It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
We've done this before, the above stats dont tell the story, its convenient for the government to use stats like the above to justify the fines and then hiking them up, how the hell can a speeding fine be more than someone who gets done for drunk driving or drugged driving?? Anyone who thinks that the government give a toss about safety on our roads is bloody naive and have no idea what they are talking about. It raises millions in revenue, thats is all. We have technology available, via GPS to fit limiters on all vehicle for the given road they are on, so if the government wants they could insist that all cars are fitted with a receiver box, so why don't they do it? because they would lose millions of pounds in tax, its all it is, sanctimonious people who spout nonsense about breaking spend limits need to live in the real world, the speed limits in our country were set when people were all driving around in Ford Anglias and the like, we now drive faster, safer cars with decreased stopping distances, so the speed limit should go up, it wont because many many people on the road dont know how to drive, not a clue, I see people who dont even know how to negotiate roundabouts, drivers who break mid corner in the wet, most car drivers dont even know it their cars are front wheel or rear wheel drive, so they dont have a clue how it will behave in a skid or in a corner. Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding, cameras do not pick up bad driving, and someone who knows how to drive, going a few MPH over the speed limit is an easy target, its total bullshit.
Are you suggesting that the speed limits should go up? Or are you suggesting that, due to the number of bad drivers, the current speed limits are appropriate?
I only ask as I know that your background means that you are more likely to have an educated answer to this question.
As for the fines, irrespective as to the reason for them do you not think that increasing the number of people that obey the laws is a good thing?
To qualify, speed limits should go up, because safety aids on cars make them safer than 50 years ago, but lack of driver education precludes that they wont. Also the less knowledgeable people of the Uk who believe the stats about speeding drivers will take a dim view.
Nice leading last Q, I am a free thinking person and if we as drivers, motorcycle riders etc got together and formed a lobby to protect our rights then the gov would think twice about the ridiculous laws that they have passed. Also instead of fining people, why not get them to do community service, this would be so much more practical, so that tells you all you need to know about the fines, its a government revenue stream. I dont think its breaking the law if a driver goes a few MPH over the speed limit.
As I understand it, speed limits have remained the same because whilst cars have improved in terms of safety (say compared to the days of the Ford Anglia), they are now heavier, so the improvement in braking has been offset by the increased weight, so no change in the stopping distances.
And you won't get prosecuted for speeding by going a just a few mph over the limit as they add 10% onto the speed limit to negate speedo inaccuracies, plus an additional 2mph. Obviously technically you are braking the law by going even 1mph over, but as said that isn't applied in reality.
Not anymore they dont. They say that car speedo's are totally accurate now, but they wont acknowledge that cars are safer now, double standards? Of course.
Surprised you say that, as everyone I know agrees their car speedos are around 10% optimistic. Deffo the case for both my and my wife's cars, both under 5 years old. In Prague there are loads of "your speed is...:" units which show you your speed, but without a camera, and it's easy to calculate the 10% difference. if the unit says I am doing 50, my car will say I am doing 55.
It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
We've done this before, the above stats dont tell the story, its convenient for the government to use stats like the above to justify the fines and then hiking them up, how the hell can a speeding fine be more than someone who gets done for drunk driving or drugged driving?? Anyone who thinks that the government give a toss about safety on our roads is bloody naive and have no idea what they are talking about. It raises millions in revenue, thats is all. We have technology available, via GPS to fit limiters on all vehicle for the given road they are on, so if the government wants they could insist that all cars are fitted with a receiver box, so why don't they do it? because they would lose millions of pounds in tax, its all it is, sanctimonious people who spout nonsense about breaking spend limits need to live in the real world, the speed limits in our country were set when people were all driving around in Ford Anglias and the like, we now drive faster, safer cars with decreased stopping distances, so the speed limit should go up, it wont because many many people on the road dont know how to drive, not a clue, I see people who dont even know how to negotiate roundabouts, drivers who break mid corner in the wet, most car drivers dont even know it their cars are front wheel or rear wheel drive, so they dont have a clue how it will behave in a skid or in a corner. Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding, cameras do not pick up bad driving, and someone who knows how to drive, going a few MPH over the speed limit is an easy target, its total bullshit.
Are you suggesting that the speed limits should go up? Or are you suggesting that, due to the number of bad drivers, the current speed limits are appropriate?
I only ask as I know that your background means that you are more likely to have an educated answer to this question.
As for the fines, irrespective as to the reason for them do you not think that increasing the number of people that obey the laws is a good thing?
To qualify, speed limits should go up, because safety aids on cars make them safer than 50 years ago, but lack of driver education precludes that they wont. Also the less knowledgeable people of the Uk who believe the stats about speeding drivers will take a dim view.
Nice leading last Q, I am a free thinking person and if we as drivers, motorcycle riders etc got together and formed a lobby to protect our rights then the gov would think twice about the ridiculous laws that they have passed. Also instead of fining people, why not get them to do community service, this would be so much more practical, so that tells you all you need to know about the fines, its a government revenue stream. I dont think its breaking the law if a driver goes a few MPH over the speed limit.
As I understand it, speed limits have remained the same because whilst cars have improved in terms of safety (say compared to the days of the Ford Anglia), they are now heavier, so the improvement in braking has been offset by the increased weight, so no change in the stopping distances.
And you won't get prosecuted for speeding by going a just a few mph over the limit as they add 10% onto the speed limit to negate speedo inaccuracies, plus an additional 2mph. Obviously technically you are braking the law by going even 1mph over, but as said that isn't applied in reality.
Not anymore they dont. They say that car speedo's are totally accurate now, but they wont acknowledge that cars are safer now, double standards? Of course.
Surprised you say that, as everyone I know agrees their car speedos are around 10% optimistic. Deffo the case for both my and my wife's cars, both under 5 years old. In Prague there are loads of "your speed is...:" units which show you your speed, but without a camera, and it's easy to calculate the 10% difference. if the unit says I am doing 50, my car will say I am doing 55.
Whenever I use the cruise control on ours, the speedo is always a couple of mph lower than the speed indicated on the CC.
It's quite simple, people are speeding less, so income for fines has fallen. Unfortunately many departments are now reliant on the income, so they decided to massively increase the fines, but had to make it income related to avoid accusations of disproportionately punishing the poor.
They have little to no interest in actually stopping speeding. If they did then cars would have been limited to 75 long ago (they are limited in Japan for example) to prevent motorway speeding, and they'd make speed limits far more consistent to make them easier to obey, when in my life time it's got harder and harder to know what the current speed limit is a they change regularly and arbitrarily on many roads.
Everyone has been caught speeding. Anyone who says they haven't is lying.
Whether you get 3 points is all part of the lottery.
Once gort caught by a mobile unit doing 39 in a 30. It had previously been 40. I thought this is it. Luckily for me the copper was old school and just gave me a bollocking.
It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
We've done this before, the above stats dont tell the story, its convenient for the government to use stats like the above to justify the fines and then hiking them up, how the hell can a speeding fine be more than someone who gets done for drunk driving or drugged driving?? Anyone who thinks that the government give a toss about safety on our roads is bloody naive and have no idea what they are talking about. It raises millions in revenue, thats is all. We have technology available, via GPS to fit limiters on all vehicle for the given road they are on, so if the government wants they could insist that all cars are fitted with a receiver box, so why don't they do it? because they would lose millions of pounds in tax, its all it is, sanctimonious people who spout nonsense about breaking spend limits need to live in the real world, the speed limits in our country were set when people were all driving around in Ford Anglias and the like, we now drive faster, safer cars with decreased stopping distances, so the speed limit should go up, it wont because many many people on the road dont know how to drive, not a clue, I see people who dont even know how to negotiate roundabouts, drivers who break mid corner in the wet, most car drivers dont even know it their cars are front wheel or rear wheel drive, so they dont have a clue how it will behave in a skid or in a corner. Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding, cameras do not pick up bad driving, and someone who knows how to drive, going a few MPH over the speed limit is an easy target, its total bullshit.
Are you suggesting that the speed limits should go up? Or are you suggesting that, due to the number of bad drivers, the current speed limits are appropriate?
I only ask as I know that your background means that you are more likely to have an educated answer to this question.
As for the fines, irrespective as to the reason for them do you not think that increasing the number of people that obey the laws is a good thing?
To qualify, speed limits should go up, because safety aids on cars make them safer than 50 years ago, but lack of driver education precludes that they wont. Also the less knowledgeable people of the Uk who believe the stats about speeding drivers will take a dim view.
Nice leading last Q, I am a free thinking person and if we as drivers, motorcycle riders etc got together and formed a lobby to protect our rights then the gov would think twice about the ridiculous laws that they have passed. Also instead of fining people, why not get them to do community service, this would be so much more practical, so that tells you all you need to know about the fines, its a government revenue stream. I dont think its breaking the law if a driver goes a few MPH over the speed limit.
As I understand it, speed limits have remained the same because whilst cars have improved in terms of safety (say compared to the days of the Ford Anglia), they are now heavier, so the improvement in braking has been offset by the increased weight, so no change in the stopping distances.
And you won't get prosecuted for speeding by going a just a few mph over the limit as they add 10% onto the speed limit to negate speedo inaccuracies, plus an additional 2mph. Obviously technically you are braking the law by going even 1mph over, but as said that isn't applied in reality.
Not anymore they dont. They say that car speedo's are totally accurate now, but they wont acknowledge that cars are safer now, double standards? Of course.
Surprised you say that, as everyone I know agrees their car speedos are around 10% optimistic. Deffo the case for both my and my wife's cars, both under 5 years old. In Prague there are loads of "your speed is...:" units which show you your speed, but without a camera, and it's easy to calculate the 10% difference. if the unit says I am doing 50, my car will say I am doing 55.
They aren't and can't be. Setting aside everything else, just whether you are driving on new or very old tyres makes a difference.
Everyone has been caught speeding. Anyone who says they haven't is lying.
Whether you get 3 points is all part of the lottery.
I can honestly say I haven't been nicked for speeding. Have never had a speeding ticket.
I did, however, get pulled over and breathalised on about 3-4 occasions and was told at the time I was driving a fraction over the speed limit and that was the reason for being pulled.
Everyone has been caught speeding. Anyone who says they haven't is lying.
Whether you get 3 points is all part of the lottery.
I can honestly say I haven't been nicked for speeding. Have never had a speeding ticket.
I did, however, get pulled over and breathalised on about 3-4 occasions and was told at the time I was driving a fraction over the speed limit and that was the reason for being pulled.
Watch me get a ticket now I've said that!
Yep, i can honestly say i've never been caught speeding. Everyone has broken the speed limit, and anyone who says they haven't may well be lying, but hand on heart, i have never been caught.
Though of course that's two of us that have now invoked the law of the sod.
Foggy day today, I live out in the salad, and in some places visibility was down to 50 meters and still there must have been about 10 + cars without any form of lights on, do these absolute moronic helmets get fined, no and they are more dangerous then someone nipping above the speed limit.
The obsession with speed is down to one thing and that is ease of prosecution. Every other driving offence, and from statistics the cause of the majority of accident, requires direct observation and evaluation from police officer. The ease and relative low cost of simply sticking up a camera trumps the expense of boots on the ground (or tyres on the road in this case) every time.
When speed cameras were first introduced the mantra was that they were only being put in places where there had been x number of accidents over y number of years. That has now gone out the window.
Just obey the limit and then there's no fine, no points, no speed awareness course, no increase in insurance and in nearly all cases hardly any difference in journey time.
Just obey the limit and then there's no fine, no points, no speed awareness course, no increase in insurance and in nearly all cases hardly any difference in journey time.
blah blah ahah blah......I can't wait to read your memoirs. December 24th 1985 - 'it was so exciting, I was 23 years old and I stayed up until nearly 10:30pm'
Just obey the limit and then there's no fine, no points, no speed awareness course, no increase in insurance and in nearly all cases hardly any difference in journey time.
That's the point being made though. The government don't want you to obey the limit. If they did then they'd make it a lot easier to do so, they'd make limits consistent and simple. You'd never have to be driving and think to yourself "what is the speed limit here?", it's be obvious. You'd never get arbitrary speed limit changes when road conditions haven't changed, you'd never get 2 seemingly identical roads with different speed limits on them. They want to catch us speeding, that's why they sit on the bridge at the bottom of Blue Bell hill, it's why the north circular on the other side of the Blackwall tunnel drops from 50 to 40 for no reason and they have a camera next to the 40 sign. It's why the A2 suddenly changes from 70 to 50 just past Dartford Heath (and the first average speed camera is hidden just round the bend) when it doesn't enter a built up area for another 2 miles.
If they really cared and wanted greater safety instead simply catching people speeding then they wouldn't need tricks like the above and the focus would be on simplicity and transparency.
Just obey the limit and then there's no fine, no points, no speed awareness course, no increase in insurance and in nearly all cases hardly any difference in journey time.
That's the point being made though. The government don't want you to obey the limit. If they did then they'd make it a lot easier to do so, they'd make limits consistent and simple. You'd never have to be driving and think to yourself "what is the speed limit here?", it's be obvious. You'd never get arbitrary speed limit changes when road conditions haven't changed, you'd never get 2 seemingly identical roads with different speed limits on them. They want to catch us speeding, that's why they sit on the bridge at the bottom of Blue Bell hill, it's why the north circular on the other side of the Blackwall tunnel drops from 50 to 40 for no reason and they have a camera next to the 40 sign. It's why the A2 suddenly changes from 70 to 50 just past Dartford Heath (and the first average speed camera is hidden just round the bend) when it doesn't enter a built up area for another 2 miles.
If they really cared and wanted greater safety instead simply catching people speeding then they wouldn't need tricks like the above and the focus would be on simplicity and transparency.
They recently changed a main road that is partially a dual carriageway from a sensible 40 (the road is very wide) to a plodding 30. This road is largely used as a bypass so 95% of people are not stopping or turning off. Completing the length of it at 75% of the original speed adds 2 or 3 minutes to each journey. What a waste of everyone's time.
And why? Not because of any accidents but because the pond life who live in the houses along a bank opposite the road don't want to walk the extra 50 metres to the underpass or the safe crossing at the junction and instead attempt to leg it across, usually with a pram or buggy, across a busy main road as wide as a dual carriageway.
Would have been far more sensible to put a fence up to deter these idiots from placing their and their children's lives in danger. All changing it from 40 to 30 has done has encouraged more of these morons to make this dangerous dash.
Just obey the limit and then there's no fine, no points, no speed awareness course, no increase in insurance and in nearly all cases hardly any difference in journey time.
That's the point being made though. The government don't want you to obey the limit. If they did then they'd make it a lot easier to do so, they'd make limits consistent and simple. You'd never have to be driving and think to yourself "what is the speed limit here?", it's be obvious. You'd never get arbitrary speed limit changes when road conditions haven't changed, you'd never get 2 seemingly identical roads with different speed limits on them. They want to catch us speeding, that's why they sit on the bridge at the bottom of Blue Bell hill, it's why the north circular on the other side of the Blackwall tunnel drops from 50 to 40 for no reason and they have a camera next to the 40 sign. It's why the A2 suddenly changes from 70 to 50 just past Dartford Heath (and the first average speed camera is hidden just round the bend) when it doesn't enter a built up area for another 2 miles.
If they really cared and wanted greater safety instead simply catching people speeding then they wouldn't need tricks like the above and the focus would be on simplicity and transparency.
They recently changed a main road that is partially a dual carriageway from a sensible 40 (the road is very wide) to a plodding 30. This road is largely used as a bypass so 95% of people are not stopping or turning off. Completing the length of it at 75% of the original speed adds 2 or 3 minutes to each journey. What a waste of everyone's time.
And why? Not because of any accidents but because the pond life who live in the houses along a bank opposite the road don't want to walk the extra 50 metres to the underpass or the safe crossing at the junction and instead attempt to leg it across, usually with a pram or buggy, across a busy main road as wide as a dual carriageway.
Would have been far more sensible to put a fence up to deter these idiots from placing their and their children's lives in danger. All changing it from 40 to 30 has done has encouraged more of these morons to make this dangerous dash.
And I would think actually made the road more dangerous. This is my theory: I'd be glad if someone could disprove it. I've used figures for added simplicity. Let's say a road has a given volume of free-flowing traffic and is a mile long. If the speed limit was 60mph, and everyone obeys the limit they all take one minute to cover this stretch of road. If the speed limit is reduced to 30 mph, traffic volumes remain the same and everyone still obeys the limit, it takes two minutes to cover the mile. So, at any one time there is twice as much traffic on the road, gaps between cars are much reduced and crossing the road safely or exiting a side road becomes nearly impossible. Doesn't it?
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
And I'd have been willing to bet that a very large proportion of those deaths occurred in built up areas with low speed limits. Turns out, I'd have been right too!
Although motorways carry around 21 per cent of traffic, they only account for 5 per cent of fatalities, 3 per cent of serious injuries and 5 per cent of slight injuries.
The ridiculously low speed limits on motorways and the cameras etc that fine anyone exceeding those limits are there for the sole reason of generating revenue.
When speed cameras were first introduced the mantra was that they were only being put in places where there had been x number of accidents over y number of years. That has now gone out the window.
And that was a lie anyway. Speed cameras did nothing much to reduce accidents. Instead there was a "regression toward the mean" situation that did the job for them but enabled the safety partnerships (sic) to erroneously claim the cameras were a success.
Just obey the limit and then there's no fine, no points, no speed awareness course, no increase in insurance and in nearly all cases hardly any difference in journey time.
That's the point being made though. The government don't want you to obey the limit. If they did then they'd make it a lot easier to do so, they'd make limits consistent and simple. You'd never have to be driving and think to yourself "what is the speed limit here?", it's be obvious. You'd never get arbitrary speed limit changes when road conditions haven't changed, you'd never get 2 seemingly identical roads with different speed limits on them. They want to catch us speeding, that's why they sit on the bridge at the bottom of Blue Bell hill, it's why the north circular on the other side of the Blackwall tunnel drops from 50 to 40 for no reason and they have a camera next to the 40 sign. It's why the A2 suddenly changes from 70 to 50 just past Dartford Heath (and the first average speed camera is hidden just round the bend) when it doesn't enter a built up area for another 2 miles.
If they really cared and wanted greater safety instead simply catching people speeding then they wouldn't need tricks like the above and the focus would be on simplicity and transparency.
They recently changed a main road that is partially a dual carriageway from a sensible 40 (the road is very wide) to a plodding 30. This road is largely used as a bypass so 95% of people are not stopping or turning off. Completing the length of it at 75% of the original speed adds 2 or 3 minutes to each journey. What a waste of everyone's time.
And why? Not because of any accidents but because the pond life who live in the houses along a bank opposite the road don't want to walk the extra 50 metres to the underpass or the safe crossing at the junction and instead attempt to leg it across, usually with a pram or buggy, across a busy main road as wide as a dual carriageway.
Would have been far more sensible to put a fence up to deter these idiots from placing their and their children's lives in danger. All changing it from 40 to 30 has done has encouraged more of these morons to make this dangerous dash.
And I would think actually made the road more dangerous. This is my theory: I'd be glad if someone could disprove it. I've used figures for added simplicity. Let's say a road has a given volume of free-flowing traffic and is a mile long. If the speed limit was 60mph, and everyone obeys the limit they all take one minute to cover this stretch of road. If the speed limit is reduced to 30 mph, traffic volumes remain the same and everyone still obeys the limit, it takes two minutes to cover the mile. So, at any one time there is twice as much traffic on the road, gaps between cars are much reduced and crossing the road safely or exiting a side road becomes nearly impossible. Doesn't it?
I think this is all part of a boody of research that sadly none of us are party to, and it's a pity it isn't discussed more publicly by governments.
In Germany the default on the autobahn remains two lanes only but unlimited speed. I am fascinated by increasing stretches on such motorways where they expand to three lanes, but impose a speed limit of 120kph. Then it goes back to two lanes after a while and the limit is removed. They obviously have something worked out, cos the Germans are clever like that, but I would love to know what it's about. It may be something related to your point, I feel.
Going back to your interesting remarks on the speedos and tyres, does the speedo reading go up as the tyres become more worn?
And on the same lines, do you know why auto manufacturers seem incapable of building a properly accurate measurement of exactly how much fuel is left in your tank? What's that about?
In Germany the default on the autobahn remains two lanes only but unlimited speed. I am fascinated by increasing stretches on such motorways where they expand to three lanes, but impose a speed limit of 120kph. Then it goes back to two lanes after a while and the limit is removed. They obviously have something worked out, cos the Germans are clever like that, but I would love to know what it's about. It may be something related to your point, I feel.
It may be to do with the inevitable bottlenecks that occur when wider roads narrow down once again. Imposing the limit on that stretch may simply be to counteract the impulse to do 200mph down the outside lane only to find the outside lane isn't there anymore!
Just obey the limit and then there's no fine, no points, no speed awareness course, no increase in insurance and in nearly all cases hardly any difference in journey time.
That's the point being made though. The government don't want you to obey the limit. If they did then they'd make it a lot easier to do so, they'd make limits consistent and simple. You'd never have to be driving and think to yourself "what is the speed limit here?", it's be obvious. You'd never get arbitrary speed limit changes when road conditions haven't changed, you'd never get 2 seemingly identical roads with different speed limits on them. They want to catch us speeding, that's why they sit on the bridge at the bottom of Blue Bell hill, it's why the north circular on the other side of the Blackwall tunnel drops from 50 to 40 for no reason and they have a camera next to the 40 sign. It's why the A2 suddenly changes from 70 to 50 just past Dartford Heath (and the first average speed camera is hidden just round the bend) when it doesn't enter a built up area for another 2 miles.
If they really cared and wanted greater safety instead simply catching people speeding then they wouldn't need tricks like the above and the focus would be on simplicity and transparency.
They recently changed a main road that is partially a dual carriageway from a sensible 40 (the road is very wide) to a plodding 30. This road is largely used as a bypass so 95% of people are not stopping or turning off. Completing the length of it at 75% of the original speed adds 2 or 3 minutes to each journey. What a waste of everyone's time.
And why? Not because of any accidents but because the pond life who live in the houses along a bank opposite the road don't want to walk the extra 50 metres to the underpass or the safe crossing at the junction and instead attempt to leg it across, usually with a pram or buggy, across a busy main road as wide as a dual carriageway.
Would have been far more sensible to put a fence up to deter these idiots from placing their and their children's lives in danger. All changing it from 40 to 30 has done has encouraged more of these morons to make this dangerous dash.
As someone that lives on what could be called a bypass (all be it it's not duel carriageway) I would suggest that a speed that's safe for pedestrians is paramount. If the drivers don't like it they can use another road, or put traffic light crossings every 500 meters?
Just obey the limit and then there's no fine, no points, no speed awareness course, no increase in insurance and in nearly all cases hardly any difference in journey time.
That's the point being made though. The government don't want you to obey the limit. If they did then they'd make it a lot easier to do so, they'd make limits consistent and simple. You'd never have to be driving and think to yourself "what is the speed limit here?", it's be obvious. You'd never get arbitrary speed limit changes when road conditions haven't changed, you'd never get 2 seemingly identical roads with different speed limits on them. They want to catch us speeding, that's why they sit on the bridge at the bottom of Blue Bell hill, it's why the north circular on the other side of the Blackwall tunnel drops from 50 to 40 for no reason and they have a camera next to the 40 sign. It's why the A2 suddenly changes from 70 to 50 just past Dartford Heath (and the first average speed camera is hidden just round the bend) when it doesn't enter a built up area for another 2 miles.
If they really cared and wanted greater safety instead simply catching people speeding then they wouldn't need tricks like the above and the focus would be on simplicity and transparency.
They recently changed a main road that is partially a dual carriageway from a sensible 40 (the road is very wide) to a plodding 30. This road is largely used as a bypass so 95% of people are not stopping or turning off. Completing the length of it at 75% of the original speed adds 2 or 3 minutes to each journey. What a waste of everyone's time.
And why? Not because of any accidents but because the pond life who live in the houses along a bank opposite the road don't want to walk the extra 50 metres to the underpass or the safe crossing at the junction and instead attempt to leg it across, usually with a pram or buggy, across a busy main road as wide as a dual carriageway.
Would have been far more sensible to put a fence up to deter these idiots from placing their and their children's lives in danger. All changing it from 40 to 30 has done has encouraged more of these morons to make this dangerous dash.
And I would think actually made the road more dangerous. This is my theory: I'd be glad if someone could disprove it. I've used figures for added simplicity. Let's say a road has a given volume of free-flowing traffic and is a mile long. If the speed limit was 60mph, and everyone obeys the limit they all take one minute to cover this stretch of road. If the speed limit is reduced to 30 mph, traffic volumes remain the same and everyone still obeys the limit, it takes two minutes to cover the mile. So, at any one time there is twice as much traffic on the road, gaps between cars are much reduced and crossing the road safely or exiting a side road becomes nearly impossible. Doesn't it?
You are assuming that an increase in traffic volume reduced the gapes between cars from a desirable distance to an undesirable one. If that'#s the case then fair enough but if there are three cars an hour that use the road then it makes no difference.
However the speed isn't just about volume of cars it's about safety, and other factors.
One last question, if the fines were scrapped and/or if all speed limits were abolished where would all those that are complaining about this 'tax grab' want the money raised to come from? Or what public services would you like to have their budgets cut?
The fines must run into hundreds of millions each year. That would pay for a lot of hospitals etc.
Just obey the limit and then there's no fine, no points, no speed awareness course, no increase in insurance and in nearly all cases hardly any difference in journey time.
That's the point being made though. The government don't want you to obey the limit. If they did then they'd make it a lot easier to do so, they'd make limits consistent and simple. You'd never have to be driving and think to yourself "what is the speed limit here?", it's be obvious. You'd never get arbitrary speed limit changes when road conditions haven't changed, you'd never get 2 seemingly identical roads with different speed limits on them. They want to catch us speeding, that's why they sit on the bridge at the bottom of Blue Bell hill, it's why the north circular on the other side of the Blackwall tunnel drops from 50 to 40 for no reason and they have a camera next to the 40 sign. It's why the A2 suddenly changes from 70 to 50 just past Dartford Heath (and the first average speed camera is hidden just round the bend) when it doesn't enter a built up area for another 2 miles.
If they really cared and wanted greater safety instead simply catching people speeding then they wouldn't need tricks like the above and the focus would be on simplicity and transparency.
They recently changed a main road that is partially a dual carriageway from a sensible 40 (the road is very wide) to a plodding 30. This road is largely used as a bypass so 95% of people are not stopping or turning off. Completing the length of it at 75% of the original speed adds 2 or 3 minutes to each journey. What a waste of everyone's time.
And why? Not because of any accidents but because the pond life who live in the houses along a bank opposite the road don't want to walk the extra 50 metres to the underpass or the safe crossing at the junction and instead attempt to leg it across, usually with a pram or buggy, across a busy main road as wide as a dual carriageway.
Would have been far more sensible to put a fence up to deter these idiots from placing their and their children's lives in danger. All changing it from 40 to 30 has done has encouraged more of these morons to make this dangerous dash.
As someone that lives on what could be called a bypass (all be it it's not duel carriageway) I would suggest that a speed that's safe for pedestrians is paramount. If the drivers don't like it they can use another road, or put traffic light crossings every 500 meters?
There is an underpass and a traffic light controlled crossing. Both are far far safer than trying to push your pram 50m across a busy main road. All changing it from 40 to 30 has done is encourage more people to attempt to cross instead of using one of the two safe crossings.
There is literally no reason not to use either crossing either since there is nothing in between the two safe crossings apart from more houses.
One last question, if the fines were scrapped and/or if all speed limits were abolished where would all those that are complaining about this 'tax grab' want the money raised to come from?
How about corporations pay an actual meaningful amount of tax for the millions or billions in profit they are generating?
One last question, if the fines were scrapped and/or if all speed limits were abolished where would all those that are complaining about this 'tax grab' want the money raised to come from?
How about corporations pay an actual meaningful amount of tax for the millions or billions in profit they are generating?
If that’s possible then I’m all for it but I’m assuming that HMRC are already trying to do that. I was thinking about what happens if people and/or companies don’t come forward and offer to pay more.
It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
We've done this before, the above stats dont tell the story, its convenient for the government to use stats like the above to justify the fines and then hiking them up, how the hell can a speeding fine be more than someone who gets done for drunk driving or drugged driving?? Anyone who thinks that the government give a toss about safety on our roads is bloody naive and have no idea what they are talking about. It raises millions in revenue, thats is all. We have technology available, via GPS to fit limiters on all vehicle for the given road they are on, so if the government wants they could insist that all cars are fitted with a receiver box, so why don't they do it? because they would lose millions of pounds in tax, its all it is, sanctimonious people who spout nonsense about breaking speed limits need to live in the real world, the speed limits in our country were set when people were all driving around in Ford Anglias and the like, we now drive faster, safer cars with decreased stopping distances, so the speed limit should go up, it wont because many many people on the road dont know how to drive, not a clue, I see people who dont even know how to negotiate roundabouts, drivers who break mid corner in the wet, most car drivers dont even know it their cars are front wheel or rear wheel drive, so they dont have a clue how it will behave in a skid or in a corner. Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding, cameras do not pick up bad driving, and someone who knows how to drive, going a few MPH over the speed limit is an easy target, its total bullshit.
Unfortunately this just convinces me that the limits should be enforced even more strictly!
If many drivers do not know how to drive properly, then speed limits need to be low to protect other road users.
Like a pilot approaching an airport, drivers should simply do what they're told by "traffic control". If you're told to go at 40mph then you should go at that speed. It minimises the risk and maximises the traffic flow.
Clearly we need to go back to the days where the maximum speed was 5mph and a bloke has to walk in front of you with a red flag, the way some people post on here.
One last question, if the fines were scrapped and/or if all speed limits were abolished where would all those that are complaining about this 'tax grab' want the money raised to come from?
How about corporations pay an actual meaningful amount of tax for the millions or billions in profit they are generating?
If that’s possible then I’m all for it but I’m assuming that HMRC are already trying to do that. I was thinking about what happens if people and/or companies don’t come forward and offer to pay more.
I'm not even in the higher tax bracket and I personally paid more UK tax than Facebook did in 2015 so I suggest they could try a bit harder.
In 20 to 30 years time self-driving cars and automated convoys will be the norm anyway so surely speeding and millions generated in fines will disappear anyway?
Comments
Whether you get 3 points is all part of the lottery.
I did, however, get pulled over and breathalised on about 3-4 occasions and was told at the time I was driving a fraction over the speed limit and that was the reason for being pulled.
Watch me get a ticket now I've said that!
Though of course that's two of us that have now invoked the law of the sod.
December 24th 1985 - 'it was so exciting, I was 23 years old and I stayed up until nearly 10:30pm'
If they really cared and wanted greater safety instead simply catching people speeding then they wouldn't need tricks like the above and the focus would be on simplicity and transparency.
And why? Not because of any accidents but because the pond life who live in the houses along a bank opposite the road don't want to walk the extra 50 metres to the underpass or the safe crossing at the junction and instead attempt to leg it across, usually with a pram or buggy, across a busy main road as wide as a dual carriageway.
Would have been far more sensible to put a fence up to deter these idiots from placing their and their children's lives in danger. All changing it from 40 to 30 has done has encouraged more of these morons to make this dangerous dash.
Let's say a road has a given volume of free-flowing traffic and is a mile long. If the speed limit was 60mph, and everyone obeys the limit they all take one minute to cover this stretch of road. If the speed limit is reduced to 30 mph, traffic volumes remain the same and everyone still obeys the limit, it takes two minutes to cover the mile.
So, at any one time there is twice as much traffic on the road, gaps between cars are much reduced and crossing the road safely or exiting a side road becomes nearly impossible. Doesn't it?
Although motorways carry around 21 per cent of traffic, they only account for 5 per cent of fatalities, 3 per cent of serious injuries and 5 per cent of slight injuries.
The ridiculously low speed limits on motorways and the cameras etc that fine anyone exceeding those limits are there for the sole reason of generating revenue.
In Germany the default on the autobahn remains two lanes only but unlimited speed. I am fascinated by increasing stretches on such motorways where they expand to three lanes, but impose a speed limit of 120kph. Then it goes back to two lanes after a while and the limit is removed. They obviously have something worked out, cos the Germans are clever like that, but I would love to know what it's about. It may be something related to your point, I feel.
Going back to your interesting remarks on the speedos and tyres, does the speedo reading go up as the tyres become more worn?
And on the same lines, do you know why auto manufacturers seem incapable of building a properly accurate measurement of exactly how much fuel is left in your tank? What's that about?
However the speed isn't just about volume of cars it's about safety, and other factors.
One last question, if the fines were scrapped and/or if all speed limits were abolished where would all those that are complaining about this 'tax grab' want the money raised to come from? Or what public services would you like to have their budgets cut?
The fines must run into hundreds of millions each year. That would pay for a lot of hospitals etc.
There is literally no reason not to use either crossing either since there is nothing in between the two safe crossings apart from more houses.
If many drivers do not know how to drive properly, then speed limits need to be low to protect other road users.
Like a pilot approaching an airport, drivers should simply do what they're told by "traffic control". If you're told to go at 40mph then you should go at that speed. It minimises the risk and maximises the traffic flow.