Speeding

[Sith Happens]

1 minute ago, Pearl Ram said:

Just a thought, what kind of equipment do they use for checking for tax and insurance dodgers ? What I’m trying to say is are you 100% sure it was a speed camera and not on the lookout for uninsured/taxed skanks ?

Im sure they set up in car parks etc. More likely to get someone.

Agree. Especially with insurance. 

 

[Gritstone Ram]

7 minutes ago, Pearl Ram said:

Just a thought, what kind of equipment do they use for checking for tax and insurance dodgers ? What I’m trying to say is are you 100% sure it was a speed camera and not on the lookout for uninsured/taxed skanks ?

They may check them at the same time but I checked the locations for cameras and it was on the map. I’ll have to wait and see. Usually the tax disc can be done with a camera on a police car.

[cstand]

22 minutes ago, Gritters said:

It was a tripod I have seen the ‘old nothing better to do with my life’ crew at the side of the road before and it wasn’t that set up.

If members of the community were present I would guess you should be OK. it would be a training excersise. If it was just the plod then its a speed trap hard to tell you will have to wait two weeks and hope not to get a NIP in the post. 

[cstand]

7 minutes ago, cstand said:

If members of the community were present I would guess you should be OK. it would be a training excersise. Only trained officers can do this due to insurance reasons. If it was just the plod then its a speed trap hard to tell you will have to wait two weeks and hope not to get a NIP in the post. 

Hopefully they do training exercises on a Sunday morning let us know how you get on.

[QuitYourJibbaJivin]

2 hours ago, GboroRam said:

You should have a 10%+1 buffer zone so 34 is the top speed you get away with it. If you're pulled within the buffer, innocently say you were under the impression that the ACPO guidelines were to only prosecute above the 10%+1 threshold. You'll probably get thought of as a smartarse who knows the laws and let go, unless your car is a shed on wheels, where they'll presumably get the book thrown at you to teach you a lesson. 

Not true unfortunately pal, I recently did a speed awareness course after getting caught doing 35 in a 30. Somebody on the corse was caught doing 32! The people running the course told us it’s up to the police in each county to decide how much leeway they give.

[eddie]

2 hours ago, jono said:

Come on man ! . .. in legal terms that’s correct ... but what is a speed limit ?  .. it’s a reasonable assumption that all things considered, this nominal value is appropriate for this road ( and who decided that on what basis)  .. but .. 30 MPH in a 50 MPH limit could be very dangerous if it’s crowded, raining, dark or whatever.

equally 100 MPH on a deserted motorway in the North of Scotland in dry clear conditions ? ..

yes there are rules and if you break them and are caught then you get what’s coming but saying that speed limits are some sort of perfect prophet of goodness that cannot be challenged ... and doing so makes you a “rubbish” driver is pure farce. 

I accept the law, and it’s sanctions if I breach it but speed limits are, from a technical and safety POV very crude tools. We need them of course. but they are in no way detailed, flexible or scientific in their application. 

Why on earth would anyone want to drive at 100 MPH on a motorway? Go to a track day if you are a boy racer with a need for speed - or people should organise their life a little better by leaving earlier so they don't have to speed because they are late. As for finding a 'deserted motorway in the North of Scotland' - good luck. It seems that your geographical knowledge needs a little work. The most northerly point of the motorway network is at Perth where it connects with the A9 - just the 200 miles or so short of the north coast of Scotland.

People drive at 80 on the motorway - your answer seems to be to change the speed limit to 80. Then what? They will drive at 90. What then - set the speed limit to 90? Hey, then you can drive at 100 - and so it goes on.

Before 1965, there was no national speed limit, and prototype vehicles were commonly driven on the M1 at speeds in excess of 150 MPH. The norm then was 7,000 deaths on the roads in the UK annually - and there were a quarter of the number of cars on the road compared to now. Conversely, there are around a quarter of the number of deaths now compared to half a century ago. 1700 last year, and it seems to have stabilised around that figure for a few years now.

[Boycie]

1 hour ago, Gritters said:

I don’t know I was looking at my speedo when I passed. 

Driving without due care and attention, add that to the rap sheet.

[Rev]

6 minutes ago, eddie said:

Why on earth would anyone want to drive at 100 MPH on a motorway? Go to a track day if you are a boy racer with a need for speed - or people should organise their life a little better by leaving earlier so they don't have to speed because they are late. As for finding a 'deserted motorway in the North of Scotland' - good luck. It seems that your geographical knowledge needs a little work. The most northerly point of the motorway network is at Perth where it connects with the A9 - just the 200 miles or so short of the north coast of Scotland.

People drive at 80 on the motorway - your answer seems to be to change the speed limit to 80. Then what? They will drive at 90. What then - set the speed limit to 90? Hey, then you can drive at 100 - and so it goes on.

Before 1965, there was no national speed limit, and prototype vehicles were commonly driven on the M1 at speeds in excess of 150 MPH. The norm then was 7,000 deaths on the roads in the UK annually - and there were a quarter of the number of cars on the road compared to now. Conversely, there are around a quarter of the number of deaths now compared to half a century ago. 1700 last year, and it seems to have stabilised around that figure for a few years now.

Using your figures, it seems there is a massive amount the speed limit can increase without impacting the mortality rate.

I'd say 100mph is fair on the motorway, and 20mph through City's and Villages.

After all, I'd guess my car could outbrake the highway code stopping distances by at least 50%.

[Gritstone Ram]

24 minutes ago, Boycie said:

Driving without due care and attention, add that to the rap sheet.

It’s hard to say when they’re hiding in a bush.

[Sith Happens]

28 minutes ago, eddie said:

Why on earth would anyone want to drive at 100 MPH on a motorway? Go to a track day if you are a boy racer with a need for speed - or people should organise their life a little better by leaving earlier so they don't have to speed because they are late. As for finding a 'deserted motorway in the North of Scotland' - good luck. It seems that your geographical knowledge needs a little work. The most northerly point of the motorway network is at Perth where it connects with the A9 - just the 200 miles or so short of the north coast of Scotland.

People drive at 80 on the motorway - your answer seems to be to change the speed limit to 80. Then what? They will drive at 90. What then - set the speed limit to 90? Hey, then you can drive at 100 - and so it goes on.

Before 1965, there was no national speed limit, and prototype vehicles were commonly driven on the M1 at speeds in excess of 150 MPH. The norm then was 7,000 deaths on the roads in the UK annually - and there were a quarter of the number of cars on the road compared to now. Conversely, there are around a quarter of the number of deaths now compared to half a century ago. 1700 last year, and it seems to have stabilised around that figure for a few years now.

Come on. I bet you had go faster stripes on your first model t.

[maxjam]

17 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

Using your figures, it seems there is a massive amount the speed limit can increase without impacting the mortality rate.

I'd say 100mph is fair on the motorway, and 20mph through City's and Villages.

After all, I'd guess my car could outbrake the highway code stopping distances by at least 50%.

Yup, modern cars have far shorter stopping distances these days speed limits could be increased on motorways and reduced in Cities/villages.

With regards to accident figures, I dunno where most of them occur but in my limited experience the Primary School I collect our youngest from has 'no stopping' signs on both sides of the road for 100yds either side yet cars are parked (often half on the path) in every available space - there have been more than a few close calls with people driving onto the path as people are walking by and kids crossing the road between cars not checking (or not being able to see properly) if something else is coming.  Some idiots park right up to the zebra crossing on the zig-zag lines as well ?

I have complained to the school a couple of times but doubt anything will happen until there is actually an accident. Rather than hiding in bushes trying to catch unsuspecting drivers the Police should target real dangerous areas.

With regards to hiding in bushes, I don't actually mind the police hiding so much if it is a dangerous road but some places I've seen them you know they are just there for easy money. 

The only time I've personally been caught speeding was 10+ years ago at the end of slip road out of Alrewas speeding up to get on the A38 - I was on the far side of the road with the dual carriage to the right of me and excellent vision ahead.  Never heard of any accidents there during my time living there but saw many, many people stopped by the regular police checkpoints.

[Rev]

4 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Yup, modern cars have far shorter stopping distances these days speed limits could be increased on motorways and reduced in Cities/villages.

With regards to accident figures, I dunno where most of them occur but in my limited experience the Primary School I collect our youngest from has 'no stopping' signs on both sides of the road for 100yds either side yet cars are parked (often half on the path) in every available space - there have been more than a few close calls with people driving onto the path as people are walking by and kids crossing the road between cars not checking (or not being able to see properly) if something else is coming.  Some idiots park right up to the zebra crossing on the zig-zag lines as well ?

I have complained to the school a couple of times but doubt anything will happen until there is actually an accident. Rather than hiding in bushes trying to catch unsuspecting drivers the Police should target real dangerous areas.

With regards to hiding in bushes, I don't actually mind the police hiding so much if it is a dangerous road but some places I've seen them you know they are just there for easy money. 

The only time I've personally been caught speeding was 10+ years ago at the end of slip road out of Alrewas speeding up to get on the A38 - I was on the far side of the road with the dual carriage to the right of me and excellent vision ahead.  Never heard of any accidents there during my time living there but saw many, many people stopped by the regular police checkpoints.

My lads school was the same, urban area with at the time a 30 limit, cars parked all along it. We asked for a speed bump directly outside the school entrance, the council said it wouldn't be possible yet stuck one 500yds on from the school entrance!

[eddie]

25 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

Using your figures, it seems there is a massive amount the speed limit can increase without impacting the mortality rate.

I'd say 100mph is fair on the motorway, and 20mph through City's and Villages.

After all, I'd guess my car could outbrake the highway code stopping distances by at least 50%.

The biggest problem is differences in speed between slower and faster vehicles and therefore overtaking - so you either build new motorways for lorries only, invest countless billions in the rail network and ban freight from the roads or you need to increase their speed limits accordingly to reduce the speed differential. Oh yes, and you will need to impose a 'minimum speed limit' too, in order to keep old farts like me from slowing you up with my namby pamby 70 MPH. Do you fancy driving at 100 MPH when a 40 tonne lorry is going at 90, overtaking other motorists who like to drive economically and with some consideration for the environment?

Also, a lot of motorways no longer have hard shoulders, basically because there is no room to widen them to add extra lanes - so the Department of Transport installed electronic warning lights and automatic 'variable speed' limits and utilised the hard shoulders as an extra lane. Good luck next time you are driving at 100 MPH when the car in front on that 'almost deserted' stretch of motorway has broken down and you have just passed the last bank of warning lights - or if you car so confident that you can stop in time, (and I have no reason to doubt that - I probably watched the same 'Top Gear' episode) are you equally confident in the brakes of the 40 tonne lorry which was doing 90 MPH that you had just overtaken a few seconds before?

[Rev]

18 minutes ago, eddie said:

The biggest problem is differences in speed between slower and faster vehicles and therefore overtaking - so you either build new motorways for lorries only, invest countless billions in the rail network and ban freight from the roads or you need to increase their speed limits accordingly to reduce the speed differential. Oh yes, and you will need to impose a 'minimum speed limit' too, in order to keep old farts like me from slowing you up with my namby pamby 70 MPH. Do you fancy driving at 100 MPH when a 40 tonne lorry is going at 90, overtaking other motorists who like to drive economically and with some consideration for the environment?

Also, a lot of motorways no longer have hard shoulders, basically because there is no room to widen them to add extra lanes - so the Department of Transport installed electronic warning lights and automatic 'variable speed' limits and utilised the hard shoulders as an extra lane. Good luck next time you are driving at 100 MPH when the car in front on that 'almost deserted' stretch of motorway has broken down and you have just passed the last bank of warning lights - or if you car so confident that you can stop in time, (and I have no reason to doubt that - I probably watched the same 'Top Gear' episode) are you equally confident in the brakes of the 40 tonne lorry which was doing 90 MPH that you had just overtaken a few seconds before?

I don't really believe big lorry's could achieve such speed as 90mph, and even if they could it wouldn't be cost effective at the current time.

As for slower motorists driving to protect the environment, that entirely depends on what they are driving.

Keep commercial vehicles at a limited 70, and restricted to the two nearside lanes, and let everyone else go as fast as their cars will let them.

Works on the Autobahn, why not here?

[RoyMac5]

2 hours ago, Gritters said:

So how much would unemployed chav get?

Starting point

Fine Band A 

50% of weekly income

Range

25 – 75% of weekly income

Fine Band B

100% of weekly income

Range

75 – 125% of weekly income

Fine Band C

150% of weekly income

Range

125 – 175% of weekly income

 

Band A offence example

If you were caught travelling at a recorded speed of 36mph in a 30mph zone you would be prosecuted under Band A rulings.

Three points will go on your licence.

The initial fine would be £265.38, 50 per cent of your weekly wage.

Depending on the circumstances the final figure could range between: £132.69 (25 per cent of your weekly wage) and £398.08 (75 per cent of your weekly wage).

Fine value

Per cent of weekly earning

Starting point fine

£265.38

50

Maximum fine

£398.08

75

Minimum fine

£132.69

25

[cstand]

6 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Starting point

Fine Band A 

50% of weekly income

Range

25 – 75% of weekly income

Fine Band B

100% of weekly income

Range

75 – 125% of weekly income

Fine Band C

150% of weekly income

Range

125 – 175% of weekly income

 

Band A offence example

If you were caught travelling at a recorded speed of 36mph in a 30mph zone you would be prosecuted under Band A rulings.

Three points will go on your licence.

The initial fine would be £265.38, 50 per cent of your weekly wage.

Depending on the circumstances the final figure could range between: £132.69 (25 per cent of your weekly wage) and £398.08 (75 per cent of your weekly wage).

Fine value

Per cent of weekly earning

Starting point fine

£265.38

50

Maximum fine

£398.08

75

Minimum fine

£132.69

25

That's only if it goes to court

[cstand]

2 hours ago, QuitYourJibbaJivin said:

Not true unfortunately pal, I recently did a speed awareness course after getting caught doing 35 in a 30. Somebody on the corse was caught doing 32! The people running the course told us it’s up to the police in each county to decide how much leeway they give.

yes this is true it's up to police authority in the county to decide if they give the normal leeway or not. Normally they don't send NIPs to folk doing 32 in a 30 but it could change at any time. Some motorway specs cameras are switched on as well when no overhead speed restrictions are lit up seen a you tube clip two vans got flashed on the M42 overtaking a car doing 70mph.

[Boycie]

Blummin eck, it’s gone from just over 30mph to being fined half his wages in court!

Poor @Gritters I bet he’s shaking like a pooing dog.

You’ll be raite.

[jono]

1 hour ago, eddie said:

Why on earth would anyone want to drive at 100 MPH on a motorway? Go to a track day if you are a boy racer with a need for speed - or people should organise their life a little better by leaving earlier so they don't have to speed because they are late. As for finding a 'deserted motorway in the North of Scotland' - good luck. It seems that your geographical knowledge needs a little work. The most northerly point of the motorway network is at Perth where it connects with the A9 - just the 200 miles or so short of the north coast of Scotland.

People drive at 80 on the motorway - your answer seems to be to change the speed limit to 80. Then what? They will drive at 90. What then - set the speed limit to 90? Hey, then you can drive at 100 - and so it goes on.

Before 1965, there was no national speed limit, and prototype vehicles were commonly driven on the M1 at speeds in excess of 150 MPH. The norm then was 7,000 deaths on the roads in the UK annually - and there were a quarter of the number of cars on the road compared to now. Conversely, there are around a quarter of the number of deaths now compared to half a century ago. 1700 last year, and it seems to have stabilised around that figure for a few years now.

Poor use of statistics. The fall in road deaths correlates far more closely with the introduction of seat belts, drink diving laws, better constructed vehicles along with active safety such as anti lock brakes and airbags. Add in better medicine and better designed roads. Speed does not kill. inappropriate speed does. And i’d Love to drive at 100 mph and wouldn’t hesitate to do so providing the law, my ability, the equipment I am using and the prevailing conditions permitted .....or possibly we could go back to horses, carts or men with red flags. 

If you doubt my contention .. check out the drops in KSI’s. The big steps down in the 70’s 80’s and late 90’s  align pretty much perfectly with drink driving laws, then Seat belts then deformable structures and ABS becoming commonplace. Of course speed plays a part but it is a small one when compared to other factors. 

There is a risk in everything we do. Speed limits are part of risk management. We need them to police poor judgement and inattention for sure, but that shouldn’t be a blank cheque easy get out of a far more complex issue. 

Nothing wrong with my geography or knowledge of our roads. Reasonable extensive after just shy of 950,000 miles.  length and breadth of the UK, just illustrating a point but pedantry will always find an outlet if it wants to. Where do you think the North of Scotland begins I wonder ? I tupped someone’s towbar in traffic once and went through a hedge when  tyre blew out (scary) and broke my rear light cluster when I reversed in to a wall in my youth. That’s about it. Lucky ? Maybe. 

Is this debate political ? ? 

[Parsnip]

I did the speed awareness course and it was excellent. It made me completely change the way I feel about speed cameras. It particularly resonated with me because they talked about Connor, a boy who died a few years ago in Ashover.

Connor was 16, a really lovely boy, a Rams fan & my nephew's best friend. I'd known him since he was 6. The last time I saw him was a few months before his death at Pride Park. Me, my brother, my nephew and Connor had gone to watch a match. He was such a big, friendly, funny, maturing boy. I remember that last day meeting him in his seat at PP and offering him a cool handshake, which he slapped away and came in for a hug with a "No! Bring it in!".

Connor was case studied on the speed awareness course because he was the only minor (under 18) to be killed on any Derbyshire road since the police had taken over the speed camera operation. 

Speed cameras used to be money generators for the councils - but that's not the case anymore. The police now control them and it's genuinely all about reducing casualties. In layman's terms, saving lives like Connor's. The police believe that the most effective way of reducing casualties on the roads is by placing speed cameras. Their figures add up.

So slow the frig down.