the 6 points. This means 40 in a 20 which is 50% over but only 33% over in a 40. I would have fixed it at a percentage instead. 50% is pretty clear so 30 in a 20, 45 in a 30, 60 in a 40, 75 in a 50, 90 in a 60 and 105 in a 70. The nsl issue around the 30/60 confusion would have to be treated separately I think.
|
this lot have decided even if you are successful at challenging a speeding conviction they are going to refuse to pay your legitimate legal expenses
I haven't heard about this, and at first sight, it's another wrong. Got any pointers?
|
Personally I think 50 in a 30 should give you an automatic 1 week ban. And 70 in a 30 should have the key thrown away.
OTOH, I think the whole streetlamps/NSL thing should be modernised. If the limit is 30mph, then the limit should be posted.
|
Personally I think 50 in a 30 should give you an automatic 1 week ban. And 70 in a 30 should have the key thrown away.
That's every professional police driver banned then!
OTOH I think the whole streetlamps/NSL thing should be modernised. If the limit is 30mph then the limit should be posted.
Would definitely agree there. I also think 30mph limits should have repeaters as it seems bizarre to insist on that for every single limit except where sticking to it is the most important ie built up areas.
|
That's every professional police driver banned then!
... along with almost everyone else.
|
I sincerely hope I have never, in my life, done 50 in a 30.
|
I have - at 3:00am in the morning its pretty safe depending on location and condition.
That the problem with cameras, they never quantify how dangerous your speed is just its number, where a copper can and used to.
|
|
|
Then you must come and visit me, MM, because on the stretch of road I have posted about before, near my house, I will virtually guarantee you that you will do at least 50 in a 30.
I am the only driver (that I ever see) that does 30 on that stretch, and am overtaken now daily by drivers who range from apparently outraged to apparently puzzled, as they do 50 to 60.
|
|
|
I sincerely hope I have never in my life done 50 in a 30.
Are you implying that you might have done 50 in a 30 without noticing, Mm? Tsk tsk.
|
|
|
|
|
It was unfortunately printed in the daily wail:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083763/Speeding-...l
It was mentioned on here too and a few other forums.
|
having lived abroad for some time it never fails to amuse me easily people in this country are cowed by the 'man'
if the local jackbooted jumped up council official told people that new regulations meant people had to hand him half the money they had in their wallet promptly every Tuesdays at 11am sharp Im sure most people would do it :-)
Edited by malden blue on 20/11/2008 at 16:10
|
|
|
Its not just there, its on the BBC News site and was on the news at 0600 this morning!
Quite honestly I can't see what the problem is... if the area is that badly signposted that you miss the speed limits signs then there's your get-out... 20mph over in 30/40 or 50 limits is not something you do by "accident". From that point of view I'd challenge the title of the thread!
Edited by b308 on 20/11/2008 at 16:12
|
the point is you have to do 20mph over TWICE to get banned
agree about the lamp posts and built up areas rubbish, its an archaic regulation. If there are lamp posts there, then there are places to put repeaters - specially now we have 20mph zones. If there is a speed limit it should always be signed with that speed limit. Bout time we got rid of the NSL sign as well. No such thing in Scotland, if its 70mph the sign says 70mph
|
|
Didn't know that AE, so if you leave a town on a single carriageway and the limit is then the NSL you will have a 60mph sign and not the white circle and black stripe one, then?
Edited by b308 on 20/11/2008 at 16:22
|
I didn't see any NSL signs driving up there, and all the motorway sections start with a red circle with 70 in it, not the black stripe.
|
|
But the NSL does sort of make sense - it means different speeds for different vehicles. But 30mph is 30mph.
|
|
|
|
Yes, the motorways are clearly signed 70 on entry, but from my recent experience around the Perth area, NSL signs are very much still in use in Scotland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The NSL sign is common in Scotland, although not normally used for motorways IIRC. On 'A' roads you won't see 60 or 70 signs for single and dual carriageways respectively, there will be NSL signs. I assumed this was normal for all of the UK.
|
There are some areas Princess Road being one where it becomes 70 into a 40, it is quite easy to speed in that case, however there is lots and lots of repeater signs and the speed cameras are placed after at least two 40 signs.
I think 2 points for minor speed violations is a lot fairer. as some people here will remember I am worried about possibily being done for doing 35 in a 30. I thought the limit was 40.
|
It occurs to me that this rather undermines the claim that speed cameras are simply revenue-raisers - since if we're all going to get banned from fewer offences, we won't be driving and therefore won't be providing the revenue.
I presume they'll keep the possibility of a simple short disqualification, so it may make little difference.
|
Groovy the banned people will either carry on driving regardless or pay taxis/buses etc which are all taxable businesses so the government still get some moneyt in their coughers.
i think its more about being fair, 70 in a 40 limit you deserve to banned.
|
I'm not sure they will, Rattle.
After all, we're talking about the risk of people like you and me getting banned, not the great unwashed.
We have something to lose, and therefore would abide by a ban.
They, on the other hand, who don't buy insurance because it's cheaper (they think) to risk a fine, don't care and probably don't have a licence anyway.
|
|
SFAIK 70 becoming a 40 is not legal. The maximum decrease that can be posted in a single step is 20 mph so 70 would/should become a 50.
This a might be thread in which to raise a query about the validity of speed limit signage? If you enter a given speed limit (say a 30) is it vald if there is only a single sign, on one side of the road. There is a lot if this around where I live, I don't speed but I am interested in the legal outcome of being caught doing 40 in an incorrectly signed 30!
|
The maximum decrease that can be posted in a single step is 20 mph so 70 would/should become a 50.
Shurely shome mistake? NSL to 30, for example.
It's been a looooooooong day!
|
GM you are correct of course! I am sure I saw this somewhere, in a different context.
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 20/11/2008 at 18:50
|
get caught doing 90 on a motorway twice and your licence is taken away?
its a joke, people can face losing their job their house everything, yet again the law abiding easily traceable revenue raising bonanza sector of the population is going to suffer
|
anyone with 6 points who gets caught aagain doing 90 mph on a motorway, is an idiot and deserves to loose his house and everything.
remember 90 mph is nearer an indicated 100 on the speedo. its noticable.
|
an idiot and deserves to loose his house and everything. remember 90 mph is nearer an indicated 100 on the speedo. its noticable.
Very much more noticeable in some cars than others AE.
Why are you so punitive towards idiots, AE? Granted, we are just as dangerous as villains, indeed more so, because we are so many. But we mean well. And you don't want us in a homeless starving crowd baying outside your house, do you?
|
I do a lot of motorway driving and on clear roads 90 is the average speed!
Let me guess you never do 90 motorways AE? btw they are the safest roads in the land
This is all about raising revenue from people that the government know will pay up, go round central London and look at the hunderds of thousands of untaxed, (and uninsured/registered most likely) cars there are, there is no money to be had from chasing them though, not cost effective
Edited by malden blue on 20/11/2008 at 17:41
|
This is all about raising revenue from people that the government know will pay up
I'm not sure it is.
The way cameras are used now probably is.
But if you're going to be banned for two offences, not four, then the argument doesn't hold up - because the govt is cutting off the income from the two offences that you won't commit.
|
And - sorry if I'm hogging this - if the reason isn't revenue-raising, what is it?
My guess is that they're trying to get us all to slow down, for environmental and resource-saving reasons.
And, loath as I am to support anything this lot does, I think that's not a bad idea.
|
if the reason isn't revenue-raising what is it? trying to get us all to slow down for environmental and resource-saving reasons.
I think you were right the first time. Revenue raising it is. Individual ministers vary of course, but government itself, which changes little between ruling parties, doesn't give a toss for safety, or the environment, or resources which are still fairly plentiful. It cares about the money, and can squeeze it out of the public by maintaining a silly and hypocritical line on the links between road speed and risk, eagerly swallowed by a bleating and superstitious public.
The new proposals are just tinkering for publicity purposes and won't make much difference.
|
I do a lot of motorway driving and on clear roads 90 is the average speed! Let me guess you never do 90 motorways AE?
Oh yes i do, but not with 6 points up and knowing another 6 would do me. go on - try - convince me thats not stupid
|
look at it that way AE and nobody should ever get a ban, ever
Its all about our money, we've got it they want it
I repeat, how do people carrying knives on the streets of London get off with a caution yet do 90 on the safest roads in the country and you face losing your livelyhood
People commit multiple burglaries and get off scot free yet people are in prison for not paying the TV licence (tax be it in the form of speeding fines,tv licence and all the other sources of revenue that they dont call a tax and its collection is their priority)
Have they got their priorities right?
|
"do 90 on the safest roads in the country and you face losing your livelyhood"
You CHOSE to face losing your livelihood. 90 is about 95 indicated in most cars, mine included. If you go that fast then it's a calculated risk you have chosen to take because you want to. There is nothing underhand about enforcing it, unlike stupid, pointless 50 limits with speed cameras rigorously enforcing it at every open stretch that completely prevent the overtaking of mimsers. Police are fairly open about being happy with 80 as the de facto limit - 90 is quite a lot faster, 50% quicker than the trucks for one.
It's the easiest thing in the world not to do 90 on a motorway; I'll admit it's tempting, but the law is a blunt instrument, and much as it would be nice, I can't see that ever being legal.
|
> look at it that way AE and nobody should ever get a ban, ever
correct
you get multiple tries to get a ban, the powers that be give you a fair amount of rope to hang yourself.
No-one ever need be banned. just the careless ones who get caught multiple times.
|
"No-one ever need be banned. just the careless ones who get caught multiple times."
AE, completely agree. It's a stupidity tax - paid by those that can't learn from the results of their actions. Certainly my friends and acquaintances that have points back this up - points almost perfectly reflect the standard of driving in my experience. Those that go too fast with little observation have quite a few, those that go too fast (IMO only) but with good observation tend not to have many. I myself claim only luck for my clean license. That, and sticking to a sat-nav indicated 77 on the motorway.
Of course many limits are very stupid, but most of us law abiding types have to play by the rules as they stand. Or go to Germany to see how fast their car will really go :-).
|
I don't know what it is like now, but in the days when I used to occasionally use the Limehouse Link tunnel (30mph limit) anyone doing less than 50 was risking being dragged from their car and beaten senseless..
|
'''I don't know what it is like now, but in the days when I used to occasionally use the Limehouse Link tunnel (30mph limit) anyone doing less than 50 was risking being dragged from their car and beaten senseless..'''
:-) :-)
I know what you mean, your average Morris Minor Glove wearing 'I wont exceed the speed limit idiot' wouldnt last long in many parts of the country!
btw try doing 70mph on the M25 in the fast lane for any amount of time in a deliberate attempt to slow the raffic down and see how quickly the OB are on your case
Edited by malden blue on 20/11/2008 at 18:25
|
btw try doing 70mph on the M25 in the fast lane for any amount of
you do have other lanes at your disposal. Have you thought about using one of them?
|
Oh and Malden, I do 22k miles a year, mostly motorway, and 90mph is not the average speed.
|
Just out of interest, those who say that its revenue earning exercise please answer me the following:
1. The big speeders will get banned more quickly... meaning...
2. They will not be paying any motoring-related taxes whilst banned... so...
3. That means less revenue for the Gov who would be the losers
Surely if they want to raise more revenue from speeders it would be more logical to increase the number of points needed before getting a ban... say 20, or 30, or??
My only concern, which someone else mentioned earlier is that the current system of enforcement of bans is not strong enough and far too many banned mororitsts continue to drive... this needs sorting, and quickly... other than a mandatory prison sentance if caught driving whilst banned I can't think of any other way... not sure where they'd bang them up, though...
|
The Limehouse link is full of people doing 30 mph these days. It is also full of speed cameras, on the way in; out and in the middle. Who says speed cameras are a bad thing?
|
Who says speed cameras are a bad thing?
:o} Guess, Mm...
Who wants to breathe concentrated exhaust fumes among reluctant, bad-tempered enforced mimsers for 66% longer than necessary?
|
1. The big speeders will get banned more quickly...
No they won't. They will heave a martyred sigh and take greater care to avoid being banned. The new proposals won't make a significant difference. Just tinkering.
|
No they won't. They will heave a martyred sigh and take greater care to avoid being banned.
Which will also mean a "loss" of revenue for these so-called revenue-raising cameras...
Or perhaps they actually aren't there to raise revenue but to try to get people to slow down...
What an interesting thought...
|
Or perhaps they actually aren't there to raise revenue but to try to get people to slow down
Not much of a conspiracy theory - You'll have to do better than that :-)
|
'''you do have other lanes at your disposal. Have you thought about using one of them?'''
what I meant was, that if you tried to hog the outside lane doing the max speed allowed legally you would be nabbed tout suite. its a charade
|
|
When I heard this story this morning I thought I'd gone back in time about 12 months or perhaps even longer. Wasn't the idea of reduced points for minor breaking of limits and higher points for more serious offences 'announced' back then?
|
|
Teabelly are you reading? 'Professional Police driver?' To be regarded as being a member of a profession there must be some sort of entrance qualification - what is that qualification with Police officers? (And it isn't 'class 1' driving permit as it's not examined outside the service). When oh when can 70 in a 30 ever be acceptable?? No self-respecting class 1 driver would go anywhere near that speed in a 30. Your thoughts? or were you suggesting they do it and get away with it?
|
20mph over the limit is a fair whack. Factor in some tolerance on the camera and the speedo and you could be talking about an indicated 55mph in a 30mph to get these 6 points. Seems fair enough to me. We suffer with speeders blasting through our village at 50+mph. Now doing that at 2am is one thing, but some of them do it a 8.30am when the kids are on their way to school.
As others have said, basically a tax on the stupid.
|
As I understand it the original deal was thus: 20mph over = 6 points <10mph over = 2 points (or less). The sceond part seems to have disappeared..
What happened to the reduced penalty for minor offences? Surely there has to be some give and take here. This may call for a letter to my MP (though as a Liberal he will probably ignore me!)
Edited by AlastairW on 20/11/2008 at 22:10
|
|
Why should there be give and take? A limit is exactly that. Choose to exceed it and potentially pay the penalty. From where do you derive the right to expect a certain amount of leeway? Taking this to it's logical conclusion: if you were able to petition the Government to raise the limit, people would still exceed it and expect some leeway. Never ending. A pedestrian hit at 35 is twice as likely to be killed as one hit at 30 -the potential cost of 'leeway'. The give and take arguably already exists in our points system whereby you don't lose your license until accruing 12 points. Even then you can escape a ban by arguing hardship. Never before has a subject caused so much debate, but as I've said before, I've never seen a contribution on here from a surviving relative of a dead road user. None of us think or expect that we will be involved in an accident, but I have had the unexpected person run out in front of me from behind a parked vehicle and could easily have found myself in that position.
|
|
So, Mr Woodster, have you never exceeded a limit, even by 1 or 2mph? I wish I could be as accurate as you. Visit North Wales and such a violation would be enough for 3 points. Would it not be fairer to have a lower penalty for minor transgretions such as these?
|
|
Since around 30% of road deaths (1000+ per year plus many more seriously injured) are caused as a direct consequence of the driver exceeding the speed limit, then why don't the speedsters reduce their speed and help reduce these types of road deaths to zero ?
|
Since around 30% of road deaths (1000+ per year plus many more seriously injured) are caused as a direct consequence of the driver exceeding the speed limit then why don't the speedsters reduce their speed and help reduce these types of road deaths to zero?
Because even if you believe that those deaths would be completely avoided (I don't) you'd still have 2/3 that happen where speed is not a factor.
|
A zero tolerance, full penalty for any transgression, approach to speed limits is frankly stupid and only a sanctimonious prig would defend it. A moment's thought will tell you that if 70 is safe, 71 is not of itself dangerous; also that risk, and therefore the seriousness of the offence, is much higher at double the speed limit than 5mph above it, other things being equal.
A fixed penalty without points would be a perfectly reasonable proposal for excess speeds of 20% or lower, and extra points for perhaps 50% +, though I'm not entirely comfortable with that - whilst speeding is an absolute offence, these penalties make no distinction between dangerous speeding and simple rule breaking - breaking a speed limit is not, of itself, dangerous.
For law abiding folk, the loss of a driving licence is a draconian penalty and should be reserved for wilful and dangerous behaviour.
|
Never before has a subject caused so much debate but as I've said before I've never seen a contribution on here from a surviving relative of a dead road user.
Woodster, do a search on my posts and you'll find I have contributed from this point of view. However, my father was not killed on his motorcycle as a result of speeding - he was killed by someone not looking where he was going whilst reversing out of a driveway, then subsequently panicking once he'd relised he'd hit something and hitting the gas.
The killer was not accorded a single point on his licence, nor a fine. Scot-free is the expression. A subsequent private prosecution, however, absolved my father of any blame (which is all we wanted, to clear his name) and the judge stated that he regretted not being able to ban the car driver.
|
When oh when can 70 in a 30 ever be acceptable?? No self-respecting class 1 driver would go anywhere near that speed in a 30. >>
Happens all the time, i've posted before about some limits being unacceptably low.. and specifically mentioned a dual carriagway on the A5 Edgware Road, where it is an urban clearway, no pavements, airborne, anti pedestrian fence between both carriagways, etc.. 70 mph would not be unreasonable...other than the fact there are built up areas at either end, so you'd need to lose your speed properly afterwards, esp north bound.
Over and above that; watch Road Wars, The Interceptors, Traffic Cops, etc... look for the bits where they pursue cars through built up areas
there was a clip posted on here a while back which showed old Police Camera Action footage of a police Rover V8 SD1 knocking along in 30mph limits with a transplant heart in the back..i'd hazard a guess some of that reached 70mph...safe in the knowledge someone will now check won't they..:-)
sweeping statements about speed are not all that helpful. There are some issues with speed that need a very heavy hand indeed.. and others where leeway would be acceptable. Personally, someone doing 90mph up an empty m/way in the dry wouldn't necessarily be at the top of my radar, but plenty of tut tutters who think they are good drivers, would be for driving along with hopeless forward vision and awareness, whilst going past schools, hospitals etc.
I sometimes cringe when driving through 30mph limits when the kids are coming out of schools..the parked cars either side scenario...some motorists happily beetle on, oblivious to the extreme dangers lurking there..THEY are the ones that need the education most.
|
|
The voice of experienced, educated reason, unfogged by dodgy figures and unconfused by 'what if?' fantasies of mayhem and bloodshed (What if a huge asteroid landed on Leicester?).
|
What if a huge asteroid landed on Leicester?
Someone from London would come and slap a parking ticket on it !
|
Lets get the number of deaths on our roads in to perspective. I've just read this on the BBC News website
'More than 10,000 people die needlessly each year because their cancers are not diagnosed in time, a study says.
The charity Cancer Research UK found GPs too often miss symptoms or do not send enough patients for tests. '
Why are we happy to let these 10,000 die whilst doing everything we can to chip away at the 2,000 odd road deaths . Wouldn't be anything to do with the fact that you can't ' fine ' doctors would it ?
|
'More than 10 000 people die needlessly each year because their cancers are not diagnosed in time a study says. Why are we happy to let these 10 000 die whilst doing everything we can to chip away at the 2 000 odd road deaths .
Two seperate issues... there are things that can be done about both and no doubt "they" will do something about the cancer mess, but that doesn't mean that they can't look at road deaths as well, does it?!
Even one less death from either cause is worth it... just ask the families left behind from both causes...
|
There are plenty of places and times where 70 in a 30 is logically reasonable as the layout and topology of the road is identical to that of adjacent nsl 60 limits. The limit doesn't necessarily always reflect the safe speed for the road or the conditions. There are also 30 limit wide dual carriageways in some towns! Generally they do and you would keep within a reasonable margin depending on traffic levels, width of road, weather etc if you were trained police driver. A class 1 or properly trained police driver is perfectly capable of exceeding a posted limit safely.
The entrance is passing the class 1 advanced driver which includes all the TPAC, pursuit driving and advanced handling etc. I'm not talking about the training for police drivers that just bimble around in fiestas.
|
Surely if they want to raise more revenue from speeders
I do not think that "revenue" is the main reason for "clamping down" on speeding people, although I'm sure it's fashionable (or was so) to think that.
Edited by FotheringtonThomas on 21/11/2008 at 00:27
|
remember 90 mph is nearer an indicated 100 on the speedo. its noticable.
It certainly is. My old car used to make a lovely zzzzzzzZZZZ sound up at about 120. Lovely. Absolutely.
|
|
Id still like to see variable limits, especially in urban areas so that they reflect the real time conditions - that surely would allow for slow speeds when kiddies are pouring out of school but the mentioned 30 mph dual carriageways could then up raised gradually through the evening and slowed down again in the mornings.
|
I think there are two separate issues here. Whether the limits make sense and are well or fairly controlled is one aspect. Though actually those who think the UK is too stringent in this area should try visiting Norway. 80km/h national speed limit on long straight and empty roads, speed traps every few km and truly massive fines make the UK look liberal by comparison.
On the other hand, the argument that it is somehow unfair to be banned if you are caught a second time at 20mph over the speed limit doesn't quite add up. They've told you it will happen, so if you know you are likely to be banned, you don't take the risk. I was banned for 4 weeks, it felt like a lifetime, and I go out of my way not to repeat the same mistake in order to avoid another ban. This seems quite simple to me.
|
It seems slightly pointless these days changing the penalties. Much as would like to see road deaths decrease I doubt this will make any difference.
In reality I could have driven to work this morning drunk, high on drugs, uninsured and on 4 bald tyres in a stolen car. No one would have stopped me, and as long as I didn't speed past the 2 speed cameras on my journey I would have got away with it. And that applies to my commute every day.
Until there are more plod on the roads targeting dangerous driving (and not just in the revenue hungry way) the penalties are irrelevant.
|
yet again the law abiding easily traceable revenue raising bonanza sector of the population is going to suffer
It's hardly going to be a bonanza if they remove the best players from the game?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
