Speeding! Any Advice?

[andy_k]

I had a thought about speed limits, what if, rather than everybody complaining about cameras, lasers, vans etc they just tried sticking to the speed limit for a month.

Just think, not one fine in the whole country, not one person stopped for speeding. How long would it be before the cameras were left empty because they were not generating any revenue and were in fact costing money to keep in existance.

The cameras are only there because they generate money and that is the fault of the same people that are complaining about them

Civil disobedience against a fully automated system that sees "right and wrong" will never work whereas complying by the letter of the law (even if you disagree with it) could have dramatic results.


As to the temporary speed limit comment

from speedtrap.co.uk

"You should note that exceeding a temporary speed limit is a non-endorsable offence. This means that you can only get a fine, but not have any endorsements (points) applied to your license. Of course, like most things in law, there is an exception, and in this case it's national speed limits (ie. motorways and dual carriageways). If you exceed a temporary limit on a motorway, such as in roadworks, or the controlled-speed section of the M25, then it becomes an endorsable offence, ie. points. This information is in some dispute at the moment, but came from a traffic officer undergoing basic traffic training so I have no reason to believe that it's false."

Andy

 

[Shude]

Just think, not one fine in the whole country, not one person stopped for speeding. How long would it be before the cameras were left empty because they were not generating any revenue and were in fact costing money to keep in existance.

er, yes

Remember how lots of people got involved with the petrol crisis thing a few years ago? How about everyone makes a serious effort to NOT speed for a week. It's not difficult really is it? If no-one was camera'd or stopped by the police in a week it would cost them a FORTUNE in lost fines. If no-one was caught for a month it would be seriously bad for them, a whole year would be disasterous.

I had to catch a bluddy train to work that week because there was no petrol anywhere. This was a major annoyance because I had to drive for 45 minutes to get to a station then sit on a train for over an hour, to get to work 30 miles away! Cost me twice as much and took twice as long. People were happy with this because it was a protest at petrol prices.

How about this? We just drive a bit slower for a week! Not exactly the same thing as the petrol protests, you might get to work 2 minutes later, but you might actually SAVE money in fuel costs, you won't get fined for speeding and who knows the roads might actually be a safer place if we believe all the stats that get forced down our throats. People seemed so happy to give up their cars for a week, this protest doesn't require that! You still get to use your car!

 

[Flyer]

... not a good argument for raising the speed limit or condoning travelling above the legal limit.

Fair point, but the point I was trying (and failing miserably ) to get across is that the message that is being sent out is "this is the speed limit, keep to it and you'll be safe, go over it and you are a danger to yourself and everybody around you".

I'm not concerned about *valid* 30 and 40 zones. We all know of areas that should obviously be a 30 zone; the road through the town centre, the road through the housing estate, past the school, etc. Perfectly valid. But you must have noticed speed limits being reduced where you live. 60 down to 50, or even 40. 70 dual-carriageways down to 50. A roads that used to be NSL, down to 50. It's happening everywhere, so where you used to be able to drive safely at the speed limit, you would now be exceeding the limit and "a danger to yourself and everybody around you".

And then the council stick a speed camera or camera van to catch everybody that exceeds the now-reduced speed limit. But it's not about the money, it's about safety

It's the rigourous enforcement that's the problem. And that's only possible through the use of cameras/vans. The numbers of police on our roads is diminishing all the time. The old Class 1 driver is no more (it's been replaced but I can't remember what by). You could do a long journey and not see any police. But you'll see plenty of cameras ready to nab you for a small indiscretion. We've all seen example of appalling driving and wonder how the driver ever got a driving licence; well, so long as he doesn't exceed the speed limit, he's going to be keeping his driving licence as there's no-one around to nab him for anything else!

Richard Brunstrom, CC of North Wales police admitted that he had an obsession with speed:

"I think you are right to say I have, in your terms, an obsession with speeding - I am proud of it."

Unfortunately, he is also Head of Road Policing of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Perhaps he should have an obsession with road safety, not just speed eh? This is the officer, Head of Road Policing, who said:

"It is against the law and there is no excuse for drifting over the limit any more than there is for drifting a knife into someone."

Hmm ...

Here's an interesting quote:

"It is a fact that everyone who has a car will speed. I have broken the speed limit and I defy anyone to say that they haven't. The point is that often speed limits are broken without people having accidents. What we have to focus on is where speed is actually causing accidents."

- Steve Mortimore, Assistant Chief Constable, Avon and Somerset Police

I'm going to jump down now off this soapbox as my feet are cold. The goundswell of public opinion is growing against draconian enforcement of speed limits and their reduction. Anyone interested in this topic really should visit SafeSpeed; lots of very interesting information there

 

[glojo]

As to the temporary speed limit comment

"You should note that exceeding a temporary speed limit is a non-endorsable offence. This means that you can only get a fine, but not have any endorsements (points) applied to your license.

This information is in some dispute at the moment, but came from a traffic officer undergoing basic traffic training so I have no reason to believe that it's false."

Andy

Hi Andy,
Unfortunately I cannot get to the link that you posted, nor can I get to any of my books.

Regarding the comments about speed limits and endorsements (penalty points) I would take a guess, and at present that is solely what it is. My guess would be that there is some confusion over the actual type of road sign displaying the 'temporary' speed limit. If it has a red circle around it, then it is compulsory and you will get points and prizes. If however it does not have this red ring then I can understand this officers comments. All signs with a large red ring are strict No, No's

I would take the comments of the 'Traffic constable' with a pinch of the proverbial.

We were having a debate on what is a PUBLIC highway and a Police Officer on this forum gave the following definition:

**If the public has access with or without payment it is a highway**

Now I'm sure they know what they mean, but just think of how many private venues fit into that definition? How many Race tracks, Stately homes, Zoo's, Forestry commission land etc etc fit into that definition.

Just my guess though and perhaps someone can offer differing information on temporary speed limits?

Regards,
John

 

[Shude]

Now I'm sure they know what they mean, but just think of how many private venues fit into that definition? How many Race tracks, Stately homes, Zoo's, Forestry commission land etc etc fit into that definition.

Your driveway probably meets the requirements of a "public highway" by that definition!

 

[glojo]

Your driveway probably meets the requirements of a "public highway" by that definition!

Morning Shude,
Totally agree. Then 'the boss' would have to travel slower than 60mph.

Regards,
John

 

[Sp!ke]

If everyone fought each and every Notice of Intended Prosecution through the courts, the system would also grind to a complete an utter halt.

 

[Benzowner]

The problem with humans in cars! We are the only species on earth that is able to exceed our physically capable speed, by getting into a machine driven by an engine. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people around who are unable to think at the speed they are now able to move . So back, in I think 1968 ish, a group of people sat down and revised our existing laws on speed. Problem now is, the cars produced now are more than capable of twice the legal speed limit. However, those same cars are driven by people, who are, in many instances, incapable of driving safely at those speeds. I am totally in favour of increasing the speed limits on motorways, after all, there are normally three lanes all going in the same direction, so less for our brains to contemplate, I am however in favour of reducing the speed limits within city boundaries. I am also totally in favour of punishing people who break the law. There is no excuse in my book why you should speed, and if you are caught you should face the consequences. I drive the same as most people on the forum, and if I get caught speeding I will pay up and accept my punishment. Don't forget, when you drive into a lower speed limit area, you should be driving at the revised speed when you pass the sign, not start to slow down at the sign as most do.

Rant over

 

[andy_k]

If everyone fought each and every Notice of Intended Prosecution through the courts, the system would also grind to a complete an utter halt.

I've got to disagree there Spike, within weeks the right to appeal/contest the tickets before the fine/points were applied would be removed which would be counter productive

civil disobedience in this case would be less effective than civil obedience

Andy

 

[Shude]

civil disobedience in this case would be less effective than civil obedience

This is the key! I'm sure I could manage to keep at the speed limit for a week, a fortnight or a month or something.

Or how about another policy: drive everywhere at 20-30mph regardless of the speed limits. That'd be the safest way to drive surely?

 

[glojo]

I've got to disagree there Spike, within weeks the right to appeal/contest the tickets before the fine/points were applied would be removed which would be counter productive

civil disobedience in this case would be less effective than civil obedience

Andy

Hi Andy,
I'm with you on this one. By pleading not guilty you are taking a risk. Magistrates will not take kindly to a 'smart alec' and if you engage a legal advisor it will cost a fortune.

When you see the speed limit, the driver is making a concious decision to break the law. It is no good making a decision and then crying 'foul'. By all means wriggle, but except the responsibility of your actions.

Regards,
John

 

[Shude]

When you see the speed limit, the driver is making a concious decision to break the law. It is no good making a decision and then crying 'foul'. By all means wriggle, but except the responsibility of your actions.

You are assuming that people have seen the signs. Every day I am forced to brake to 30mph in a 40 zone because people see the speed camera and don't know the limit. We are trying to fight the ignorant and the unobservant here, at least those that are speeding and know it probably look at all the road signs, including those for speed limits!

 

[pammy]

. But you must have noticed speed limits being reduced where you live. 60 down to 50, or even 40. 70 dual-carriageways down to 50. A roads that used to be NSL, down to 50. It's happening everywhere, so where you used to be able to drive safely at the speed limit, you would now be exceeding the limit and "a danger to yourself and everybody around you".

And then the council stick a speed camera or camera van to catch everybody that exceeds the now-reduced speed limit.

Actually - this is North Yorkshire and we declared UDI on this At this moment in time - there are no fixed speed cameras in North Yorkshire :bannana: :bannana:

Have seen limits drop on estates etc and outside schools where they should - but most of our other roads are OK. To be fair - they only do it on the ones where there are known accident black spots. Certain parts of the A61 for example that are notorious for fatalities. They haven't just reduced the limit but changed the road designs too to prevent overtaking as that's what usually caused the accidents. I have to say - it seems to have worked. can't tell you the last time I heard of a fatal accident on the A61 either Ripon to Harrogate or Harrogate to Leeds. They used to be commonplace(and I mean in the past three years or so) so measures in dangerous areas do work.

Now motorways

 

[Sp!ke]

I've got to disagree there Spike, within weeks the right to appeal/contest the tickets before the fine/points were applied would be removed which would be counter productive

civil disobedience in this case would be less effective than civil obedience

Andy

Nope, not true. Not in our legal system. You have a right to a fair trial and you always will. I stand by what I say.

To those that say magistrates frown upon those that try and fight resulting in stiffer sentences, I'm sorry but the magistrates are still bound by the same guidelines whether you fight or not. The penalties remain the same (OK you may have to stump up £50 costs if you are seen to be deliberately wasting the courts time). Remember, you are entitled to your day in court and this cannot be held against you, innocent or not. Anyone saying different is scaremongering in the hope that the public at large dont all do exactly what I say and bring the system down buy demanding a hearing.

Do the research and represent yourself and you will find that more often than not the mere fact that you went to court and showed how much it means to you often results in being offered a punishment on the more lenient end of the scale. If you devote enough time and attention to your cause, there's usually something somewhere where the t's havnt been crossed or the i's have not been dotted.

Life is just a game, I suggest you study the rules thoroughly.

 

[glojo]

You are assuming that people have seen the signs. Every day I am forced to brake to 30mph in a 40 zone because people see the speed camera and don't know the limit. We are trying to fight the ignorant and the unobservant here, at least those that are speeding and know it probably look at all the road signs, including those for speed limits!

Hi Shude,
I suppose I am assuming that the speed limit signs are legally sighted and clearly legible! If they are not, then of course there is a case to fight the allegation.

It is down to the driver to spot the speed limit signs and NOT the camera.

The driver has made the decision to contravene the speed limit, the camera is there soley to record the incident?

I am certainly NOT defending revenue collector type installations, I am merely saying we (drivers) must make a conscious decision to flout a particular law! Laws that are silly, should be removed because it is always the beginning of a slippery slope.

Likewise it is no excuse to say, "I did not see the sign"

If the sign was compliant to all the current regulations then the driver is perhaps not driving with 'due care and attention'?

If the car in front brakes suddenly to comply with a speed limit, then we never travel to close to it, so that we cannot stop in the distance that we can see to be safe\clear?

Wow.... Whose side am I on? Nope I am against speed camera's that are deliberately sighted to get the maximum number of offenders and does nothing to help road safety. Every school that fronts onto a main road should have speed camera's that are active during relevant periods. Fast, safe, dual carriageways that have camera's every mile or so because of a 'false' speed limit should perhaps be accidentally sprayed with roadside vegatation (just joking)

We are off to Lincolnshire tomorrow and will be running the gaunlet on the M5 and M42. Flash, flash, wink, wink.

Regards,
John

 

[andy_k]

not only is it no excuse to not see the sign, it's not even an excuse to be unaware of the speed limit!!! If it's not posted as otherwise the only "safe" assumption you can make is that the limit is 30 mph - I think Plodd posted that advice a while back.

We are lucky down here, there are virtually no cameras to dodge but funnily enough on the odd stretch of road where we really do NEED one to slow the idiots down we can't get one

It's a lovely stretch of dual carriageway with a 40mph limit that anybody who doesn't know the road would class as ludicrous until they hit the bend at the end........ Just over the brow of a hill the road swings left and te road camber shifts, not even a tight bend but it's just at the point where your suspension is "light" from the crest. At 40 mph you don't notice it, at 60, you really feel it and at anything above 70 you either end up fighting with the car to keep it straight, wrapped around the lampost (2 recent motorcyclists - one fatal), crash barrier (3 vans in the last month) or stuck in the front of the house as 2 cars in the last year have managed causing structurtal damage and injuring the residents All of these accidents happened in good road conditions, none of these people were "locals" and all of them thought that they knew a better speed limit than the ones the signs suggested - I wonder if they still think the same now?

Andy

 

[Shude]

(2 recent motorcyclists - one fatal), crash barrier (3 vans in the last month) or stuck in the front of the house as 2 cars in the last year have managed

If a camera was installed the local recovery companies/scrap yards would probably sue the authorities for loss of business!

 

[Flyer]

But that's the problem with councils reducing speed limits on perfectly good roads, speed limits that have stood for 40-50 years.

I obviously don't know the road you are referring to, but my experience is that there are many roads that used to have a 60 or a 70 speed limit, that I use to travel on at 70 or 80, perfectly safely. The council have reduced them down to 40 or 50 and plonked a speed camera on. What's changed? The roads the same, traffic density's higher, cars are safer, we're all travelling slower.

I now drive on your local dual-carriageway. It has a 40 limit. My experience tells me, a. that this is a dual-carriageway that normally have a 70 limit, b. the council probably have a speed camera on here and I should keep my eyes peeled looking for it, c. I can safely do more than 40.

Before speed cameras, you would see a 40 limit and know that the speed limit was there for a reason and would accordingly, be more likely to obey it (kinda!). Now, with limits being reduced everywhere, "you" are more likely to question it.

andy, you say there are virtually no cameras where you live; just wait until they're everywhere and I think you might change your mind . Especially when they're placed where, as a local, you know that there can be only one reason for their placement there (and it isn't safety).

BTW, I would say that that dual-carriageway is crying out to be re-engineered. But, of course, that would cost money, so we'll reduce the speed limit to a "ludicrous" limit and then we can blame the drivers/riders when they have the inevitable collision.

 

[glojo]

If it's not posted as otherwise the only "safe" assumption you can make is that the limit is 30 mph - I think Plodd posted that advice a while back.
It's a lovely stretch of dual carriageway with a 40mph limit that anybody who doesn't know the road would class as ludicrous until they hit the bend at the end........

- I wonder if they still think the same now?

Andy

If a road has proper street lighting then you should assume it has a 30mph speed limit unless it states to the contrary.

The dual carriageway you describe sounds like the local authority have a responsibility of care. Surely speed camera's are not what is required. To me this is once again government 'spin' To reduce fatalities a proper constructive review is required and no one here can say what is best unless they have seen the carriageway and then have the expertise. Speed camera's in my opinion are not the answer unless they are huge, and clearly visible to even the dimmest of drivers.

Options to consider are putting thick paint stripes on the road surface that give the driver the illusion that they are actually driving faster than what they really are.

This is done by having a nice wide gap, and as you get nearer to the hazard the painted gaps narrow. Thus the brain is deceived by the vibration of the car travelling over the painted stripes.

Close one lane of the carriageway and have large warning signs. Anything that would reduce the speed of drivers who might not be aware of the hazard must be considered.

The first responsibility of the Police, local authority, etc is to protect life NOT collect revenue, if there is a known black spot that has a history of fatal road accidents then it is a dereliction of responsibility not to attempt to rectify it.

Speed camera's would just record the speed of the idiot who was driving beyond their own capabilities. As my old instructor once said to me, "Any fool can drive fast enough to be dangerous!"


'nuther rant over,
John The Rant

 

[andy_k]

I disagree that the road needs re-engineering, the drivers need re-educating that a 40mph limit means just that - not a speed they think is suitable.

Due to previous accidents the highways agency erected a crash barrier but that didn't stop the last idiot, he hit a lampost first bending it back 45 degrees which then acted as a takeoff ramp so his car cleared the barrier and travelled some 20 metres horizontally before hitting a building in between the ground floor and first floor with his car in flames- he walked away with minor injuries, his father was interviewed and blamed the council for not putting up a better crash barrier. when the last motorcyclist died his family blamed the positioning of the lamp post as the cause of his death despite it being estimated he hit it doing something like 140 mph and no longer attached to the bike. The family of the previous car owner to die (he tried demolishing the same house as the latest one) blamed the lack of a speed camera for his death.

NOT ONE of these people or their relatives have had the guts to say it was their fault because they were driving like morons - quite frankly the more people like that who end up as statistics the better, it may help point out to a few people that driving at your own speed limits is really not the best thing to do.

the council has made an effort, the 40 mph signs were replaced and are clearly visible, they installed a crash barrier both at the side of the road and in the centre, there is plenty of street lighting and the road when used "as per the instructions" in as safe as houses. Sadly safeguarding and legislating against stupidity is absolutely impossible. Close one lane, great idea except that this road happens to be the only main road along this bit of the south coast and is used by all the traffic - it's jammed solid most of the time so the speed limit is academic and closing it would grind at least 3 towns to a stop - it's at night and weekends when the roads are relatively clear the problems start - exactly the time that people would like to see speed limits relaxed

Now, on another note, I have a friend who insists on driving after he has been in the pub all day - he says his ability to drive is unimpaired - what's opinion like on that one

Andy