Sort of on a similar subject, I got done around a month ago by Neighbourhood watch/police officers. I say got done loosely, basically i got a letter advising of 2 times i have driven past them and gone over the 30mph (changes from 50mph). Letter one, has two offences and says this would normally warrant a penalty/fine or a speed awareness, although this was just a caution/advisory. for the record i went 41 & 35. Letter two, i received the weekend (2nd one within the month) , this time with 3 incidents they have got me over the limit. 41/34/40 approx. This then goes on to say they will be passing details to the police and will stay on their records for 12 months and the police may choose to suprise me sometime by catching me, effectively.
Ok i get i am repeating the offence alot here, but my question is more to how much notice i should really take? These people have no authority and no photos its just a speedometer which they will do the same road about 6 months of the year but never in the past have i had a letter. I have been using this road on the way to and back from work for 5 years +
I know it will be easy enough to slow down in future and stick to the limits, but just generally intrigued whats behind this? maybe just getting people to slow down in future is all they need?
Not me, but a friend of mine was stopped by a normal police car after he shot past them.
They told him he was speeding to which he replied that he wasnt.
they had no recording or any "proof" that he was so they couldnt do anything.
Have actually done this before, on the way back from footy i speed up (different area, probably not going to look good). Speed camera gone 30 mph, i speed away prob when i was early 20s and then get stopped by a police car say you were doing 50, i just said no i wasn't. They then said clearly you haven't been drinking and let me on my way
I've just nearly been run over by a cyclist, who surprise surprise didn't stop at a red signal and then had the audacity to call me "Cunt" because I reminded him it was a red light!
If they want us to observe a speed limit, then stop making vehicles that can reach ridiculous speeds, when there's no place for them to be driven at that speed or put regulators on them.
Don't allow kids who've just passed there test to buy fast cars.
The amount of traffic offences being committed on a daily basis by, thousands of motorists, that go unpunished because the cops are not around or there's no cameras, makes me feel it's discriminatory penalising those who get caught but of course I would say that.
I've just nearly been run over by a cyclist, who surprise surprise didn't stop at a red signal and then had the audacity to call me "Cunt" because I reminded him it was a red light!
If they want us to observe a speed limit, then stop making vehicles that can reach ridiculous speeds, when there's no place for them to be driven at that speed or put regulators on them.
Don't allow kids who've just passed there test to buy fast cars.
The amount of traffic offences being committed on a daily basis by, thousands of motorists, that go unpunished because the cops are not around or there's no cameras, makes me feel it's discriminatory penalising those who get caught but of course I would say that.
Where's Perry Mason, when you need him!
If the government really want to raise some revenue, then treat cyclists the same as other road users, take a test, every bike must have lights and a number plate, a cycle MOT, they must pay insurance and road tax (before all the zero emission car owners come along, all cars/vehicles should pay to use the roads) and they must have a license that can be revoked the same as other road users.
I've just nearly been run over by a cyclist, who surprise surprise didn't stop at a red signal and then had the audacity to call me "Cunt" because I reminded him it was a red light!
If they want us to observe a speed limit, then stop making vehicles that can reach ridiculous speeds, when there's no place for them to be driven at that speed or put regulators on them.
Don't allow kids who've just passed there test to buy fast cars.
The amount of traffic offences being committed on a daily basis by, thousands of motorists, that go unpunished because the cops are not around or there's no cameras, makes me feel it's discriminatory penalising those who get caught but of course I would say that.
Where's Perry Mason, when you need him!
If the government really want to raise some revenue, then treat cyclists the same as other road users, take a test, every bike must have lights and a number plate, a cycle MOT, they must pay insurance and road tax (before all the zero emission car owners come along, all cars/vehicles should pay to use the roads) and they must have a license that can be revoked the same as other road users.
I've just nearly been run over by a cyclist, who surprise surprise didn't stop at a red signal and then had the audacity to call me "Cunt" because I reminded him it was a red light!
If they want us to observe a speed limit, then stop making vehicles that can reach ridiculous speeds, when there's no place for them to be driven at that speed or put regulators on them.
Don't allow kids who've just passed there test to buy fast cars.
The amount of traffic offences being committed on a daily basis by, thousands of motorists, that go unpunished because the cops are not around or there's no cameras, makes me feel it's discriminatory penalising those who get caught but of course I would say that.
Where's Perry Mason, when you need him!
If the government really want to raise some revenue, then treat cyclists the same as other road users, take a test, every bike must have lights and a number plate, a cycle MOT, they must pay insurance and road tax (before all the zero emission car owners come along, all cars/vehicles should pay to use the roads) and they must have a license that can be revoked the same as other road users.
I've just nearly been run over by a cyclist, who surprise surprise didn't stop at a red signal and then had the audacity to call me "Cunt" because I reminded him it was a red light!
If they want us to observe a speed limit, then stop making vehicles that can reach ridiculous speeds, when there's no place for them to be driven at that speed or put regulators on them.
Don't allow kids who've just passed there test to buy fast cars.
The amount of traffic offences being committed on a daily basis by, thousands of motorists, that go unpunished because the cops are not around or there's no cameras, makes me feel it's discriminatory penalising those who get caught but of course I would say that.
Where's Perry Mason, when you need him!
If the government really want to raise some revenue, then treat cyclists the same as other road users, take a test, every bike must have lights and a number plate, a cycle MOT, they must pay insurance and road tax (before all the zero emission car owners come along, all cars/vehicles should pay to use the roads) and they must have a license that can be revoked the same as other road users.
Perhaps if cyclists had to have number plates and if they fitted all red signals with cameras they might catch more of the 'uckers!
I've just nearly been run over by a cyclist, who surprise surprise didn't stop at a red signal and then had the audacity to call me "Cunt" because I reminded him it was a red light!
If they want us to observe a speed limit, then stop making vehicles that can reach ridiculous speeds, when there's no place for them to be driven at that speed or put regulators on them.
Don't allow kids who've just passed there test to buy fast cars.
The amount of traffic offences being committed on a daily basis by, thousands of motorists, that go unpunished because the cops are not around or there's no cameras, makes me feel it's discriminatory penalising those who get caught but of course I would say that.
I've just nearly been run over by a cyclist, who surprise surprise didn't stop at a red signal and then had the audacity to call me "Cunt" because I reminded him it was a red light!
If they want us to observe a speed limit, then stop making vehicles that can reach ridiculous speeds, when there's no place for them to be driven at that speed or put regulators on them.
Don't allow kids who've just passed there test to buy fast cars.
The amount of traffic offences being committed on a daily basis by, thousands of motorists, that go unpunished because the cops are not around or there's no cameras, makes me feel it's discriminatory penalising those who get caught but of course I would say that.
Where's Perry Mason, when you need him!
your nickname is definitely not Lucky is it.
Definitely not Baldybonce, do you think I should change it to, Wanker?
I'm sure it is technically possible to disable a smart phone when in a car that is not automatically connected to a hands-free system. That would solve a lot of Problems, or disabling the text function, etc.
I work for Mercedes and everyone of our models has a bluetooth hands-free kit as standard. It takes about 30 seconds to connect the phone intially and after that it connects automatically every time you get in the car. The number of people I see with a phone glued to their ear is shockingly high.
We have 3 sprinter vans, have to change over every time I get into a different one with my personal iPhone when I want to listen to music or podcasts on the media button option. Have to de-authorise my old connection from the last time I was in that van, forget device on my iPhone from the current connection and then update Bluetooth audio device list and rejoin..... very annoying.
I've just nearly been run over by a cyclist, who surprise surprise didn't stop at a red signal and then had the audacity to call me "Cunt" because I reminded him it was a red light!
If they want us to observe a speed limit, then stop making vehicles that can reach ridiculous speeds, when there's no place for them to be driven at that speed or put regulators on them.
Don't allow kids who've just passed there test to buy fast cars.
The amount of traffic offences being committed on a daily basis by, thousands of motorists, that go unpunished because the cops are not around or there's no cameras, makes me feel it's discriminatory penalising those who get caught but of course I would say that.
Where's Perry Mason, when you need him!
your nickname is definitely not Lucky is it.
Definitely not Baldybonce, do you think I should change it to, Wanker?
With Germany being the best European country apparently what with owning their railway companies and not having extortionate rents we should follow their example of autobahns.
Have to say I feel more unsafe on our roads doing 70 than I do cruising at 140mph out there.
If they want us to observe a speed limit, then stop making vehicles that can reach ridiculous speeds, when there's no place for them to be driven at that speed or put regulators on them.
Except there is a place. In fact more than one. Some owners of fast cars like to take them to track days at motor racing circuits. I've also had the privilege of doing the Isle of Man TT circuit mountain section while it was closed to regular road users. And, apart from in built-up areas, there's no speed limit on the Isle of Man anyway. Then there's the de-restricted autobahns in Germany and the "Run What Ya Brung" days at Santa Pod.
(Speed limiters can be a bit odd too. Rumour has it, cough, cough, that Audi's limiter only works in top gear on the B7 RS4. so if you take an RS4 up to the limiter in fifth gear before changing into sixth then you can sail serenely on to its real top speed of around 175mph. In any event, the determined would just have the chip re-mapped to take off the limiters.)
Get yourself an old motor. Feels like you're doing 80 when in fact you're only doing 50. No brake servo, power steering, ABS etc. You learn how to anticipate situations pretty quickly. No stereo to distract you and not even a cigarette lighter to power phones etc.
Get yourself an old motor. Feels like you're doing 80 when in fact you're only doing 50. No brake servo, power steering, ABS etc. You learn how to anticipate situations pretty quickly. No stereo to distract you and not even a cigarette lighter to power phones etc.
Thing is for you an old motor is a TR6 for me it's an XR3!
Get yourself an old motor. Feels like you're doing 80 when in fact you're only doing 50. No brake servo, power steering, ABS etc. You learn how to anticipate situations pretty quickly. No stereo to distract you and not even a cigarette lighter to power phones etc.
Thing is for you an old motor is a TR6 for me it's an XR3!
You'll find it a lot easier finding a decent TR6 than an XR3i now mate.
If they want us to observe a speed limit, then stop making vehicles that can reach ridiculous speeds, when there's no place for them to be driven at that speed or put regulators on them.
Except there is a place. In fact more than one. Some owners of fast cars like to take them to track days at motor racing circuits. I've also had the privilege of doing the Isle of Man TT circuit mountain section while it was closed to regular road users. And, apart from in built-up areas, there's no speed limit on the Isle of Man anyway. Then there's the de-restricted autobahns in Germany and the "Run What Ya Brung" days at Santa Pod.
(Speed limiters can be a bit odd too. Rumour has it, cough, cough, that Audi's limiter only works in top gear on the B7 RS4. so if you take an RS4 up to the limiter in fifth gear before changing into sixth then you can sail serenely on to its real top speed of around 175mph. In any event, the determined would just have the chip re-mapped to take off the limiters.)
Ok Ok but apart the race tracks, what have the Romans done for us?
Get yourself an old motor. Feels like you're doing 80 when in fact you're only doing 50. No brake servo, power steering, ABS etc. You learn how to anticipate situations pretty quickly. No stereo to distract you and not even a cigarette lighter to power phones etc.
Thing is for you an old motor is a TR6 for me it's an XR3!
You'll find it a lot easier finding a decent TR6 than an XR3i now mate.
Get yourself an old motor. Feels like you're doing 80 when in fact you're only doing 50. No brake servo, power steering, ABS etc. You learn how to anticipate situations pretty quickly. No stereo to distract you and not even a cigarette lighter to power phones etc.
This is the first relatively modern car I've owned, Nissan Cube 2010.
So agree about old cars, normally driven motors from the 60's.
Having said that, I did manage a ton in both my, Volvo P1800 and Vauxhall Cresta Hydramatic in a built up area outside a school, old people's home, animal rescue centre and blind people's social club;)
Get yourself an old motor. Feels like you're doing 80 when in fact you're only doing 50. No brake servo, power steering, ABS etc. You learn how to anticipate situations pretty quickly. No stereo to distract you and not even a cigarette lighter to power phones etc.
Thing is for you an old motor is a TR6 for me it's an XR3!
You'll find it a lot easier finding a decent TR6 than an XR3i now mate.
I believe that as well
Yeah, me too. This bloke often has nice old Fords http://www.affordableclassics.co.uk/ (Affordable - geddit?) He's got a Mk 1 Zephyr at the moment. His "film props section is interesting too. Love the Sweeney style Consul GT!
Of course I accept that accidents can be accidents. A child can spring out from behind a van for example and get hit even if you're driving at 5mph. However I don't agree that a child should appreciate the difficulties and challenges of vehicles, especially if they have never driven. Is the emergency stop still part of the test? Drivers ought to expect the worst whether they like it or not, and the road space belongs to both drivers and pedestrians (except motorways). If a driver hits a pedestrian I think it is 100% down to them to prove it was unavoidable (I deliberately don't use the word fault) or they should be off the road. The mindset of some drivers is appalling, the driver in a queue turning into a side road should wait for a pedestrian even if they feel it is 'obvious' that the pedestrian should defer. They don't often give much of a chite. A driver will leave a pedestrian in teeming rain whilst they 'just' slip past. Sail before steam, people before vehicles, and that includes bicycles who can be the very worst.
If a driver hits a pedestrian I think it is 100% down to them to prove it was unavoidable (I deliberately don't use the word fault) or they should be off the road.
That's a ridiculous idea, contrary to (almost) all other laws and a breach of human rights! How can you "prove" something in the negative? The burden of proof is with the prosecution and that is precisely how it should be.
If a driver hits a pedestrian I think it is 100% down to them to prove it was unavoidable (I deliberately don't use the word fault) or they should be off the road.
That's a ridiculous idea, contrary to (almost) all other laws and a breach of human rights! How can you "prove" something in the negative? The burden of proof is with the prosecution and that is precisely how it should be.
I think you're wrong there. The only way many drivers will drive safely around vulnerable pedestrians, cyclists and motor bikes is if they think there's a real chance of being held responsible. And with the current laws and prosecution policies they aren't. It works in other countries and I see no reason it wouldn't work here.
If a driver hits a pedestrian I think it is 100% down to them to prove it was unavoidable (I deliberately don't use the word fault) or they should be off the road.
That's a ridiculous idea, contrary to (almost) all other laws and a breach of human rights! How can you "prove" something in the negative? The burden of proof is with the prosecution and that is precisely how it should be.
I come from the point of view that (nearly) everybody has access to walking about. That seems to be a natural fundamental. If advances are made to allow folk to move about in other ways, ways that put them in a minority of the population if you assume 99% of the population can opt to walk, there fore if a pedestrian is hit my first question would 'what do you think you were doing?', and it would be the driver I would ask first.
If a driver hits a pedestrian I think it is 100% down to them to prove it was unavoidable (I deliberately don't use the word fault) or they should be off the road.
That's a ridiculous idea, contrary to (almost) all other laws and a breach of human rights! How can you "prove" something in the negative? The burden of proof is with the prosecution and that is precisely how it should be.
I come from the point of view that (nearly) everybody has access to walking about. That seems to be a natural fundamental. If advances are made to allow folk to move about in other ways, ways that put them in a minority of the population if you assume 99% of the population can opt to walk, there fore if a pedestrian is hit my first question would 'what do you think you were doing?', and it would be the driver I would ask first.
Any apportionment of blame can only be finalised after an investigation of all the circumstances - did the pedestrian walk across in front of the car, was the driver speeding and so on. The conclusion if a pedestrian is hit by a car that was traveling lawfully (within lane, at or below the approved speed limit would likely be it was the pedestrian's fault. If the car was out of lane, speeding, mounted the pavement, proceeded across a zebra crossing when a pedestrian has already entered it then likely it would be the driver at fault.
You can't assume it was the driver's fault unless and until he or she can prove it wasn't!!
This is a tiny example of street life in the early days of trams. It is possible to find quite a lot more examples. The mental divide people seem to have between pedestrian and vehicle seems so different from today. A lot of the time these days pedestrians are fearful of cars as their first port of call. Their expectation is that the car will hit them unless they constantly look out, and maybe be car driver has a mentality that says 'yes indeed, it's your look out'.
Comments
"you're too fat, you don't pack enough and red don't suit your complexion"
Try sitting on one of these going down Gravel Hill and you'll know what I'm talking about.
If they want us to observe a speed limit, then stop making vehicles that can reach ridiculous speeds, when there's no place for them to be driven at that speed or put regulators on them.
Don't allow kids who've just passed there test to buy fast cars.
The amount of traffic offences being committed on a daily basis by, thousands of motorists, that go unpunished because the cops are not around or there's no cameras, makes me feel it's discriminatory penalising those who get caught but of course I would say that.
Where's Perry Mason, when you need him!
your nickname is definitely not Lucky is it.
Have to de-authorise my old connection from the last time I was in that van, forget device on my iPhone from the current connection and then update Bluetooth audio device list and rejoin..... very annoying.
Have to say I feel more unsafe on our roads doing 70 than I do cruising at 140mph out there.
(Speed limiters can be a bit odd too. Rumour has it, cough, cough, that Audi's limiter only works in top gear on the B7 RS4. so if you take an RS4 up to the limiter in fifth gear before changing into sixth then you can sail serenely on to its real top speed of around 175mph. In any event, the determined would just have the chip re-mapped to take off the limiters.)
So agree about old cars, normally driven motors from the 60's.
Having said that, I did manage a ton in both my, Volvo P1800 and Vauxhall Cresta Hydramatic in a built up area outside a school, old people's home, animal rescue centre and blind people's social club;)
However I don't agree that a child should appreciate the difficulties and challenges of vehicles, especially if they have never driven. Is the emergency stop still part of the test?
Drivers ought to expect the worst whether they like it or not, and the road space belongs to both drivers and pedestrians (except motorways). If a driver hits a pedestrian I think it is 100% down to them to prove it was unavoidable (I deliberately don't use the word fault) or they should be off the road.
The mindset of some drivers is appalling, the driver in a queue turning into a side road should wait for a pedestrian even if they feel it is 'obvious' that the pedestrian should defer. They don't often give much of a chite. A driver will leave a pedestrian in teeming rain whilst they 'just' slip past. Sail before steam, people before vehicles, and that includes bicycles who can be the very worst.
You can't assume it was the driver's fault unless and until he or she can prove it wasn't!!
The mental divide people seem to have between pedestrian and vehicle seems so different from today. A lot of the time these days pedestrians are fearful of cars as their first port of call. Their expectation is that the car will hit them unless they constantly look out, and maybe be car driver has a mentality that says 'yes indeed, it's your look out'.
http://search.alexanderstreet.com/preview/work/2141652?ssotoken=anonymous