Speeding (mostly excl cameras) VII - Mark (RLBS)
Thread closed. Please see version VIII for further discussion

www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=14...5


Speeding (mostly excl cameras) VI is now 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.


Mark (RLBS)
Moderator at Work

mailto:mark_moderator@honestjohn.co.uk
bicycle speeding - cjabingham
I am a mountain bike cyclist and have just fitted a wireless speedo and notice how fast I go. If I break the speed limit in a 30 mph area and did not have a speedo, then I would not know! Since it is not legal requirements for a cyclist to fit one, therefore it is not neccessary for cyclists to obey the speed limit but rather to cycle safely and not endanger others. So common sense and time of day and people around you are the more important factors!

Chris.

PS. my record is 43 in a 30mph limit!
bicycle speeding - SteveH42
Are you sure it is not possible for cyclists to be done for speeding? Many tractors don't have speedos, for example, yet I'd imagine they are as liable to speeding convictions as anyone else. Not knowing what speed you are doing is not really any defence.
bicycle speeding - Dwight Van Driver
Speeding only applies to MOTOR VEHICLES which a Pedal cycle is not.

However you can be drunk in charge of a pedal cycle and also be done for dangerous riding or riding without due care and attention.

DVD
speeding other than in a motor veh - Flat in Fifth
what about pony and trap DVD? There's been some change in the legislation IIRC.

Legend has it there used to be one old boy who went to the pub like this on the basis that the horse knew the way home. Anyway he got involved in a pursuit with old bill who nicked him for "furious driving."

Could it be true or a myth do you reckon?
bicycle speeding - SteveH42
Speeding only applies to MOTOR VEHICLES which a Pedal cycle is
not.


Gah! You spotted the flaw in my logic... ;) As an interesting aside, though, what is the situation re these bikes that have a motor fitted to 'assist' the rider?
However you can be drunk in charge of a pedal cycle
and also be done for dangerous riding or riding without due
care and attention.


Isn't there also an offense of 'furious riding' or something? I'm sure I heard something about someone getting done in the Mersey tunnels for that a few years back, although I could be mis-remembering.
Speed limit repeater signs. - Dwight Van Driver
To J400ANT and any other interested parties:

The posts of J400ANT (previous Speed thread www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=10359&...e onwards) intrigued me so much that I have spent the weekend on research which has apparently opened a can of worms.

To understand why it is necessary to look at speeding:

Sect 82 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 defines a ?restricted road? as one where there are street lights placed not more than 200 yards apart. Note nothing said about signing it as such.

Sect 81(1) states it is unlawful to drive a motor vehicle on a restricted road at a speed exceeding 30 mph.

Sect 85(5) where a road has such lamps the lack of any traffic sign saying the road is NOT restricted will be evidence that IT IS a restricted road. Also 85(4) states where there are no lamps there MUST be a traffic sign stating what the limit is. Hence your signed 30 zones to cater for any deficiency.

Obviously on wide sections of straight urban roads a 30 limit is not practical and could safely support a higher limit. Hence Local Authority steps in and by an Order ups the limit to 40 mph. This limit by law has to have repeater signs at intervals to take it beyond the realm of a restricted road where there are streetlights.(Direction 11 Part 2 TS & GD 2002)

Speed limits, other than restricted roads, have to be signed and the signs by law comply with the requirements as to size and dimension under Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002.

The 40mph restriction is Diagram 670 and the minimum size under the Regs. is 300mm. That quoted by J500ANT appear to be 150mm.

If a sign is outside the dimensions under the Regs. it appears it is unlawful and therefore should preclude any prosecution for exceeding the 40 limit, but not it seems the 30 mph for the restricted road. This means that motorists reported have been done so for exceeding the wrong limit.

Having been unable to come up with any law that permits a reduction in the size of a 40 sign to below 300mm, I visited the Traffic Management Department of our County Council and posed the same problem to them. They have confirmed that there is no lower dimension of 300mm for the 40 repeater sign.

It therefore looks as if J400ANT has unearthed an illegally signed speed limit. I would suggest that he tactfully draws this matter to the attention of his Local Authority to prevent motorists be prosecuted for exceeding the incorrect limit. Please publish any feed back from them.

DVD
Speed limit repeater signs. - J500ANT
DVD,
Ive been too busy today (got my new smart - amen) but will focus my attentions upon it tomorrow.

However im not too sure whether to go to the Highways people, or to enlist the help of the ABD and also go to the local paper with it, or else I can imagine I will be soft soaped into believing that what is there is legal.

I will keep you informed.

Tony
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Morris Ox
News this morning that a car dealer in Scotland has been jailed for five months for driving at 156mph in a BMW M3 on the A90.

He's 27 and has also been banned from driving for four years.

Personally, I find it almost disturbing that someone thought it was okay to drive so far over the limit on a public road.

156mph - on a dual carriageway! - SjB {P}
So most Germans are disturbed people then, and I'm mad for many times having driven legally in excess of 150MPH on empty autobahn on my trips to the Czech Republic, and for considerably more than this on a Honda Blackbird?

Sure, if something goes wrong, I'm history, but there's a time and place (to be fair neither of which I know regarding our banned Scottish friend) for taking such a decision sensibly.
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - smokie
There's a difference between Germany, where it's legal, and here, where it's not. The difference is that in Germany other drivers are aware that they might have someone approaching from behind at double their speed and drive accordingly. Over here, it is not expected and therefore more dangerous. (In fact over here it doesn't seem to occur to many drivers that there is anything at all behind them...but that's another matter)
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - volvoman
Agreed and who decides when it's safe to do 156mph on a public road ?
Who decides when a tyre blows out, when a patch of black ice is encountered, when another driver is going to appear from nowhere ? Who should be responsible ? The driver of the M3 or the other road users he is putting at risk. In my opinion anyone who feels doing more than twice the legal limit on a major public road is totally irresponsible and the last person who should be empowered to make such a decision about what level of risk is acceptable ! For anyone to say that something is safe because they've done it before and walked away is plain nonsense. Who defines what safe is and who's to
say that everyone accepts or should be exposed to that same level of risk ? When we drive on public roads we do not do so in isolation ! We put our own lives and those of other people at risk. The fact that, for a moment of macho madness or to shave half an hour off a journey, some people are prepared to risk so much and be so inconsiderate is really very sad !
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - volvoman
If someone wants to drive at 156 mph on private land and risk their own lives I really couldn't care less. If however they do it public roads they're putting other peoples lives at serious risk and should be banned for life!

Furthermore, anyone responsible for a fatal accident at those sorts of speeds should be treated by the courts as if they'd committed manslaughter.
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Marcos{P}
I have driven at speeds similar to this on French roads following an Audi S4. We drove past the police and slowed down for junctions, busy sections etc and didn't encounter any problems.
The problem in this country is it is all too conjested to drive at that sort of speed and peoples attitude towards fast driving on motorways is silly. I have on many occasions whilst doing 90mph on the M1 had people pull out on me just to get me to slow down which is very dangerous. 90mph on British roads is plenty fast enough for me, 156mph is just downright stupid.
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Tomo
Well, we do not know exactly whereabouts, or what the traffic conditions were - roads up here are not always congested - so we don't know if it was dangerous or not; but an Aberdeen car dealer should have known that parts of the A90 are rotten with cameras and anti-motoring police.

Anyway, it obviously makes some characters happy.

Must update Morpheous.

Cheers,

Tomo
Tomo.
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Aprilia
Its a question of what you're used to.

I've driven extensively in Germany and although there are some unrestricted sections of the autobahn there are actually many more km's where speed limits are applied and ridgidly enforced (typically 100, 120 or 130kph - 130 is the 'advised limit'). On the unrestricted sections the road surface is kept smooth and free from debris and other drivers are very much accustomed to vehicles approaching at high speeds etc.

A dual carriageway usually has no hard shoulder and may have crossings/turnouts etc. so I think driving at that sort of speed on a UK dual carriageway really does have to be classed as a deeply irresponsible act.
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Flat in Fifth
I take your point about the circumstances Tomo however on my trip up the A90 I noticed that almost all the multitude of cameras were placed at the approaches to junctions. Certainly in places where potential for misjudgement of an approaching vehicle speed would lead to terrible consequences. The higher the impact speed the greater the human and mechanical consequences.
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Flat in Fifth
Off topic from the current thread, but just had an itchy trigger finger on the last post and accidentally clicked twice. In the past would have ended up with two posts, now just get a "You've already posted this message dummkopf!" Cool guys!
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - doug_523i
Didn't Top Gear show that at this speed the Gatso doesn't get the second picture? Can we take it that patrol car was following at a 'safe' 156mph to determine the speed?
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Nortones2
Tomo, re "don't know if it was dangerous or not" - Mways excepted, it is hardly arguable that such a speed could be safe, on any road, under any circumstances. re anti-motoring police, I regard the traffic police as damn good public servants, having had to work with them. Apologia for hooliganism and denigration of the law enforcers does you little credit, sir.
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Nortones2
BBC news excerpt: \"Police clocked the vehicle several times and found he was doing 120.6mph in a 40mph zone and 156.7mph on the dual carriageway, which has a speed limit of 70mph.\" The sorry tale: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3030327.stm
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Ian (Cape Town)
120 in a 40? I work that out into km/h, and it frightens the hell out of me, thinking about OUR 60km/h limit areas ...

Oh, and I see he was already disqualifed ...

There's a word for people like that ... but it is not for a family-oriented forum!
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Altea Ego
And he was a disqualified driver, I bet mcBill had been keeping tabs on him for a while, 120mph in a 40? no wonder they sent him down.
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - dave18
At the start of this thread I thought, uh oh, anti-'speeding' rant again. However the bloke needs psychiatric testing - the 120 in a 40, and whilst disqualified? Gotta laugh or you would cry!
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Dynamic Dave
This will get moved to the "Speeding (mostly excl cameras) VII" thread later.
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Ian (Cape Town)
DD, why not put it into "The Silly Thread"?
The speed he was doing qualifies as "silly"... :)
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Wally Zebon
It's a good job the car is limited to 155mph. God knows how fast he would have gone if the limiter had been removed!
I know that piece of road and there are T junctions all over the place. It would only have taken a tractor to pull out and he would have been dead!

156mph - on a dual carriageway! - eMBe {P}
Personally, I think he got off lightly.

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Nortones2.

As for WZebon's point about hitting a tractor, It would be an appropriate lesson for this speeder except that the poor tractor driver would be an innocent victim.

These speeds may be considered safe & legal elsewhere, so if you think you are a good enough driver to drive safely at those speeds, go and do it those countries. (examples of laws in different countries: You can drink alcohol here but would be risking prison if you did so in Saudi; "acts" you can do in the UK at age 16 are considered illegal in the USA; and so the lsit goes on.)

Obey the laws of your country, or get caught and take the punishment. Unless you support anarchy.
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - dave18
On the other hand, theres the argument that 70 on the m-way late at night/in traffic free sunny conditions/whatever is a stupidly low speed (guess which argument I agree with.)
I think the punishment was about right - the shock of prison to make him realise followed by the disqualification which presumably, for him, is a great inconvenience with further consequences than not being able to go places for the hell of it.
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Tomo
It turns out they threw in dangerous driving and the lad was disqualified, so it's clear he had pushed his luck - as I think I suggested.

But you can clock at least 150 in perfect safety, certainly for anyone else, given the right time and place.

I shan't give my authority for that statement, for fear one of the nannies on here might try to shop it.

Tomo.
156mph - on a dual carriageway! - Morris Ox
Tomo, you absolutely can't clock any speed in perfect safety on a public road. You can't even do it on a track; there are so many variables at play that the statement just doesn't stand up.

Nowt to do with 'nannies', either. It's about using your common.

156mph - on a dual carriageway! - volvoman
Agreed MO - to those who feel doing speeds like that on public roads ANYWHERE at ANY time is safe (and presumably therefore acceptable) I would ask:

Do you feel that anyone who considers it safe to fit and/or service gas appliances on the basis that they own one and have read the Corgi rule book but don't agree with the law should be allowed to do so at their own discretion or do you feel the rights of those innocent parties who might be blown up or gassed as a result should be paramount ? If yes, would your views be the same if that bloke was your next door neighbour and your kids often stayed there overnight ?
Any answers ?
Speed limit repeater signs. - Dwight Van Driver
F.A.O. J500ANT

Anything to report on the 40 mpg signs?

DVD
bicycle speeding - dave18
Steve -
Yes its possible to be done for speeding on a bike. My record is 44.5 in a 30! :D
I was in Halfords relaying the story of how Id been done for no lights (I usually only use the bike to get into town and back of a daytime) and the bloke told me about a friend who had been done. Some legislation relating to horseriders was cited. Basically in Aber we have the Dyfed-Powys headquarters, consequence being a lot of police with very little to do.
Speed Limits? Be Honest !! - shoei
How many people stick to the set speed limits in 30, 40 and 50 mph zones? Because on my way to work through these speed limits, about every single person speeds. What are your views on speeding in these limits? Not on motorways as these are safe places anyway (ish).
Speed Limits? Be Honest !! - Rob the Bus
Shoei,

Owing to my job (which should be fairly self-explanatory!) I rarely take the risk by speeding. It just ain't worth it. Whether I'm in a car or a bus, I try my best not to speed as four minor speeding offences (all speeding offences are serious, but you know what I mean!) equal no job.

I do find though, that driving at the speed limit sends a lot of other drivers nuts. Especially if I'm working and running early. In that situation I'll do (for example) 35 in a 40 and the amount of car drivers that are right up me chuffer is, sadly, unbelievable. If more motorists appreciated that the speed limit is just that and not an aim, life would be a lot more chilled.

(If you're likely to be on the roads of Chorley, Leyland, Lostock Hall or Preston tomorrow then I apologise in advance. It'll be quiet, so I'm bound to be running early and therefore driving slowly!!!)
Speed Limits? Be Honest !! - martint123
On the bike - stick like glue to 30 & 40 - can't recall many 50's round here.
Speed Limits? Be Honest !! - Marcos{P}
I think it really depends on the circumstances i.e. built up areas or not.
I try not to speed at all in built up areas as I got stopped the other week and whilst taking my daughter to nursery the other morning a small child jumped out from behind a parked van. If I had been going above 30mph I doubt I could have braked in time so I would now be possibly dealing with the fact that I had killed a child.
Believe me it makes you think twice and really annoys you when you see some little muppet in his Nova doing 50 round a load of houses.
Speed Limits? Be Honest !! - HF
I try not to speed at all in built up areas
as I got stopped the other week


Marcos do you mean that you DID speed in built up areas but have now learned your lesson due to being stopped?

I understand the fright you must have had outside your daughter's school, but did it really take being stopped to make you realise all this?
HF
Speed Limits? Be Honest !! - Marcos{P}
I was speeding but not in a built up area but that is going to court in a few weeks as it's not that clear cut.
The point I was trying to put across is that to speed in a built up area you must be either stupid or blind. When I nearly hit that child I couldn't believe how lucky he was that it was me driving along at the time and not some silly little idiot doing 50.
It's just too easy to kill someone with a car just by trying to save yourself a couple of minutes time.
Speed Limits? Be Honest !! - HF
Thanks Marcos, agree totally. Sorry but to me it wasn't clear from your last post that you weren't driving in a built-up area when you were stopped.

And I know exactly what you mean about the child being lucky it was you, driving sensibly, rather than one of these idiots that are so prevalent.

As for it being easy to kill someone to save a bit of time - well I couldn't agree more, it totally sickens me, and I've said this before in former threads so I'd best shut up now.
HF
Speed Limits? Be Honest !! - Tom Shaw
With six points meaning removal from the Driving Instructors Register I also obey 30 and 40 limits to the letter. This is where almost all of the speed traps are set. I must admit to toeing it a bit on the NSL, but not by enough (Hopefully) to warrant a pull.

This part of the world we have no Gatso's, but we do have a mobile speed camera unit which can be worse as you never know where it will be.
Speed Limits? Be Honest !! - Obsolete
I always stick to the limits with one exception. There is a local 30 mph road where the limit drops to 20 mph at junctions. I don't obey the 20, but rather drive at a speed which I judge to be appropriate, which might be 20, or lower, but is usually 25-30.

I have had so many instances where someone has run, or been pulled into the road in front of me, that I stick to the limit, or less according to conditions.

Anyway, why race? I reckon I make excellent progress, and enjoy relaxed stress free and safe driving.
Speed Limits? Be Honest !! - Dwight Van Driver
Following on from Pug Ugly's post about the problem with unsigned name and shame forms, the following appeared in my local paper and I am surprised none of you have brought it to attention.

Yesterday, Dwight Yorke appeared before The High Court in London to be told that a speeding conviction imposed on him was flawed. His brief argued that he should have been acquitted because there was no signature on the official form relied on by prosecution to show he was the driver caught speeding.

lord Justice OWEN was told - that in the wake of the rapid in crease in speed cameras - similar cases were spreading "like a virus".

Mr OWEN reserved his judgement to a later date (to allow Home Office to plug the gap?) and expressed surprise that the legislation had not come under challenge in the High Court sooner. (Smack on wrist PU?)

On the same subject anybody know how Mr Idris is getting on with his appeal to the Court of Human Rights????

DVD
TV Speeding Advert Dangerous? - Obsolete
I recently saw an anti-speeding advert on TV. It's the one where a car hits child, and it's all shown in slow motion. Anyway, thinking about this a bit, it strikes me that the message is totally wrong. The accident sesms to take place on a fairly busy high street. In this sort of place an aware driver should probably not be doing the speed limit anyway, never mind exceeding it. There seem to be all sorts of obstacles, and the alert motorist should be continually checking for hazards such as pedestrians, and slowing if a pedestrian obviously has not seen their car. Suggesting that 30 is safe in these conditions is a totally wrong message.

So, is this ad giving a potentially dangerous and misleading message? Bear in mind that most drivers do not think about their driving once the test has been passed.

PS: I have no problem with speed limits and cameras. That's not the point behind my posting.
TV Speeding Advert Dangerous? - NorthernKev {P}
No, so long as you do the speed limit you will NEVER have an accident. You may not be paying any attention but you will NOT hit anyone because you are doing the speed limit.

Kev
TV Speeding Advert Dangerous? - puntoo
It also send out the wrong message to children who will assume that all drivers doddle along oberserving the speed limit and being extra observant of the surroundings.

A few more public information messages for the young and less adverts for overpriced purple dinosours as well as the adverts for drivers might help.
TV Speeding Advert Dangerous? - James_Jameson
NorthernKev - you are correct.

Isn't it wonderful, if we all do what we are told like good little people, we won't have to think at all.
TV Speeding Advert Dangerous? - sean
If I run someone over on the footpath I expect the full weight of the law on me.
If I'm driving on the road I don't expect someone's kid to run out in front of me.
What are his parents doing?
I'll do whatever is reasonably possible to avoid an accident but the onus must be on the lad's parents.

I know it's a while ago now, but I was taught to look both ways, use the green cross code etc when I was young.
Nowadays if someone runs out in front of you and gets hurt, they are treated as totally innocent.
Bonkers, in my view.
TV Speeding Advert Dangerous? - Richard Turpin
I recently represented someone who killed a pedestrian. The driver was doing 10 to 20 MPH at the time according to the police. The driver swerved to miss a dog and hit the pedestrian. So much for "if you drive at the speed limit you will never have an accident".
TV Speeding Advert Dangerous? - StuW
I don't think the point of the advert is to say that 30mph is always safe or that you'll never crash if you stick to the speed limit. People seem to forget the speed limit is the maximum speed not the minimum or target that everyone should aspire to. The point the advert is making is that the faster you go the slower your reactions will be and the longer it takes you to stop. I do think the advert despite being shocking makes no different to how people drive but i don't think its unsafe at all.
And if you did knock someone over as long as you were not speeding and took reasonable action to avoid it and i don't what you could be possibly be guilty of or be convicted fined etc.
One last thing why do some people walk as slowy across a road as possible (usually cocky young lads) do they think they're hard or something???
TV Speeding Advert Dangerous? - MichaelR
I love the way they are so precise about exactly how many extra feet it takes to stop at 35mph.

Do they really think that a fully loaded Fiesta 1.1LX with drum brakes will stop in the same distance as an empty Impreza WRX with all round vented discs?
TV Speeding Advert Dangerous? - Richard Turpin
Yes, and the 70 MPH limit was introduced when most people were driving a Morris Oxford or similar, with cross ply tyres, drum brakes, leaf spring suspension, lever arm shocks, rubbish steering and etc.
TV Speeding Advert Dangerous? - Obsolete
YSD: I can't argue with most of what you say. Problem is I'm a little uneasy about the message given. If the effect is to discourage speeding and encourage greater driver alertness then all well and good. But if it just encourages the attitude that the speed limit is the safe speed to go at regardless, then I'm a bit worried.

R.e. the young cocky lads jay walking. Next time I hit one I'll tell you if they were hard, or whether they squashed. :>
TV Speeding Advert Dangerous? - Obsolete
BTW Pity this went to the speeding thread cos its about driving when obeying the speed limits. Oh well.
Speed and towing - Roger Jones
Late last night on the clockwise M25 a Volvo was towing a 20-something foot yacht, changing lanes without signalling, and doing this all at 80+ mph. There's a speed limit on towing, is there not?
Speed and towing - RichardW
60mph on M-ways, and not allowed to use the outside lane.
Speed and towing - smokie
Just foir clarity - not allowed to use lane 3 (or 4). It's OK to tow in both lanes on a dual carriageway/two lane motorway
Smilie - pdc {P}
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2838061.stm
TV Speeding Advert Dangerous? - Hawesy1982
My problem with the aforementioned anti-speeding ad is that all through the commentary the car in question is skidding! And of course when its skidding its braking capacity is hugely reduced, so in fact it may well have stopped easily in time if the driver had any idea of the emergency braking procedure of rapidly pumping the brake pedal.

Sorry for the rant but it just really annoys me the way that an important and serious issue is portrayed so poorly
Speeding ticket from gun? - Focus {P}
Yesterday evening I didn't notice a policeman at the side of the road with what looked like a handheld radar gun until I went past him at about 80mph (70mph limit). He didn't chase after me, so does that mean I won't get a ticket? Or can the modern 'guns' take photos which can be used as evidence?

Hopefully my speedo is optimistic anyway.

John
Speeding ticket from gun? - Gen
The informal 10% plus 2mph would suggest you are alright really. 70mph means a motorway and I wouldn't expect a ticket at 80. It wasn't a dual carriageway or single lane road was it?
Speeding ticket from gun? - Altea Ego
And given that your speedo probably over reads and you were probably doing no more than 75, with the informal leeway above, then you should be safe.
Speeding ticket from gun? - Gen
I cruise past police cars at 80 regularly (they seem to hide between lorries in lane 1) and can't think they've even noticed me (I think they wait for the 90+ brigade).
Speeding ticket from gun? - Dynamic Dave
I cruise past police cars at 80 regularly (they seem to
hide between lorries in lane 1) and can't think they've even
noticed me (I think they wait for the 90+ brigade).


In that case they'd have a field day on the M40. I recently travelled up from the Oxford junction to the Warwick junction at an average speed of 90mph - and that was just keeping with the flow of traffic in the middle lane. The traffic in the fast lane was doing over a ton, as I found out when I ventured into it several times whenever a lorry decided to use the middle lane and slow everone down to 60mph in that lane. It was quite literally the same scenario travelling back the other way later in the day. Not that I'm complaining mind - everyone appeared to be driving sensibly and keeping safe distances from one another.
Speeding ticket from gun? - Altea Ego
I cruise past police cars at 80 regularly (they seem to
hide between lorries in lane 1) and can't think they've even
noticed me (I think they wait for the 90+ brigade).


I do that as well. As long as there is a safe distance around me, and most importantly as long as you acknowledge you have seen them (a quick glance is sufficient). Nothing annoys Plod more than the fact they think you cant see them despite all the garish markings.
Speeding ticket from gun? - Gen
DD

I used to figure that it was okay as long as you weren't the fastest but now cameras can capture ten cars as easily as one. So I stick to 80. Makes little difference to my journey times. Amazing that at night some lorries can be nudging you along at this speed.
Speeding ticket from gun? - pdc {P}
I cruise past police cars at 80 regularly (they seem
to
hide between lorries in lane 1) and can't think they've
even
noticed me (I think they wait for the 90+ brigade).


The thing that really annoys me are those people who, when they see a police vehicle in lane 1, 1 mile ahead, slow down to 60 in lane 3!

As others have said, pass them at 80 and they don't seem to bother you (well, I've been lucky so far)
Speeding ticket from gun? - John S
Gen

70 is the limit on a dual carriageway too (unless signed at a lower limit).

Regards

john S
Speeding ticket from gun? - Gen
thanks john s

perhaps I'll buy a highway code at the next petrol station trip!
Speeding ticket from gun? - Focus {P}
Thanks for all the reassurance. It was on the A329M, 2 lane motorway.

Just as a matter of interest then, can the modern guns take photos?

John
Speeding ticket from gun? - Rob C
I'm not aware of any hand-held cameras yet, and the Speedtrap bible website doesn't mention any either. I think the usual course of action is to be waved in further down the road, or have a police car chase after you from the next lay-by.


I remember a time when oncoming motorists would start flashing warnings.
Speeding ticket from gun? - Focus {P}
I'm not aware of any hand-held cameras yet, and the Speedtrap
bible website doesn't mention any either.


Thanks Rob.
I remember a time when oncoming motorists would start flashing warnings.


To be fair, the carriageways are separated by quite a wide grass strip at that point.

John
Speeding ticket from gun? - SprinterJK
John M, where abouts on the A329M was it? Are there usually police along there? I drive down there quite regularly and have never seen any, but am surprised there are no cameras.
116mph in a 40mph zone - sean
Police revealed yesterday that they clocked a motorist doing 116mph in a 40mph residential zone during a clampdown on speeding.
The driver is not yet aware that he has been snared by a police speed gun set up in Dudley, W.mids.
He was one of 65 motorists caught in the force's Operation "Black Bass". All 65 have now been sent NIPs.
The road, a dual carriageway, with houses either side has become a favourite with local "boy racers".
A W.Mids police spokesman said "the driver will be brought to justice"

This is just days after:
1. Two motorcyclists were jailed for 7 days after pleading guilty to 157mph and 140mph on the A421 dual carriageway near Aylesbury.
2.An Aberdeen motor dealer was clocked at 156mph in his BMW M3. He received 5 months jail and a 4-year ban.

Moral, if you want to speed, ride a bike?
Some discontinuities here, methinks.
116mph in a 40mph zone - HF
Sure, gross inconsistency. But do you think the punishment for the BMW driver was severe? I certainly don't, despite my new found enjoyment at speeding ;)
116mph in a 40mph zone - sean
Hi HF,

It's at times like this that I'm glad I'm not a judge.

Much of me thinks the BMW driver got what he deserved. Part of me wonders whether he did much wrong.

If someone does 35mph in a 30 zone and injures somebody, most reasonable people would expect a severe penalty.

If someone drinks and drives, likewise.

If someone speeds yet causes no accident???
If someone drinks yet causes no accident???

Maybe it's me, but I'm not 100% sure. I can see the crime in breaking the Law, but we can't change the Law. The politicians are trying to interfere in the judiciary to change the Law and I really don't trust the politicians.

We are in Europe now. It's OK to travel at unlimited speed on the autobahn but not here. Why, because our government says so.
Do you trust them?

We should ask His Honour here to adjudicate.
116mph in a 40mph zone - Rob the Bus {P}
Excellent post, Sean.

>>If someone speeds yet causes no accident???
>>If someone drinks yet causes no accident???

I agree entirely that if someone drives at 20mph+ over the limit all the way home, but does not cause an accident then perhaps he or she should not be treated as harshly as if he or she has.

BUT - fate is a funny old thing. How are we to know that if that person had not been stopped, then he or she would not have a fatal crash 100 yards further up the road.

I think that the law should concentrate more on what actually happened, rather than be all disapproving of what could have happened. Who can say with any authority what might be?

>>The politicians are trying to interfere in the judiciary to change the Law and I really don't trust the politicians.

I don't trust the judiciary at all (just look at recent lenient sentencing) but I trust the politicians even less. Just think about the fuss if the judiciary suddenly announced that they wanted to dictate foreign or fiscal policy. Let the judges do the judging and let the politicians carry on making a monkey's backside of things.

Cheers

Rob

"Lord of Lard"
116mph in a 40mph zone - Nortones2
If someone speeds yet causes no accident???
>>If someone drinks yet causes no accident???

This is what is known in some circumstances as a latent risk. Putting it another way, the driver is relying on not encountering circumstances that could result in a collision. When the decision was made to commit to a given speed, (or other error) the outcome depends on other factors, e.g. other vehicles. pedestrians using the road, outside the drivers control. Unfortunately, motoring law is still handled by optimists. No accident = lower tariff, despite the risk of an outcome relying on circumstances outside the drivers control.


116mph in a 40mph zone - SteveH42
If someone speeds yet causes no accident???


Why then have speed limits at all? I can understand a reasonable amount of leeway being given to exceeding the limits, but if you are going to say you can get away with any speed as long as you don't crash then you might as well just derestrict all roads.

You could equally argue what if someone drives at 15 mph and causes an accident?

Personally, I think any limit other than NSL (and even that in some places) should be fairly strictly enforced as they are there for a reason. Some of them would be better being raised slightly, but you can't possibly condone exceeding a posted limit by a significant margin as you are saying that whoever set the limit is totally wrong.
116mph in a 40mph zone - Pugugly {P}
You may find that Pre-cons may have been a factor and other offences not mentioned in the press hype.
116mph in a 40mph zone - Pugugly {P}
>>If someone drinks yet causes no accident???

Blinking Heck let's hope Blunkett never gets hold of this

Scenario One

PU stopped for being over the limit - he's not hit anything so he happliy drives off and hits the next car he sees. No doubt if Sean's property was involved he'd want the copper's hide.

Scenario two

PU decides to use the full performance of his 530 on the way from work and despite being photographed on every journey he's not done 'cos he didn't hit anything. Then one day......

Sean everybody in your country (cos I'd have moved away and it would no longer be mine) would be driving around out of their heads on drink/drugs as fast as they could...motoring anarchy.
116mph in a 40mph zone - Rosanbo
Well I think the answer is simple, take away the motorists ability to speed and the problem will be solved.

Leeds university was instructed to come up with a gps speed limiting device about five years ago by the dept of transport. The device has been used succesfully in trials around europe and was shelved in the UK for a couple of years but finally the govt has picked it up again this year and they are doing another trial in Newcastle (I think) and the Govt has said we could be looking at an introduction of the technology in around two years time.
116mph in a 40mph zone - HisHonour {P}
I think the laws are quite clear.

You MUST stick to the stated speed limit.
You may NOT drive with more alcohol in your blood than is permitted.

The police operate a certain leeway in these matters - 90 mph on a clear motorway will probably be ignored but if you exceed the speed limit by 76 mph anywhere you should be prosecuted.

I agree with comments above regarding silly sentences; just bear in mind that there are wally judges, just as there are wally teachers, policemen, accountants, bin men, etc.
However, I will say that sometimes it is very hard to find a sentence which is neither too lenient nor too harsh and frequently a judge will err on the side of leniency.

Any judge hates to have his sentence appealed and while the Attorney General might appeal a too lenient sentence a defendant will ALWAYS appeal one that is considered too harsh.
116mph in a 40mph zone - HF
This is a really difficult subject. I kind of agree with most of what has been said here, even though some of it is conflicting.

I'm completely in two minds about the idea of whether the punishment should fit the crime, or the potential that the crime might cause. And I can see both sides.

Obviously it would be ludicrous if, for example, a person driving over the limit and killing someone received the same punishment as someone driving over the limit full stop. And of course, in the same way, someone going at ridiculous speeds and ploughing through a whole load of pedestrians would deserve a different punishment than someone going at stupid speeds and causing no harm.

At the same time, if the deterrents were such that people were sufficiently dissuaded from doing these things in the first place, it might just make the roads a safer place to be.

I think His Eminence's comments are interesting too. It's a little unnerving, although utterly understandable, to know that judges might err on the side of leniency purely so that an appeal is less likely.

Without wishing to rock the boat, Your Holiness, do you think that this is why, in general over recent years, (and I don't just mean motoring law), it has appeared to the general public that sentences have become shorter and shorter to the point where any sane person would not feel that they fit the crime any more?

HF
116mph in a 40mph zone - Obsolete
"Your Holiness"

Thanks for making me laugh!

You make an interesting point about the deterrence value of a sentence. However, I suspect that most people who cause an accident by dangerous driving are not aware until it is too late that their behaviour is dangerous. Mind you, drink driving is now considered as a social taboo, due to a combination of enforcement, punishment and education e.g. TV ads. Maybe we could do the same for tail gating, speeding in a residential, etc?
116mph in a 40mph zone - HisHonour {P}
The general perception that sentences have become silly is correct in part and is a direct result of political action. The Judiciary does not decide on the range of sentence available - that is done by the Government. We simply implement it but within guidelines prescribed by the Home Office. But - as to why some sentences are so blatanly insufficient, I cannot say but in many motoring cases it is due to the CPS bringing a lesser charge which might be easier to prove than a charge which the offence really merits.
116mph in a 40mph zone - Andrew-T
In abstract terms, one can argue about sentences being 'silly' and laws also for that matter. If nobody drove dangerously the laws would not be needed - they aren't there just to provide traffic cops with purpose and amusement. In the light of experience they have been agreed (by most) as an acceptable compromise between safety and expediency. The authorities then have the task of making deviants accept this compromise for the public safety.

A sentence tries to (a) prevent an offender re-offending for an appropriate time and (b) display a deterrent to others. There will always be those who prefer not to submit to these rules because they feel they are better drivers than average, or know better anyway.
116mph in a 40mph zone - Pugugly {P}
HH,

How much do you let a PSR influence you ?
116mph in a 40mph zone - Rob the Bus {P}
PU,

Whilst I acknowledge the vast amount of experience and know-how that you bring to this site, may I ask a favour of you? Please stop dropping legal terms into your posts. I am afraid that us plebs simply do not understand.

Sorry about that ;-)

Cheers

Rob
"Lord of Lard"
116mph in a 40mph zone - Pugugly {P}
Rob,
Sorry,Ping me your e-mail address to pugugly@btopenworld.com and I'll send a list of FUA (Frequently Used Abbreviations !)
116mph in a 40mph zone - MichaelR
The guy in the M3 also had no insurance, no road tax and was already a banned driver. Hence the harsher penalty.
 

Value my car