|
Wot, like 'Drive to Rule'?
|
|
more like drive within the rules
|
|
Now that's a plain daft idea...
|
good idea - one problem, the accident rates would go up as everyone would have to spend 100% of their time staring at the speedo to make sure they didn't go 1mph above the limits.
I'm all for sensible driving & sticking to the limits but the current adoption of speed cameras is just too rigid. You may drive for 3 miles at exactly 30mph, stray slightly above for a few seconds at which point you go around a corner & a camera gets you - 3 point & £60 please !!
The current methods adopted by the authorities just don't include any room for a little bit of commonsense or equally for absolutely kicking someones bottom when they're driving like an idiot. Let's get the police back on the roads instead of sat on their bums in camera vans !!
|
>>would have to spend 100% of their time staring at the speedo to make sure they didn't go 1mph above the limits.
Silly. If I offered you £1m if you didn't exceed the limits or have an accident for 6 months, then you'd manage it - because you'd try rather than focussing on daft reasons as to why you can't walk and talk at the same time.
If you can't drive at 60mph without hitting 61mph, here's a revolutionary idea for you - the 60mph is a LIMIT !!! IT IS NOT COMPULSORY !!!
Try driving at 57mph and giving yourself a margin of error. If that isn't adequate for you, since you are unable to cope with both your speed and safe driving, then try 50mph.
|
Silly. If I offered you £1m if you didn't exceed the limits or have an accident for 6 months, then you'd manage it - because you'd try rather than focussing on daft reasons as to why you can't walk and talk at the same time.
Most people's 'life experience' is that this probably isn't valid - you know how it is, the more careful you are with something, the more likely it is to go wrong.
I can stick rigidly to limits because my Merc has both cruise control and speed control - I tend to set cruise at indicated 32 or 44 MPH so as not to be totally ridiculous. I regularly cause *huge* irritation to traffic behind me, which I can handle. However I've been overtaken many times now in stupid places and one of these days I'm going to get taken out by an overtaking numpty.
|
|
|
>>would have to spend 100% of their time staring at the speedo to make sure they didn't go 1mph above the limits. Silly. If I offered you £1m if you didn't exceed the limits or have an accident for 6 months, then you'd manage it - because you'd try rather than focussing on daft reasons as to why you can't walk and talk at the same time. If you can't drive at 60mph without hitting 61mph, here's a revolutionary idea for you - the 60mph is a LIMIT !!! IT IS NOT COMPULSORY !!! Try driving at 57mph and giving yourself a margin of error. If that isn't adequate for you, since you are unable to cope with both your speed and safe driving, then try 50mph.
Advanced driving organisations and commentators recommend that you drive at the speed limit, or the fastest speed appropriate to the prevailing conditions, whichever is the lower, in order to make fast safe progress, and not hold up other traffic.
At the risk of putting my head in a lion's mouth, I do think that this idea that it is not possible to drive within the speed limit without continually looking at the speedo is complete nonsense. I find it very easy to do and I'm far from a remarkable driver. A similar idea is that speed cameras cause accidents because drivers spend time looking for them rather than watching the road ahead. [Retreats to a safe distance ...]
Leif
|
|
|
|
|
If only motorists would stick to the letter of the law the powers that be would soon have to withdraw somewhat as their dastardly scheme to get every last penny from us would soon be non-profitable.
I was thinking the same thing today. Drive up to the limit, and make the cameras actually cost more to run than they earn.
|
|
And surprise! The cameras do exactly what they're designed to do...
|
|
|
I was thinking the same thing today. Drive up to the limit, and make the cameras actually cost more to run than they earn.
Genius idea, this fight-back. I hope it catches on :)
|
|
|
|
Even if they did, the goverment would still keep them, it would just have to come out of our taxes, like the congestion charge.
|
|
Surely if the cameras have nothing to do then the cost of running them goes down? Just the odd bit of maintenance...a new lick of paint once in a while (probably cheaper to replace the hood completely)
|
Some people have short memories, remember the undercover documentary showing criminal extortion and corruption by London mayor's Transport For London company that was sending out false penalties, and making people pay as there is no defence and all communication from the victims was ignored and the baliffs would turn up to those who were not bullied into paying?
Well this has now happened to me, they say I was in a bus lane when I was 100 miles away, tehy ignore all of my recorded delivery letters and have now sent an enforcement notice saying baliffs will come round so I have paid, and then will try and claim it back, whether that be throughh writing letters or hiring a JCB.
|
Mark,
I'd be more than happy if I had your ability to maintain 100% self control whilst driving & never stray above the speed limits, for us mere mortals all I'm suggesting is that some degree of common sense is adopted - dangerous driving & excessive speed are certainly things to be ridden from society but in a world of human beings who make mistakes it seems extremely harsh to suffer for a minutes distraction.
If only the rules applied to the prosection of speeding drivers were applied to murderers & their like in the courts we'd see a distintctly safer society.
|
If only the rules applied to the prosection of speeding drivers were applied to murderers & their like in the courts we'd
see a distintctly safer society.
I have no problem at all with cameras and speed limit enforcement, but I have to agree with mountainkat on that point.
|
>> If only the rules applied to the prosection of speeding drivers were applied to murderers & their like in the courts we'd see a distintctly safer society. >> I have no problem at all with cameras and speed limit enforcement, but I have to agree with mountainkat on that point.
I too have no problem with speed cameras but I agree with the above. I do wish they would put as much effort into catching tail gaters, swoopers, and other dangerous drivers. Leif
|
|
|
|
Mountainkat,
There are things that annoy me about speed cameras etc. and things that do not.
One thing that annoys me is any suggestion that a reason for taking cameras away is because they catch people who are *unable* to remian under the limit. Its just daft.
>>it seems extremely harsh to suffer for a minutes distraction.
You see, that's another silly point. You can kill someone during a minutes distraction.
Stupid:
I can't drive spot on the speed limit without going over the limit sometimes and its not my fault and I'm not capable of driving slower to give my incompetence the margin it needs.
I am a dangerous driver because I spend so much time looking at my speedo that I cannot concentrate on the road and I haven't got the intelligence to slow down as my incompetence needs.
I drive so far over the speed limit and without looking ahead that when I do see a speed camera I slam on the brakes and people almost run into the backof me and I haven't got the wit to drive more slowly as my incompetence needs.
etc. etc.
If you feel that any of those are true, then I would argue that the speed limit needs to come down even lower to try and get you down to a speed that you can cope with. On the other hand, most often those lines, and lines similar, are spouted unintelligently by people who think that they are convincing but aren't abale to think them through.
Very Stupid:
They don't enforce laws against murderers and the like so they should let me off speeding.
If a law is inadequately enforced, then that should be addressed. The correct approach is not lowering all enforcement to the lowest common denominator.
Not Stupid:
The wrong speed limit is being enforced. The limit which is being enforced is pointless, doesn't take into account the environment and circumstances, it is inflexible and it is lowering the respect that people are giving to all speed limits.
A very valid point tending to indicate that the speed limit in question should be changed and our approach to setting all speed limits should be revised.
I have been saying this for years; people's unintelligent, mindless and futile war against the cameras is what has permitted the decrease of traffic police, the increase in drink driving and the general increase in bad behaviour on the roads. It has completely played into the spin of the various "speed is Bad" groups by focussing on your inability to comply with a law, the fact that you should be free not to comply with a law and the fact that enforcement is bad. Never has anybody with sufficient brain got involved to force the speed is bad people to face the question of the actual limits which are being set. Oh no, everybody is all too busy following the crowds and hating cameras.
If the lemmings had realised that the cameras were merely enforcement and that enforcement is good, stopped whining about their own inability to follow a speed limit and had instead focussed on ensuring that the laws which were being enforced were appropriate, variable speed limits as well as the continued enforcement of ALL road crime, then we wouldn't be where we are today.
But, they weren't intelligent enough to work it out the first time, and I don't see any reason to suppose that has changed.
|
>if I had your ability to maintain 100% self control whilst driving & never stray above the speed limits
Oh don't be silly. Of course I break the speed limits. I just never whine and say it was someone else's fault.
|
|
|
I guess (unfortunately) that if the limits were raised (or it became known they were not enforced) the problem would just ratchet up. 30 would become 40 etc.
Of course, most people on here are great drivers in well maintained vehicles. I'm a Gold Standard Advanced driver and I drive a modern car that's engineered to do 140MPH. So 100MPH on the motorway is a breeze for me. The problem is everyone else - they're not expecting me to be doing 100 and their brains and cars just can't cope with it, so they keep generating dangerous situations. It scares the hell out of me when kids in old Nova's drive at the same speed - they're at the limits of everything, with no margin whatsoever. The trouble is, we all het tarred with the same broad brush - but being relaistic, how else could it be done?
What I do object to, is the practice of siting mobile speed traps in the very places where speed beyond the posted limit is not a problem. It's somewhat ridiculous that you're more likely to get caught in open, clear traffic conditions than when the road is much busier.
|
I drive a modern car that's engineered to do 140MPH. So 100MPH on the motorway is a breeze for me.... It scares the hell out of me when kids in old Nova's drive at the same speed - they're at the limits of everything, with no margin whatsoever.
What extra "margin" do you have at 100mph over the Nova kids?
|
What extra "margin" do you have at 100mph over the Nova kids?
I wrote somewhat tongue in cheek, but at 100MPH I have a car that's being driven well within its design capability and a driver who is trained to a higher standard than many others.
I very rarely drive at 100MPH though, but on quiet motorways I don't see any problem with it. The key thing to be aware of is not intimidating other motorists - no flashing headlights etc.
|
|
Mark: r.e. your "Stupid, Very Spupid and Not Stupid" post, there's a lot of sense in there, and I think it in many ways echoes the well reasoned articles on cameras in the recent Sat. Telegraph. If someone is unable to carry out a simple task like driving within a speed limit - whether or not it is a sensible one - then I would question their fitness to drive a car. However, the concentration on speed limit enforcement might be taking resources away from other areas of road safety,a nd might be distracting peoples attention from the real issue which is dangerous driving INCLUDING excess and inappropriate speed. You only have to look at the long stream of predominantly German cruiser barges nose to tail at 90 mph in lane 3 of our motorways to realise that some people do not know how to drive to protect themselves and others. Some while ago there was a large pile up on a UK motorway, with some deaths, and many drivers were subsequently prosecuted for dangerous driving. Presumably skid marks etc provided evidence of tail gating etc.
Is driving at 100 mph on a motorway dangerous? Depends. When other slower moving cars are present, then it might be due to the speed differential. Certainly the risk is increased. It would not bother if they were all Class 1 grade police drivers or equivalent but something tells they ain't and some of them are right nutters.
Sometimes lane 1 is full of cars doing 70mph, and lane 3 is full of cars at 90+mph. Moving to lane 2 to overtake lane 1 vehicles is risky because all to often someone in lane 3 will move to lane 2 to undertake, no matter how careful I am about indicating, checking that lane 2 is clear and so on. Goodness knows how often I have to cancel a manouevre because of someone elses lack of attention. So yes, I do think that unless the road is clear, 100mph is too much. I wonder if we enforced the law against dangerous driving, rather than speeding, whether that would change habits? Probably not.
Leif
|
|
|
|
|
they say I was in a bus lane when I was 100 miles away, tehy ignore all of my recorded delivery letters and have now sent an enforcement notice saying baliffs will come round so I have paid, and then will try and claim it back, whether that be throughh writing letters or hiring a JCB.
Good luck! Do let us know how you get on, it would be interesting to see if you can convince them and get your cash back.
|
I was under the impression that bailiffs could not come round unless the debt was not disputed. If it is disputed, they have no powers?
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
I was under the impression that bailiffs could not come round unless the debt was not disputed. If it is disputed, they have no powers?
Been there :( If they have a court judgment against you, that's it. You can whine till you go blue, but they have the power to enforce unless you get the judgment overturned.
|
Hope I don't come across you on the motorway Bill Payer.
I don't care how well-engineered your car is, or how fantastic a driver you think you are. 100mph in the company of other road users is too fast, end of story.
Lanes are narrow, cars are close together, plenty of idiots who see no need to indicate. To cruise at 100mph you need a death wish.
|
I've said before - there is nothing magic about 70 except it happens to be the top limit in this country. Maybe it's reckless to do 100 mph on our roads as it is a "not expected" event. Although even in this country there are occasions when the road isn't cluttered with other traffic, and speeds of over 100 mph do not risk anyone's life other than the occupants of the car.
In Germany I cruised at 130 recently and reached 150 top. 70 is dangerously slow to be travelling on an autobahn, as everyone is driving considerably quicker.
I entirely agree about 100 mph in a car designed for 150 mph is a lot safer than the same speed in one designed to do 102. And I'd like to thank Mark for taking the time to try to explain (again) why protests against cameras are misguided.
btw - not indicating doesn't automatically make you an idiot. It's rather more idiotic to indicate when there is no-one around to benefit from the signal - and displays an "auto-pilot" mentality which implies that you aren't concentrating properly on your driving. Maybe a topic for a new thread...
|
100mph in the company of other road users is too fast, end of story.
What a ridiculous statement.
|
I agree with Mod Mark. If you get a speeding ticket, you've only got yourself to blame- no one was making you go too fast. And when you go down that stretch of road again, you'll stick to the limit so therefore the cameras are working.
And I also disagree with Bill Payer. 100mph in the comapny of other road users IS too fast- I was always taught to anticipate other drivers, and at that speed how can you?
|
Sticking at or below the speed limit =
Less stress.
Greater MPG - therefore lower fuel costs AND lower revenue for HM Govt.
No speeding fines / points / insurance costs.
Less wear and tear.
Greater time between services (asuming variable servicing regime).
No (material) difference to journey time - ie everyone waits at traffic lights / junctions at the end of the road.
etc etc
Steve
|
Whilst you are right, I feel it is my duty to moan a little and generally be annoying.
>>Greater MPG<<
Nah - 40mph on a particular stretch of road bogs my car down in 5th so I need 4th. 50mph allows me 5th at pretty much idle speeds.
This is all cancelled out at motorway speeds though so I guess I'll put me coat on now and be off...
--
Adam
|
Steveb: yes, driving within the limits at an appropriate speed for the conditions (with one exception) is less stressful, and you often arrive no later. I laugh at the stressed up nutters who dodge between lanes, sitting nose to tail, looking for the next move to save a second, but cut corners so much that an accident is inevitable. Oddly enough I often end up sailing past them when they get stuck in the wrong lane behind a car waiting to turn right.
On long journeys it would be nice to be able to do more than 70 mph assuming a clear path, as it can appreciably shorten journey time, and remove the need for a mid-journey rest
Leif
|
100mph in the comapny of other road users IS too fast- I was always taught to anticipate other drivers, and at that speed how >> can you?
What, so 100MPH is soooo fast that your brain stops working? Funny how the Germans can manage it, and at significantly higher speeds too. And funny how they have huge pile-ups in the US where everyone is driving at 65MPH.
|
The problem is, people see 70mph as the ceiling for saftey. Not so. You don't suddenly become dangerous at 71mph.
However
70mph is the legal speed limit so one might argue to exceed it by it's very nature makes it dangerous. I don't subscribe to this (as well you know) but I can see why others do. Personally, as BP (coincidence) said in his earlier post, on a quiet motorway, 100mph. I'd be tempted to agree with him; if we're going to quantify danger, at what speed are you dangerous?
If I were you, I'd answer "too fast for the conditions" because to answer with anything else would be to shoot yourself in the foot....multiple times.
--
Adam
|
>> 100mph in the comapny of other road users IS too fast- I was >> always taught to anticipate other drivers, and at that speed how >> can you? >> What, so 100MPH is soooo fast that your brain stops working? Funny how the Germans can manage it, and at significantly higher speeds too. And funny how they have huge pile-ups in the US where everyone is driving at 65MPH.
Do you have decent stats for the safety record of German unregulated autobahns, and American interstates? National stereotypes might suggest that Germans are very disciplined drivers, but never having driven there, I can't comment. I know from experience that in Florida drivers are amazingly polite, don't tail gate, do let you in if you want to change lanes, and are a pleasant change from the often quite aggressive UK style. It might be due to the danger of having your head blown away if you upset someone ....
Leif
|
Bill Payer,
Come back with some stats if you're so sure about the accident rates in the different countries.
Everyone talks about the unrestricted German autobahns - no limits, isn't it great, everyone cruising at 120.... I'm not so sure they're as fast as everyone makes out.
I'm not suggesting your brain stops working, don't be silly.
Everything is happening so much quicker at that sort of speed. If something unexpected happens, you simply don't stand a chance. What about when your eyes close as you sneeze, how much further do you travel blind when you're doing three figures.
It doesn't matter how good you are (or think you are). You have to account for the fact that others make errors, and you can't control what they do. If someone hits the central reservation as a result of being cut up and bounces back across the motorway, their widow isn't going to gain much comfort from the fact it was someone else's fault.
The consequences of something going wrong are much more severe. If you're cruising at 70 and something unexpected happens you might get a chance to brake your car down to 50 before you hit something and have a chance of surviving. At 100 in the same situation you might brake down to 80 and people don't walk away from 80mph crashes very often.
But you've obviously decided that you're good enough to cruise at 100+. My congratulations to you. Although I also feel able to drive at such a speed, I find it requires intense concentration and leave no margin at all for error. Basically, it isn't very comfortable. I just hope that plod pull you and take your license away before you kill yourself. But that probably wouldn't stop you because as you have no problem in exceeding the motorway limit by over 30mph, I'm sure driving without a license won't bother you much.
|
Can see most of this thread being filleted out to a speed thread but surely the issue is not the safety of 100 v 70 but mix of speeds.
Other users just don't expect to be caught up by somebody travelling 40% over the limit; when it happens they don't react as expected or indeed at all and it all goes pear shaped.
Reportedly the same on the Autobahn.
|
Can see most of this thread being filleted out to a speed thread but surely the issue is not the safety of 100 v 70 but mix of speeds.
I agree 100% abt the mix of speeds (at least on a mway: different issues on mixed-use roads).
100 is more dangerous than 70, but on a motorway I think I'd prefer to see a steady flow of well-spaced cars doing 80 or 90 than a mix of vehicles doing anything from 50-90, which in practice is what UK motorways have these days.
But whatever the mway limit is set at, enforcing it contains the mix of speeds.
|
Look guys Here is my views, take them or leave them I have said them before and will say them again.
1/ Appropriate Speed.
OUtside a school, 3:30, icecream vans, kids, dogs and mums milling about all over the place. Limit is 30. Do you drive at 30? I dont.
Same place 11:30 at night, do you drive at 30? I dont.
Make your mind up which is over and which is under.
M6, TOLL, 8:00 at night, traffic lightish, weather good its summer, average speed seems to be about 85mph, any problem in me doing 100? I dont think so, nor do the people around me, so I do 100mph.
2/Getting caught.
Speed cameras do not catch speeding motorists, they catch UNOBSERVANT motorists, and therefore potentially unsafe motorists.
You get caught by a camera, its your own silly fault for not seeing it.
You may now whinge and whine about hidden cameras. Cobblers. I see them all why cant you.
|
10/10 RF!
Suggestion for new poll;
How many speeding tickets have you had, and when?
In my case, one, in 1980.
Locally, you know where the cameras are. Elsewhere, be careful.
|
what? SP30, £60 fine, 60 in a 30.
when? 1983,
where? A30 approaching crooked billet r/bout where limit drops to 30 from 40.
How? Tried to race a brown Austin Princess away from the lights at the buldog pub, It was an unmarked cop car with two up. I was young and brash and foolish.
Since? Nothing. Do I speed? yes when and where i think appropriate.
|
M6, TOLL, 8:00 at night, traffic lightish, weather good its summer, average speed seems to be about 85mph, any problem in me doing 100? I dont think so, nor do the people around me, so I do 100mph.
You *will* get caught if you do that regularly - M6 toll is heavily patrolled by unmarked cars. Of course, the stupid thing is that you're more likely to get caught when the motorway is quieter and free-flowing.
2/Getting caught. Speed cameras do not catch speeding motorists, they catch UNOBSERVANT motorists, and therefore potentially unsafe motorists. You get caught by a camera, its your own silly fault for not seeing it. You may now whinge and whine about hidden cameras. Cobblers. I see them all why cant you.
I used to think this - then I got caught by an unmarked police car, and then by a well hidden mobile radar (at 8.00PM on a summers evening).
|
Come back with some stats if you're so sure about the accident rates in the different countries.
This is the Speed Camera Paternerships game ? everyone has a different view of the stats.
Everyone talks about the unrestricted German autobahns - no limits, isn't it great, everyone cruising at 120.... I'm not so sure they're as fast as everyone makes out.
I recently took a taxi from Munich to one of our branch offices ? he turned on to the autobahn and drove the whole journey at 200KPH . No problem.
What about when your eyes close as you sneeze, how much further do you travel blind when you're doing three figures.
A few metres. You shouldn?t be in a position at any speed where that would be an issue.
(?other alarmist stuff)
Things happen ? people get killed by truck wheels bouncing over the central reservation. Avoiding motorways would prevent you from being KSI?d on one completely. I do some journeys in certain ways to avoid known dangerous right turns.
But you've obviously decided that you're good enough to cruise at 100+.
I wouldn?t ?cruise? at 100MPH. I vary my speed according to the conditions. Contrary to other posters, I think a range of speeds is better ? everything flows more easily. Look what happens to HGV?s, they just end up sitting next to each other at the same speed.
My congratulations to you. Although I also feel able to drive at such a speed, I find it requires intense concentration and leave no margin at all for error.
There wasn?t much margin when my dad drove is Ford Anglia at 70MPH in the mid 60?s but cars and driver training have come on a long way.
I just hope that plod pull you and take your license away before you kill yourself. But that probably wouldn't stop you because as you have no problem in exceeding the motorway limit by over 30mph, I'm sure driving without a license won't bother you much.
>>
That isn?t worthy of a response.
|
National stereotypes might suggest that Germans are very disciplined drivers, but never having driven there, I >> can't comment.
I have - they are.
I know from experience that in Florida drivers are amazingly polite, don't tail gate, do let you in if you want to change lanes, and are a pleasant change from the often quite aggressive UK style.
Florida drivers are *not* typical of the rest of the US (by a long way).
|
|
No, IMHO 100mph is perfectly acceptable at 2am on a deserted motorway, but not during the day when theres many more cars about. I said how can you because at that speed when something unexpected happens its too late to do anything about it, and at 70 you atleast stand some chance.
|
|
I think some of you lot need to do a track day to get all these 100+ mph urges out of your system! Try easytrack.co.uk!
|
|
And stop comparing autobhans to UK motorways. Autobahns were/are designed and built with long straights and no inclines above 1 in 40 (?) - i.e. very well constructed to accommodate 100mph+ speeds. The UK motorways are designed for a 70 limit - steep inclines over hills such as the Pennines where we get three lanes of HGVs, tighter bends which are dangerous at 80, never mind 100+. The fact is the limit is 70 and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Feel free to drive at whatever speed you think you can cope with above this limit, but when you are caught by the cameras which will become the norm on all the motorways in the next 10 years don't come bleating to me.
|
The UK motorways are designed for a 70 limit
Sorry mate, not true. Many were designed before the 70mph speed limit. I have to agree tho that most are not *suitable* for anything over 70mph during peak use hours.
|
I think the issue is the speed differential, not the design of motorways. In good conditions I'm sure that our motorways can easily support 100mph. However, it only takes one wrong move to create a serious pile up with multiple fatalities, and I'm not convinced that most drivers know how to drive at high speed in relative safety.
Unfortunately the current focus on speed enforcement is not healthy. Tail-gating and punishment braking at 70mph are more dangerous than doing 100mph on a clear motorway. Similarly doing 30mph on a 30mph road is often too high on corners and when there are parked cars either side and yet it won't trigger a camera. When icy conditions appear the number of accidents rockets, and safe speeds will often be well below the posted speed limits, and yet cameras refuse to trigger when a car passes at excessive speed, but within the limit. I've seen the police out with hand held speed guns on icy mornings, and I'm sure they do have some effect on accidents, but I wonder if they ever nick someone for going at excess speed WITHIN the posted limit?
Leif
|
I think the issue is the speed differential, not the design of motorways.
True; and since trucks are physically limited, any increase in car speeds widens the differential.
|
No, IMHO 100mph is perfectly acceptable at 2am on a deserted motorway, but not during the day when theres many more cars about.
This (IMHO) is just bonkers - I wouldn't dream of driving at 100MPH in the dark. Even on the m'ways with lighting you'd be pushed to see objects in the road and I have driven around bends to find trucks sideways in the road.
The other problem is that you can't even see the marked police cars. never mind the unmarked ones.
|
|
The way to fight back is for every single person who gets any sort of fixed penalty to demand a court hearing. It is actually against the law for anybody to be given a fixed penalty for anything without a trial, unless they opt to accept the penalty. Don't accept it, have your day in court! The system will grind to a halt within days. I will try and post a link to the article which provides the legal input for this position.
|
"70 is dangerously slow to be travelling on an autobahn, as everyone is driving considerably quicker."
Well, except for all those trucks, cars with caravans etc - especially all those trucks doing 20 kph both down and uphill on the steep bits between Stuttgart and Munich over the Schwabian Alps (Gruibingen to Merklingen if you want to look it up)- oh and it only has two lanes there and there are tunnels.
"Autobahns were/are designed and built with long straights and no inclines above 1 in 40 (?) - i.e. very well constructed to accommodate 100mph+ speeds."
See above - there are several "hilly, windy bits" that I can think of that are certainly not suitable for 100 mph, more also between Munich and Salzburg (near Chiemsee?). There are also many places I can think of where due to high density of traffic, only two lanes and old concrete surfaces 70 mph is distinctly unsafe (including a stretch where Richard Seaman or Stuck or someone like that set a world record speed (in the 1930s!!)
|
Since we have deflected from the original subject slightly I won't apologise for continuing the diversion......
I think something that many drivers neglect and I include myself, is that speed limit signs are exactly that. They state MAXIMUM speeds - yet the majority of us feel the need to sit right on the limit. There is a blood alcohol limit - how many of us feel safe to be right on the limit of that one???
Like others here I have been stopped for excessive speed worst case being ten years ago doing 103 in a 50. I managed to avoid a date with the magistrate on that occasion thanks to the passenger I was carrying in the back. I disagree with certain aspects of the current road safety campaign, and have found myself joining the masses in resenting the "safety" cameras, which are often almost covertly concealed in an illegally parked transit van. Speed does not kill - I have regularly driven at 130+ miles per hour. It didn't kill me. Rapid deceleration from that speed - where your seatbelt or harness holds you in your seat but your internal organs continue moving forward at speed - that is a whole different story!
There are many contributors who have been trained to drive vehicles beyond the standard required to gain a license, and many have been trained to drive vehicles at speed or are required to do so in their line of business. Personally I am always mindful that the majority of motorists have not been under professional supervision at speeds exceeding 45mph. Perhaps more of a contributing factor in RTC fatalities??? Regarding specialist driving skills, much of the training focusses on judgement, perception and safety. This is in the main what makes these individuals competent to handle a car at speed. They will never tail gate you, they will never be 'red lining' it when they can see congestion ahead, their speed will be dictated by the weather, visibility and environmental conditions among other factors. Anyone can drive a car at 100+ miles per hour, handling well it at those speeds and stopping quickly from those speeds are the skills which sort the men from the boys.
On Monday I passed a road tax evasion camera and I recall thinking to myself I dont need to worry about that because my cars are always taxed. Later on the same afternoon my Impreza was followed for a few miles by a marked police car, and I thought they may be ANPR'ing me to check the vehicle's status or insurance details. As I hadn't stolen the car and it was insured I had nothing to worry about. This got me thinking if I stuck to the imposed speed limits (agreeing with those limits is a different arguement) just like the tax cams, and the onboard ANPR I would have nothing to be fearful off.... Apart from "chav" boy leaving me in the wake of blue smoke from his modded 1.2 Nova.
Leon
|
>>>>>The way to fight back is for every single person who gets any sort of fixed penalty to demand a court hearing. It is actually against the law for anybody to be given a fixed penalty for anything without a trial, unless they opt to accept the penalty. Don't accept it, have your day in court! The system will grind to a halt within days.<<<<<
Oh AS if that was so simple.
Take my word for it they would cope. Extra Special Courts and Night time too. No Mags if they were all used but well paid Stips.
And remember if the punter is going to go by the rile of thge law then so can the Masters. No 60 quid and 3 points but 6 points and a 1000 pound fine.
DVD
|
the majority of motorists have not been under professional supervision at speeds exceeding 45mph
Many don't even manage that. I did my lessons and test in South London, and never got outside a 30mph zone. In the test, there was only one 200 yard stretch where I could safely exceed 20.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
