Festive request chaps/chapettes:

My ex does about 20K business miles a year and was carrying 6 points picked up for borderline camera tickets. In the space of a couple of weeks she managed to get flashed (44 in a 40 - nice) and then quite rightly got nobbled for speeding on the motorway. Nett effect 12 points. Oops.

She put in a written appeal against a ban through her solicitor with the usual hardship stuff (all kosher) but this was dismissed by the fine magistrates of Penrith where her motorway ticket was issued.

The galling thing for her is there is an overlap of just three days between the most recent 3 points appearing and old 3 points lapsing leaving her with 9 and another 3 to disappear in a couple of months. She could lose her licence for 6 months.

The Penrith folk have summoned her to appear (2.5 hours by car - if she gets a lift!) and the consequences of losing her licence are potentially devastating for her.

Even tough she's an 'ex' this seems harsh and resource eating for the sake of a 3 day overlap.

Anyone have any helpful advice or experience to add here?

if her job depends on it, tell her to slow down; maybe ;)

A call or email to Les at his place of work might offer some insight into how to mitigate her problems, could well be the way to go.

yeah, tough imo...sounds like a serial speeder and deserves to be banned... :)

So in summary, knowing that she had 9 points but that 3 of those would lapse in a few days thus giving her some breathing space, she still goes out and speeds and hence risks a ban. Utter stupidity.

"this seems harsh and resource eating for the sake of a 3 day overlap."

I disagree, she obviously has a problem and needs suitable training. Can she privately enrole on a speed awareness course ? That might give some mitigation.

CHE

and lo! the thread brought forth many stone-throwers.

Well without Les here to explain that it's every Englishman's god-given duty to drive as fast as he likes whenever he likes, what do you expect?

In future get her a Tomtom with the speed cameras listed and the warning buzzer for going a few mph over the limit.

That and just let her drive a 1.0L car.

Other than that, she sounds like she needs some driver education. Maybe she should ask if she can do some training rather than lose the licence?

tell her to move to county durham...no static speed cameras there - except for the odd mobile one... :D

The 12 points only represent the times she was caught not the times she has actually been speeding. To speed with 9 points "when your job depends on keeping your license" is a no brainer.
No sympathy sorry.

If you're not observant enough to spot speed cameras or plod at the side of the road, then you shouldn't be driving.

How about get a chauffeur?

How about get a chauffeur?

She had one but he is now her ex.

Well I'll stick up for her - that sucks!

Inappropriate speed is not to be condoned but I really do think that some of the speed cameras and our blanket speed limits are just ridiculous. There are plenty of places where 100 mph is completely safe and 30mph is way too fast.

This recent spate of snow and ice should have taught people one clear lesson. You should drive at the appropriate speed for the conditions. Speed limits are irrelevant and the driver should be taught how to judge conditions accordingly. That is safe driving and has no relevance to a speed limit.

It would be a shame if she accidently had an incorrect plate fitted to the rear of her car. A rare mistake but it does happen and saves no end of hassle. Clearly the authorities go to great lengths to avoid this type of mistake but it used to happen all the time.

My advice would be to go down to the court and plead mercy. There are some serious crimes taking place all over the country, and this is not one of them.

nice that he's on speaking term with his ex...!! maybe she was hoping he could assist? :)

In future get her a Tomtom with the speed cameras listed and the warning buzzer for going a few mph over the limit.
That and just let her drive a 1.0L car.

Other than that, she sounds like she needs some driver education. Maybe she should ask if she can do some training rather than lose the licence?


NO!

You don't need no buzzers .

You need a pair of eyes.

Its the same rule for every one.(except the cops of course)

I am not a fan of speed camras by any stretch but your friend has made the same mistake repeatedly. One error is annoying. There is no real excuse hee thoiugh.

Sorry.




(nb not being funny, I took the advanced drivers course some years ago. I didn't get it, but it does make you look at sign posts ;))

If you're not observant enough to spot speed cameras or plod at the side of the road, then you shouldn't be driving.

Yeah, 'cos they don't hide safety camera vans to make money, do they?

....see if her mother or sister will take the points and she's good to go. Revolving number plates would be handy for the future for that type of thing.

afewbeers,

"There are plenty of places where 100 mph is completely safe"

Plenty of examples please.

CHE

afewbeers,

"There are plenty of places where 100 mph is completely safe"

Plenty of examples please.

CHE

Clear motorways, dual carriageways with good visibility.

A roads with good visibility for short distances.

I used to regularly drive at 160mph in Germany. Not a problem. Generally I preferred 130mph as you don't have to look quite so far ahead which is tiring.

Safe or not really isn't the issue, is it?

Keep the pointy dial thing on the dashboard below the speed limit which is helpfully stuck on those posts at the side of the road and job done.

(And yes, I do have 3 points on my licence - my own stupid fault)

... correct me if i'm wrong but I think you're allowed to go as fast as you want at that new pay road near Birmingham off the M6.

There was a hint in italics asking for helpful advice or experience.

The 12 points only represent the times she was caught not the times she has actually been speeding. To speed with 9 points "when your job depends on keeping your license" is a no brainer.
No sympathy sorry.

Her ticket for the last camera offence hadn't arrived when she got stopped on the the motorway. But your contempt is noted. Thank you.

And I unreservedly acknowledge that you have never, and never, ever would let that little red pointy thing drift above the prevailing limit.

I shall point her to you as an exemplar.

... correct me if i'm wrong but I think you're allowed to go as fast as you want at that new pay road near Birmingham off the M6.

Q: What is the speed limit?

A: The M6 Toll is regulated and policed just like any other motorway and the speed limit is 70mph.

Q: Are there any fixed speed cameras on the M6 Toll?

A: No, but the motorway is regularly patrolled by both marked and unmarked police vehicles.

Via FAQ (http://www.m6toll.co.uk/faqs/default.asp?mainmenuid=6)

There was a hint in italics asking for helpful advice or experience.


Her ticket for the last camera offence hadn't arrived when she got stopped on the the motorway. But your contempt is noted. Thank you.

And I unreservedly acknowledge that you have never, and never, ever would let that little red pointy thing drift above the prevailing limit.

I shall point her to you as an exemplar.


Yes, Indeed.

She should take the IAM tution with the tutor/teacher I had.

Via FAQ (http://www.m6toll.co.uk/faqs/default.asp?mainmenuid=6)

..sounds like a con then

Such hypocrisy on this thread. Everyone here will have gone at 44mph or more in a 40mph limit.

There was a hint in italics asking for helpful advice or experience.




And I unreservedly acknowledge that you have never, and never, ever would let that little red pointy thing drift above the prevailing limit.

I shall point her to you as an exemplar.


Life's so unfair, no contempt just no sympathy, I've just had a 3 pointer 'spent' (36 in a 30), it made me more careful, more observant, and more inclined to keep an eye on my speedo. Some people are unlucky, racking up points in innocuous 32 in 30 traps, they could get some where with pleading to a magistrate, others just drive too fast and lets face it to get pulled over on the motorway you've got to be going some.
Maybe I'm biassed but my niece was catastrophically disabled at 12 thanks to some arsehole speeding.

The only advice she needs is to slow down.

I have some sympathy as my wife was banned for 6 months a couple of years back for totting. They were all camera's and all for being no more than 5 mph over the top. Her fault, yes. However, as a result both my daughters and I also suffered the inconvenience and the additional cost of public transport. At least my wife's job was not on the line.

..sounds like a con then

If advertised as a pay your money and go as fast as you like but I don't think it was.

Life's so unfair, no contempt just no sympathy, I've just had a 3 pointer 'spent' (36 in a 30), it made me more careful, more observant, and more inclined to keep an eye on my speedo. Some people are unlucky, racking up points in innocuous 32 in 30 traps, they could get some where with pleading to a magistrate, others just drive too fast and lets face it to get pulled over on the motorway you've got to be going some.
Maybe I'm biassed but my niece was catastrophically disabled at 12 thanks to some arsehole speeding.



Some helpful advise....don't waste any time on this.

I was pulled over some years ago (now long elapsed). Talking it over with a colleague she said at the end of the day I was caught speeding.

Such hypocrisy on this thread. Everyone here will have gone at 44mph or more in a 40mph limit.

yeah, I do all the time...but I've the sense to do it where there's no speed cameras... :D

I think removing the speed limit on the M6 Toll would be a worthwhile experiment. Anyone objecting would be free to use the parallel M6 or A460/A5/A38. The only reason why this government would not permit such an experiment is because the outcome would completely undermine their speed kills mantra and their true transport agenda would thus be brutally exposed for what it is.

If we replaced the 70 mph limit with strictly enforced (by video cameras, as in Germany) distance minima between vehicles, say 2 seconds, we'd be travelling faster, there would be fewer disruptions to traffic flow and the road would be much safer. Such strictly enforced distances would also obviate the need for those roadspace rationing devices being installed at considerable disruption (and as much expense as adding another lane a mere 12 feet wide) on much of the M6 and already in place on parts of the M42 and M25. These supposedly interactive systems can be overidden in order to enforce any mandatory speed limit some idiot in the control room sees fit as low as 20 mph in the middle of the night on near-deserted stretches (I kid you not, this has been a regular occurence on the M42!)

One in place we'll be travelling bumper-to-bumper at 67 mph because the 70 mph limit will be strictly enforced in otherwise free-flow conditions. Accidents in the form of shunts will increase and they'll then put up signs pleading with us to keep our distance. This has already happend on the SPECS-infested A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge.

The OP is one of considerable misfortune and carelessness combined. It was avoidable, but unjust all the same. Speed limits have been set lower than is necessary as tools of oppression and to invite revenue-raising disobedience.

The points system is nothing but a smokescreen. Remember also that the authoritarians don't give a toss about the resulting hardship. On the contrary it enables them to crow about the consequences of the heinous crime of speeding.

Steven, my understanding is that flow dynamics dictate lower speeds and more closely bunched traffic = better flow rates and increased overall capacity.

I changed her Xmas present.

I've enrolled her on an Advanced Driving course with the IAM. She can add it to her case when it comes to court and even if she gets the wrong result she'll have something to benefit her when she gets her licence back. It may help with future insurance as well as keeping her safe.

Being the best driver in the UK by some considerable margin (I'm not kidding - I really am. The very bestest) I decided to enrol and do the course as well. That way I can bring my skills to a wider audience by helping the IAM folk to up their game so the rest of you may ultimately benefit.

No need to thank me. It's Christmas after all. And as we all know PFM is no place for hypocrisy - it's a warm and broad church.

Yeah, 'cos they don't hide safety camera vans to make money, do they?

Well you must be blind then. They still need to be in a position to take a clear photo of your plate, they can't hide them behind a wall or in some trees.

I must have special powers as I have 0 points and very rarely take notice of fixed speed limits, instead I drive dependant on conditions, which obviously means using my eyes.

Maybe if folks were less glued to sat-nav screens they might see more on the road.

The camera vans around here tend to put themselves in lay-bys right after sharpish corners or just over the brows of hills. Very easy to get caught if you speed, even a bit as the picture is taken before you register the van is there.
It has made me, and I guess others, be more cautious so a good thing.

cheers
Jason


Well you must be blind then. They still need to be in a position to take a clear photo of your plate, they can't hide them behind a wall or in some trees.

I must have special powers as I have 0 points and very rarely take notice of fixed speed limits, instead I drive dependant on conditions, which obviously means using my eyes.

Maybe if folks were less glued to sat-nav screens they might see more on the road.

Well you must be blind then. They still need to be in a position to take a clear photo of your plate, they can't hide them behind a wall or in some trees.

I must have special powers as I have 0 points and very rarely take notice of fixed speed limits, instead I drive dependant on conditions, which obviously means using my eyes.

Maybe if folks were less glued to sat-nav screens they might see more on the road.

They say there are two types of Balloon pilots - those that have hit power lines, and those that haven't hit power lines yet.

Steven, my understanding is that flow dynamics dictate lower speeds and more closely bunched traffic = better flow rates and increased overall capacity.

This is also my understanding but the system enables a few added extras:

1) Enforcement of the national speed limit

2) Can be overriden by a moron in the control room.

Also, it would not be necessary if distance limits were enforced. As the traffic density increased you would have to reduce your speed to maintain the same safe time delay between you own vehicle and the one in front passing a given point. The system would therefore be redundant.

Steven, how would you measure and enforce this 'safe distance' in a cost effective manner?

Tony.

If you know what the speed limits are and your job depends on having a licence then exceeding those limits so frequently is stupid.

Steven, how would you measure and enforce this 'safe distance' in a cost effective manner?

Tony.

Sounds like a job for technology to me. A beam (similar to those that help BMW drivers and women park), measures the distance to any large object in front, and supplies an electrical impulse to a probe that has to be connected to a sensitive part of the driver's anatomy in order to override the fuel cut-off valve and allow the engine to run.

Cav I refer to my coment above about authoritarians crowing and careless misfortune.

Tony,

I've been googling to no avail but this is how the system works:

Two white lines are painted across the carriageway with the distance between them being the safe distance between two vehicles. A video camera then highlights the space between the two markers and records the registration number of any vehicle entering this marked zone before the vehicle in front has left. Video surveillance is necessary rather than still camera shots to allow for sudden braking. The disadvantage of this system is it only works at one given speed.

SPECS camera technology could be used to calculate the speed and distance of every vehicle with the addition of the video camera eliminating sudden braking as the cause of driving too close. It would be a lot cheaper and quicker to install than interactive variable speed limiting systems.

Sounds like a job for technology to me. A beam (similar to those that help BMW drivers and women park), measures the distance to any large object in front, and supplies an electrical impulse to a probe that has to be connected to a sensitive part of the driver's anatomy in order to override the fuel cut-off valve and allow the engine to run.


Miaoooowww!


:)

Cav I refer to my coment above about authoritarians crowing and careless misfortune.


Steven, I don't read what you write...

I changed her Xmas present.

I've enrolled her on an Advanced Driving course with the IAM. She can add it to her case when it comes to court and even if she gets the wrong result she'll have something to benefit her when she gets her licence back. It may help with future insurance as well as keeping her safe.

Being the best driver in the UK by some considerable margin (I'm not kidding - I really am. The very bestest) I decided to enrol and do the course as well. That way I can bring my skills to a wider audience by helping the IAM folk to up their game so the rest of you may ultimately benefit.

No need to thank me. It's Christmas after all. And as we all know PFM is no place for hypocrisy - it's a warm and broad church.


rzme

Assumng you are genuine in this statement, you might bear in mind a few, factors that might have helped me when I did the course.

One is that (in my experience) you should not view as "a bolt" on to your existing experience. Its like startng all over again.

Secondly, IAM applicants should know the highway code off by heart and throroughly. You will soon be pulled up short by the instructor if you don't (all drives SHOULD know it all thoroughly as a matter of course anyway).

Thirdly, be prepared for a lot of nick picking, which is what altimately put me off the course.

eg If you are sitting in a traffic jam you are still expected to have your hands on the wheel in the correct ten to two position.

There are a lot of good ideas and points (IMO) in the course though so it is worth doing.

Change her name to Steven Gerrard, sorted.:rolleyes:

It is a bit late to ask for advice after the court case confirmed the points added.

About all you can do at this stage is ask for a deferral of the next hearing when the ban will be applied, so that it happens after some other points roll off.

Try safespeed (http://www.safespeed.org.uk/) for some sensible advice especially in the forums (http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=31&sid=8e5a33a0f4c298d2739e0c120b7b2bd4)

I managed to get out of a 4 pointer for "failing to provide the name etc" on the back of a traffic light camera case (which flashed me on amber by the way), by researching the case law using the safespeed site for hints, tips and links.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Toy
Cav I refer to my coment above about authoritarians crowing and careless misfortune.


Steven, I don't read what you write...

That's bullshit!

Festive request chaps/chapettes:

My ex does about 20K business miles a year and was carrying 6 points picked up for borderline camera tickets. In the space of a couple of weeks she managed to get flashed (44 in a 40 - nice) and then quite rightly got nobbled for speeding on the motorway. Nett effect 12 points. Oops.

She put in a written appeal against a ban through her solicitor with the usual hardship stuff (all kosher) but this was dismissed by the fine magistrates of Penrith where her motorway ticket was issued.

The galling thing for her is there is an overlap of just three days between the most recent 3 points appearing and old 3 points lapsing leaving her with 9 and another 3 to disappear in a couple of months. She could lose her licence for 6 months.

The Penrith folk have summoned her to appear (2.5 hours by car - if she gets a lift!) and the consequences of losing her licence are potentially devastating for her.

Even tough she's an 'ex' this seems harsh and resource eating for the sake of a 3 day overlap.

Anyone have any helpful advice or experience to add here?
Beats me how she can appeal, something wrong with the system there. She broke the law repeatedly so I can't see what she has to appeal about. You seem to view "helpful advice" as information that may help her get off without the punishment she deserves for her idiotic behaviour. The only advice she needs is to grow up and show some respect for others.

I think removing the speed limit on the M6 Toll would be a worthwhile experiment. Anyone objecting would be free to use the parallel M6 or A460/A5/A38. The only reason why this government would not permit such an experiment is because the outcome would completely undermine their speed kills mantra and their true transport agenda would thus be brutally exposed for what it is.

If we replaced the 70 mph limit with strictly enforced (by video cameras, as in Germany) distance minima between vehicles, say 2 seconds, we'd be travelling faster, there would be fewer disruptions to traffic flow and the road would be much safer. Such strictly enforced distances would also obviate the need for those roadspace rationing devices being installed at considerable disruption (and as much expense as adding another lane a mere 12 feet wide) on much of the M6 and already in place on parts of the M42 and M25. These supposedly interactive systems can be overidden in order to enforce any mandatory speed limit some idiot in the control room sees fit as low as 20 mph in the middle of the night on near-deserted stretches (I kid you not, this has been a regular occurence on the M42!)

One in place we'll be travelling bumper-to-bumper at 67 mph because the 70 mph limit will be strictly enforced in otherwise free-flow conditions. Accidents in the form of shunts will increase and they'll then put up signs pleading with us to keep our distance. This has already happend on the SPECS-infested A14 between Huntingdon and Cambridge.

The OP is one of considerable misfortune and carelessness combined. It was avoidable, but unjust all the same. Speed limits have been set lower than is necessary as tools of oppression and to invite revenue-raising disobedience.

The points system is nothing but a smokescreen. Remember also that the authoritarians don't give a toss about the resulting hardship. On the contrary it enables them to crow about the consequences of the heinous crime of speeding.
What a load of old bull. There is no evidence to support your continued claims of a conspiracy theory.

I've been travelling 265 miles to Newcastle from Gloucestershire and 265 miles back every weekend since I was able to drive again in September until 2 weeks ago. I've done this journey without any serious problems, though there are lots of roadworks with 50mph limits on the route. Traffic has been flowing freely. Your problem is you think you have the right to drive at whatever speed you like, you are another one prepared to show complete disregard for the safety of others. Speed limits are there to project the innocent majority from people like you.

Generally, we have too many cars on the road, people complain about congestion all the time. Perhaps it's time to adopt the principle that passing a driving test does not entitle a person to hold a licence until they're almost in the grave, my own has to be renewed every 3 years and it's no problem to me at all. I'd like to see a system of bans ranging from 12 months the first time someone reaches 12 points, 5 years the second time they do it and then the rest of their life if they do it again. People who manage to fall foul of this are a clear menace and total no-hopers as far as driving goes.

"Speed limits are there to project the innocent majority "



They are also a nice little earner, Brian.

the innocent majority that that always break the "limit" that is, as everyone does

OMG Fox is nodding agreement with Brian. Shock horror.

Admit it: of you drivers who like to drive fast you do it because you think you are great drivers at speed and that the law therefore does not apply to you. i.e. "do what you will as long as you don't get caught".

I never talked about this before but I'm on new medications and a bit spaced right now so what the ****. My epilepsy (see MRI thread) started from a RTA when crossing the road in Bath in the 1980s. At a ****ing Zebra crossing. I still get a chill every time I see it. The driver wasn't looking and was speeding and had no time to stop = low speed impact. I hit the road; 8 hours later I had my first fit, thanks a bunch you ****ing non-attentive cuntbag. He drove off, no one got him. 25 years later we're looking into a change of treatment that might (just might) leave me without fits, possibly option of surgery.

So, I'm sick to death of listening to drivers whine about how good drivers they really are and that speed limits shouldn't apply to them. Well **** you all to damn hell. If you actually think driving speeds don't apply to you then you don't deserve a car. Simple as that.

Someone I know (and like) was telling me how he's going to barrel up the motorway on Xmas day/boxing day in his newish car as there will be no one about -- made me feel like a million dollars I can tell you -- real dilemma about speaking my issues with this in person or just being the coward and just writing about it on an internet forum. As you can see I am a coward here.

So my advice still stands. Get a chauffeur. And some better time management skills so you don;t have to rush. With 12 points you don't deserve to drive for a while. You need to probably take your test again. Tough shit and no love lost.

Folk that creep over the speed limit don't bother me at all - it's the phone in one hand, Costa Coffee in the other that are the real problem but that takes real policing to sort out.

We need more more traffic police, not cameras because driving standards are going downhill.

the innocent majority that that always break the "limit" that is, as everyone does
My job doesn't depend on it but I somehow drove home from work today and didn't exceed the speed limit at any point. Compared to my damaged 4x4, the BMW I have from the insurance company right now definitely wants to take off, but you have to show some common sense.

As said by others, to be stopped for speeding on the motorway these days you have to go going at some speed. To do so when you're already on 9 points and your job depends on it says it all.

OMG Fox is nodding agreement with Brian. Shock horror.

Admit it: of you drivers who like to drive fast you do it because you think you are great drivers at speed and that the law therefore does not apply to you. i.e. "do what you will as long as you don't get caught".

I never talked about this before but I'm on new medications and a bit spaced right now so what the ****. My epilepsy (see MRI thread) started from a RTA when crossing the road in Bath in the 1980s. At a ****ing Zebra crossing. I still get a chill every time I see it. The driver wasn't looking and was speeding and had no time to stop = low speed impact. I hit the road; 8 hours later I had my first fit, thanks a bunch you ****ing non-attentive cuntbag. He drove off, no one got him. 25 years later we're looking into a change of treatment that might (just might) leave me without fits, possibly option of surgery.

So, I'm sick to death of listening to drivers whine about how good drivers they really are and that speed limits shouldn't apply to them. Well **** you all to damn hell. If you actually think driving speeds don't apply to you then you don't deserve a car. Simple as that.

Someone I know (and like) was telling me how he's going to barrel up the motorway on Xmas day/boxing day in his newish car as there will be no one about -- made me feel like a million dollars I can tell you -- real dilemma about speaking my issues with this in person or just being the coward and just writing about it on an internet forum. As you can see I am a coward here.

So my advice still stands. Get a chauffeur. And some better time management skills so you don;t have to rush. With 12 points you don't deserve to drive for a while. You need to probably take your test again. Tough shit and no love lost.
One of your better efforts, mate. Excellent post.

Brian has nailed his colours as the forum's government apologist/spokesperson with his above post. He's also failed to consider any of the safety arguments raised. As for my being another one prepared to show complete disregard for the safety of others , I really would like to know where that comes from other than Brian simply being welded to the speed kills mantra coupled with a belief that nothing else apart from observing speed limits matters regarding safety.

On motorways, where all the traffic is flowing in the same direction (there are no at-grade junctions or on-coming traffic) the most common causes of accidents are shunts when vehicles are caused to reduce their speed suddenly and other vehicles behind cannot react in time. The answer is to keep a minimum distance measured in elapsed time passing a given point so this distance increases in proportion with the speed travelled and further increased accordingly when the road surface is wet.

I'd like Brain and others of his dumbing-down of driving standards protagonists ilk to consider who is safer

a) the driver at 67 mph a car length or so from the vehicle in front

b) the driver at 87 mph more than two seconds (approximately 10 car lengths) behind the car in front.

DavidF: Yes mate - I was serious about the IAM thing. I bought her a gift pack today and decided to do it myself as well. No harm in trying to improve - even if it's trying to improve upon perfection! ;)

You seem to view "helpful advice" as information that may help her get off without the punishment she deserves for her idiotic behaviour. The only advice she needs is to grow up and show some respect for others.


Yes Brian. I've highlighted the bit you've got right. You've got that bit in one. A rarity for you. Good boy.

The bit in italics, well, that seems a bit, er, presumptuous and, dare I say it, judgemental. And what exactly puts you in a position to describe anyone as idiotic?

And the advice bit? Please. Dear fellow, if I thought there was a hint of honest helpfulness attached to your comment I'd just pass on it. But you will struggle to sell that idea even to yourself. It was just nasty for the sake of nastiness.

Sanctimonious. Is that a good word to describe your post? Dunno. There are so many others. But it'll do for now.

Oh, I'm also genuinely sorry for the loss of your mom and admire the efforts you made to be with her as much as possible.

Regarding Fox being run over on a crossing, the driver was clearly an inattentive moron and his speed inappropriate for the conditions.This is not quite the same as exceeding the national speed limit on motorways and does nothing to support the argument for a blanket speed reduction policy.

DavidF: Yes mate - I was serious about the IAM thing. I bought her a gift pack today and decided to do it myself as well. No harm in trying to improve - even if it's trying to improve upon perfection! ;)



Yes Brian. I've highlighted the bit you've got right. You've got that bit in one. A rarity for you. Good boy.

The bit in italics, well, that seems a bit, er, presumptuous and, dare I say it, judgemental. And what exactly puts you in a position to describe anyone as idiotic?

And the advice bit? Please. Dear fellow, if I thought there was a hint of honest helpfulness attached to your comment I'd just pass on it. But you will struggle to sell that idea even to yourself. It was just nasty for the sake of nastiness.

Sanctimonious. Is that a good word to describe your post? Dunno. There are so many others. But it'll do for now.

.

So rzme, what sort of advice did you have in mind then, if not the kind that could get her off an automatic ban?

Folk that creep over the speed limit don't bother me at all - it's the phone in one hand, Costa Coffee in the other that are the real problem but that takes real policing to sort out.

We need more more traffic police, not cameras because driving standards are going downhill.
Very good point.

Brian has nailed his colours as the forum's government apologist/spokesperson with his above post. He's also failed to consider any of the safety arguments raised. As for my being another one prepared to show complete disregard for the safety of others , I really would like to know where that comes from other than]Brian simply being welded to the speed kills mantra coupled with a belief that nothing else apart from observing speed limits matters regarding safety.

On motorways, where all the traffic is flowing in the same direction (there are no at-grade junctions or on-coming traffic) the most common causes of accidents are shunts when vehicles are caused to reduce their speed suddenly and other vehicles behind cannot react in time. The answer is to keep a minimum distance measured in elapsed time passing a given point so this distance increases in proportion with the speed travelled and further increased accordingly when the road surface is wet.

I'd like Brain and others of his dumbing-down of driving standards protagonists ilk to consider who is safer

a) the driver at 67 mph a car length or so from the vehicle in front

b) the driver at 87 mph more than two seconds (approximately 10 car lengths) behind the car in front.
I'm not dumbing down anything.

The bits I highlighted from your post in bold are made up by you and are totally untrue, being based on nothing at all I've said.

Blimey Fox - what a pisser. Hope things work out for you.

Someone I know (and like) was telling me how he's going to barrel up the motorway on Xmas day/boxing day in his newish car as there will be no one about -- made me feel like a million dollars I can tell you -- real dilemma about speaking my issues with this in person or just being the coward and just writing about it on an internet forum. As you can see I am a coward here.

No way a coward but if you do have a direct word with him you may be able to achieve three things:

1. You'll get it off your chest and feel better for it
2. If you share your experience with him it might stick and he'll keep his licence and his shiny car and....
3. He won't do unto someone else that which was done unto you

Good luck to you mate.

Regarding Fox being run over on a crossing, the driver was clearly an inattentive moron and his speed inappropriate for the conditions.This is not quite the same as exceeding the national speed limit on motorways and does nothing to support the argument for a blanket speed reduction policy.

The **** who crippled my niece was doing 45 in a 30, too fast to stop in time.
Had he been doing 30 he could have stopped in time or failing that her injuries would have been less catastrophic.

DavidF: Yes mate - I was serious about the IAM thing. I bought her a gift pack today and decided to do it myself as well. No harm in trying to improve - even if it's trying to improve upon perfection! ;)

Yes Brian. I've highlighted the bit you've got right. You've got that bit in one. A rarity for you. Good boy.

The bit in italics, well, that seems a bit, er, presumptuous and, dare I say it, judgemental. And what exactly puts you in a position to describe anyone as idiotic?

And the advice bit? Please. Dear fellow, if I thought there was a hint of honest helpfulness attached to your comment I'd just pass on it. But you will struggle to sell that idea even to yourself. It was just nasty for the sake of nastiness.

Sanctimonious. Is that a good word to describe your post? Dunno. There are so many others. But it'll do for now.

Oh, I'm also genuinely sorry for the loss of your mom and admire the efforts you made to be with her as much as possible.
My post wasn't nasty in the slightest, it was simply honest. It was certainly no more nasty than others you haven't moaned about, which says something about your motives in your post above. I recall you've had a pop at me before out of the blue, so perhaps you have an issue, or something? It certainly seems so from the tone of your effort above, given that I've posted nothing untoward in your direction on a personal level.

I'm really (seriously) sorry you took my post in such a bad manner because it really wasn't intended that way, but when someone is a serial offender on the road you should expect nothing else from other road users who value staying safe. Those who habitually break the law need to be removed from the road, as the best driver in the country I'm surprised you disagree.

So rzme, what sort of advice did you have in mind then, if not the kind that could get her off an automatic ban?

Cooky - If there are any legal means of helping her avoid a ban I'd make her aware of them.

She is not a menace, or a danger on the roads. On the contrary, her general awareness (yes I'm aware of the irony), road sense, driving etiquette and roadcraft are better than most. And she's not competitive or aggressive on the roads either which IMHO is a far bigger threat to other road users and pedestrians than occasionally being 2-3 mph over the speed limit.

I just think she'll be very unlucky to get a ban because of a three day overlap - seems harsh to me.

Blimey Fox - what a pisser. Hope things work out for you.



No way a coward but if you do have a direct word with him you may be able to achieve three things:

1. You'll get it off your chest and feel better for it
2. If you share your experience with him it might stick and he'll keep his licence and his shiny car and....
3. He won't do unto someone else that which was done unto you

Good luck to you mate.

(ahem)

Hey - we can hopefully discuss it over a beer at Bub's on Friday.

(Newish fast car owning Xmas day racer - who does at least obey all speed limits other than national, and all urban limits always, all motorway roadwork and congestion limits. Motorways and decent country roads are, however, fair game to be driven at limit for conditions. Points =0, x3 accidents - all when I was stationary. x1 avoidable - if I'd been alert enough to see that the parked car had a driver in it I would have halted in the traffic queue before I disappeared totally into his blind spot. Still his fault - but defensive driving is different to fault.)

Cooky - If there are any legal means of helping her avoid a ban I'd make her aware of them.

She is not a menace, or a danger on the roads. On the contrary, her general awareness (yes I'm aware of the irony), road sense, driving etiquette and roadcraft are better than most. And she's not competitive or aggressive on the roads either which IMHO is a far bigger threat to other road users and pedestrians than occasionally being 2-3 mph over the speed limit.

I just think she'll be very unlucky to get a ban because of a three day overlap - seems harsh to me.

I know you can contest a speeding ticket and everything has to be in order for it to stand, the speed camera one, only if you can prove she wasn't driving.

Cooky - If there are any legal means of helping her avoid a ban I'd make her aware of them.

She is not a menace, or a danger on the roads. On the contrary, her general awareness (yes I'm aware of the irony), road sense, driving etiquette and roadcraft are better than most. And she's not competitive or aggressive on the roads either which IMHO is a far bigger threat to other road users and pedestrians than occasionally being 2-3 mph over the speed limit.

I just think she'll be very unlucky to get a ban because of a three day overlap - seems harsh to me.
How fast was she doing when she was stopped on the motorway?

Anyway, driving aggressively and competitively is a problem imo, so I agree with your comment in the second paragraph.

(ahem)

Hey - we can hopefully discuss it over a beer at Bub's on Friday.

(Newish fast car owning Xmas day racer - who does at least obey all speed limits other than national, and all urban limits always, all motorway roadwork and congestion limits. Motorways and decent country roads are, however, fair game to be driven at limit for conditions. Points =0, x3 accidents - all when I was stationary. x1 avoidable - if I'd been alert enough to see that the parked car had a driver in it I would have halted in the traffic queue before I disappeared totally into his blind spot. Still his fault - but defensive driving is different to fault.)
Jonathan

When you say "fair game to be driven at limit for conditions" do you think the limits of your driving ability and that of other road users should be of any consideration? That's without thinking about the capability of the vehicle as well.

Cooky - If there are any legal means of helping her avoid a ban I'd make her aware of them.

She is not a menace, or a danger on the roads. On the contrary, her general awareness (yes I'm aware of the irony), road sense, driving etiquette and roadcraft are better than most. And she's not competitive or aggressive on the roads either which IMHO is a far bigger threat to other road users and pedestrians than occasionally being 2-3 mph over the speed limit.

I just think she'll be very unlucky to get a ban because of a three day overlap - seems harsh to me.


rzme,

With respect she may not be a menace but 9 or 12 points or what ever it was says she was hardly an angel either.

Not meaning to be harsh but the three days seems neither here nor there to me. Shes been nicked for speeding rather a lot of times and its caught up with her (excuse possible pun).

The IAM is well respected course and will look good to the courts if she is a making a positive effort to improve her driving.

Try to get hold of the book/manual to start with and have a read. Its not heavy, its very digestable.

I recall you've had a pop at me before out of the blue, so perhaps you have an issue, or something? It certainly seems so from the tone of your effort above, given that I've posted nothing untoward in your direction on a personal level.


Brian - Apart from asking if sanctimonious was an appropriate word to describe your post I don't ever recall having had a pop at you or anyone else on this or any other forum. Comments with tongue in cheek perhaps but never a personal slur. If I wasn't prepared to say something to someone to their face I wouldn't say it because I can hide on t'internet.

Now, as to whether I have issues - well. yes I do. My turkey is frozen and I'm not sure if two days is long enough for it to thaw properly in the garage in this weather. But issues with you, no I don't think so. I don't know you. I disagree with much of what you say but you seem a nice enough chap. And I probably give you as much thought as you do me.

but when someone is a serial offender on the road you should expect nothing else from other road users who value staying safe. Those who habitually break the law need to be removed from the road, as the best driver in the country I'm surprised you disagree.

Well as the best driver in the country (thank you for the acknowledgement - we all like a bit of recognition now and then) and having regularly done over 30K business miles in the last few decades (with nil points in 36 years of happy motoring I might add!) I see lots of people with no points who have driven like loons for years and whose road manners, posturing and behaviour are hideous to behold. Somehow, the police and cameras have never got them. I also see an example in my ex who is generally a limit obeying, courteous and skilful driver at risk of losing her licence and her job for the sake of three days.

As I said in another post, it seems harsh to me.

I'm sorry, mate.

I know if I go over a 30 limit etc etc I get points.

If she hadn't gone over, she woiuldn't have the points.

Jonathan

When you say "fair game to be driven at limit for conditions" do you think the limits of your driving ability and that of other road users should be of any consideration? That's without thinking about the capability of the vehicle as well.

Brian, this is where your dumbing down protagonism really kicks in. Jonathan should be the judge of the limit for the conditions, nobody else. We should be driving within our own capabilities as well as those of the conditions and the vehicle not those of the least capable on the road.

Brian - Apart from asking if sanctimonious was an appropriate word to describe your post I don't ever recall having had a pop at you or anyone else on this or any other forum. Comments with tongue in cheek perhaps but never a personal slur. If I wasn't prepared to say something to someone to their face I wouldn't say it because I can hide on t'internet.

Now, as to whether I have issues - well. yes I do. My turkey is frozen and I'm not sure if two days is long enough for it to thaw properly in the garage in this weather. But issues with you, no I don't think so. I don't know you. I disagree with much of what you say but you seem a nice enough chap. And I probably give you as much thought as you do me.
Must have been thinking of someone else. Could have sworn you had, but I apologise as I'm mistaken.

As I post real world common sense it's odd how you say you disagree with "much of what I say". I'm also a wonderful chap, as it happens.


Well as the best driver in the country (thank you for the acknowledgement - we all like a bit of recognition now and then) and having regularly done over 30K business miles in the last few decades (with nil points in 36 years of happy motoring I might add!) I see lots of people with no points who have driven like loons for years and whose road manners, posturing and behaviour are hideous to behold. Somehow, the police and cameras have never got them. I also see an example in my ex who is generally a limit obeying, courteous and skilful driver at risk of losing her licence and her job for the sake of three days.

As I said in another post, it seems harsh to me.
It's not for the sake of 3 days, mate. It's for accumulating 12 points in 1 year. There has to be a cut-off.

How fast was she going when she was caught out on the motorway? If she has been slightly over 4 times then that might be seen as harsh.

How fast was she doing when she was stopped on the motorway?

She wasn't stopped on the motorway. She was clocked at 81 mph by a handheld mobile laser by a copper on a bridge on a near-empty M6 in clear, bright conditions.

Even my motorway police friends say they wouldn't have pulled her for that speed in those conditions. Different argument though.
Well, I do have some sympathy with that. There are enough morons doing ~100mph for the police to fill their quota.

Brian, this is where your dumbing down protagonism really kicks in. Jonathan should be the judge of the limit for the conditions, nobody else. We should be driving within our own capabilities as well as those of the conditions and the vehicle not those of the least capable on the road.
I am not dumbing down anything.

It's not for the sake of 3 days, mate. It's for accumulating 12 points in 1 year. There has to be a cut-off.

How fast was she going when she was caught out on the motorway? If she has been slightly over 4 times then that might be seen as harsh.

Well its not 12 points in one year - it's over three years.

She was clocked at 81 mph on a clear M6 in bright dry conditions in Cumbria by a handheld laser. Even my motorway-dwelling police chums say they wouldn't have paid any attention to her.

And bingo - you are correct - slightly over 4 times ( I will argue that 81 is slightly over:D). That's why it seems harsh.

81 is harsh and legal throughout most of Europe including Denmark where 20 years ago the limit was only 60. They must have smelt blood when they ran a check on her.

Chaps

If you do more than 70mph, you are taking a chance, so there is no point in whinging if you are caught.

We have 10 million+ motorists in this country and you cannot trust all of them to exercise good judgement, therefore you need rules that have to be enforced.

Its simple, go over the limit at your own risk.

Regards

Mick

Chaps

If you do more than 70mph, you are taking a chance, so there is no point in whinging if you are caught.

We have 10 million+ motorists in this country and you cannot trust all of them to exercise good judgement.

Its simple, go over the limit at your own risk.

Regards

Mick
Here endeth the lesson for today.

Jonathan

When you say "fair game to be driven at limit for conditions" do you think the limits of your driving ability and that of other road users should be of any consideration? That's without thinking about the capability of the vehicle as well.

Yes, obviously.

Well its not 12 points in one year - it's over three years.

She was clocked at 81 mph on a clear M6 in bright dry conditions in Cumbria by a handheld laser. Even my motorway-dwelling police chums say they wouldn't have paid any attention to her.

And bingo - you are correct - slightly over 4 times ( I will argue that 81 is slightly over:D). That's why it seems harsh.
Shows how much I know, I guess it comes from being 51 and never having been done before. :cool: I thought it was in 12 months and tbh I'm surprised it isn't a rolling 12 months. It probably should be.

I sympathise with the 81mph, as I said, there are enough knackers doing ~100mph for 81mph to be pretty much tolerated.

Jonathan

When you say "fair game to be driven at limit for conditions" do you think the limits of your driving ability and that of other road users should be of any consideration? That's without thinking about the capability of the vehicle as well.

Yes, obviously.
I don't know you or your driving habits. You didn't say so, so it wasn't obvious. Neither was it obvious to Steven Toy, who disagrees with taking all of the things I mentioned into consideration so I'm sure would have chimed in had he realised that's what you were saying.

81 is harsh and legal throughout most of Europe including Denmark where 20 years ago the limit was only 60. They must have smelt blood when they ran a check on her.
Daft argument.

It doesn't matter what is legal or not throughout most of Europe. Is it ok to knock off a 14 year old lass because it's legal somewhere else in the world? Is it ok to have about a dozen wives because it's legal somewhere else in the world?

Chaps

If you do more than 70mph, you are taking a chance, so there is no point in whinging if you are caught.

We have 10 million+ motorists in this country and you cannot trust all of them to exercise good judgement, therefore you need rules that have to be enforced.

Its simple, go over the limit at your own risk.

Regards

Mick


Unusually I agree with Mick.

+I'd think the lady's speedometer was registering a good 85 at the time?? (probably 90)

I just wonder if she had been doing these speeds for a period of time or just briefly to pass vehicles?

Via FAQ (http://www.m6toll.co.uk/faqs/default.asp?mainmenuid=6)

I use the M6 toll maybe a couple of times per year. I have seen many many people 'pulled by the fuzz' (Ouch!)

Chaps

If you do more than 70mph, you are taking a chance, so there is no point in whinging if you are caught.

We have 10 million+ motorists in this country and you cannot trust all of them to exercise good judgement, therefore you need rules that have to be enforced.

Its simple, go over the limit at your own risk.

Regards

Mick

We have a points system. Which basically means it's OK to get caught. It's actually in the rules to get caught now and again.

Here are some rules you could use.

The following assumes you ensure you are driving safely within conditions, increasing your reacting / partial stopping distances with speed, taking no more risks at high speed than you would at lower speed, adjusting for fatigue etc and concentrating on driving and not eating an orange etc.

It also assumes you have done at least the minimum 100,000 miles driving in a mix of conditions. A lot of decent research shows that if you haven't done this, your hazard awareness isn't worth shit.

RULE 1 - obey all urban speed limits - 30, 40, 50. Clever people set these for good reasons in almost all cases. Occasionally not - but 99% sensible.

RULE 2 - obey all semi-urban national limits. Your hazard awareness-fu should tell you why.

RULE 3 - only drive > 100 mph if you can cope with a ban (assuming conditions, risk etc)

RULE 4 - (assuming conditions, traffic ya de ya de ya) drive at 99 mph if you like. Try not to do it near policemen or traffic cameras.

RULE 5 - If you get caught 71-99 mph, take your three points like a man, don't whine - you broke the law and got caught. You have two more "get caughts" left.

RULE 6 - If you get up to 6 or 9 points SLOW DOWN. SLOW DOWN for 3 to 4 years. 9 Point = obey the speed limit or get a collapsable bike and a season ticket.

RULE 7 - You must accept that however much good judgement you are using some idiot can wipe you out and if you are doing 99 you stand less chance of surviving than 70. Not much less, but less. A lot less than if you were doing 50.

They are actually just one possible set of rule. But work with the legislation. To say 70 mph is the speed limit is too simple a statement.

On the other hand I'd support an outright 10 year ban for reckless or dangerous driving. One difficulty is you could argue that just about any 17 year old HAS to drive recklessly - because the pattern matching heuristic human brain doesn't know the difference between sensible and reckless without practice. That's the real tough question. How do you get 100,000 miles of experience into someone without driving 100,000 miles? Answer that and you can cut in half the annual road deaths.

Daft argument.

It doesn't matter what is legal or not throughout most of Europe.

A good moral compass looks for points of reference just outside of our foggy shores. My plan for distance enforcement takes care of heavier traffic conditions that are often although not always prevalent on our roads compared to theirs.

Is it ok to knock off a 14 year old lass because it's legal somewhere else in the world?

You're not going to knock off a 14 year old lass on a motorway.

Is it ok to have about a dozen wives because it's legal somewhere else in the world?

My moral compass does not probe the non-secular Muslim world and Shariah law. I need look only as far as the civilised world within the EU.

I just wonder if she had been doing these speeds for a period of time or just briefly to pass vehicles?

I remember my Dad getting done for 90 overtaking vehicles before dropping back to 70 on the M54 (a two-lane motorway) a few years back. The male copper made it clear he did not want to book him because he'd noted that my Dad was clearing a backlog of traffic forming behind a couple of trucks and a dithering driver in an old Vectra but his female (but aesthetically challenged) associate insisted on the ticket being issued.

There's the letter of the law and also the spirit of it that some law enforcement agents appreciate and uphold whilst their colleagues are just gleeful opportunists.

A genuine shift towards free movement, progress and real safety will see changes to the oppressive regime on our roads.

We have 10 million+ motorists in this country and you cannot trust all of them to exercise good judgement, therefore you need rules that have to be enforced.

Mick, this definitely can be filed under the dumbing down category. Just because you're not in the Freemasons (to talk your way out of a ticket at 85) does not mean you cannot exercise sound judgement.

PS: I remember my Dad years ago being invited to join said organisation but he refused because he felt it would compromise his integrity.

My licence remains as clean as the day I got it back in March 1988. I'm either lucky or cynically careful. I'm certainly not blindly obedient outside of urban areas and not always so on suburban arterial roads that are now 30 but used to be 40. I'm always respectful of 30 limits in areas near shops, outside schools in the daytime and in residential areas at all times.

I have utter contempt for 20 limits outside school hours and where there are no parked cars and other obstacles though.

Daft argument.

It doesn't matter what is legal or not throughout most of Europe. Is it ok to knock off a 14 year old lass because it's legal somewhere else in the world? Is it ok to have about a dozen wives because it's legal somewhere else in the world?

In my opinion, yes it should be OK to knock-off a 14 year old lass with her full consent. It's legal to do so in Austria - a highly civilised country. So why not in the UK? With greater knowledge and technology applied to education the average 14 year of today should be rather more sophisticated and better informed than one of a generation ago.

I don't see why it should be illegal to have a dozen wives - or husbands. If both parties agree willingly to it, why not? Why should the government interfere with this type of personal business?


The motorway speed limit of 70mph was set way back in the 60's. With the application of technology and greater knowledge - cars with far better braking, road-holding, crash protection than 50 years ago - better awareness of causes of motorway accidents - the UK motorway speed limit should be increased.

I think it's ridiculous that this woman is being punished so harshly for such victimless crimes. 81 on a clear motorway is not dangerous to anyone in any way whatsoever. Certainly far less dangerous than using steps or stairs. Or even chairs or beds. Look at the government figures for how many people die each year from accidents involving beds and chairs and compare that to how many people die from doing 81 on clear motorways.

Burglars get less punishment than this woman. 20 hour community sentance vs driving ban. I'd rather do the community sentance.

Victimless crimes IMO should never be punished.
Victim crimes should be punished.

Indeed. Burglars get slapped wrists to reoffend and bump up crime clear-up rates.

This government clearly is the enemy of the people.

It's legal to do so in Austria - a highly civilised country.

Good point point of reference on the moral compass as Austria is clearly a civilised country. However, morally it does not sit comfortably with me to regard 14 year olds as capable of exercising sexual consent.

As for the 70 limit, it was set by the non-driving Labour Transport Minister, Barbera Castle back in 1965. 70 was set well above the safe capability of most cars at that time. it's now time to move on but for the fact that Tony B.Liar stated that no matter how much cars may have improved, drivers haven't. He clearly nailed his colours to the mast regarding his faith in human nature. Hell will freeze over before the 70 limit is moved upwards as far as he and his party are concerned, even when cars can be made to stop on a 5p piece.

From having read this thread through I think the 70 limit HAS been moved.

Most stuff seemes to travel at a steady 80 when I've been out and I think the cops turn a blind eye for the most part. Its only when you get a patrol car doing spot-on 70 that people are a bit more careful, until out of sight of the vehicle, then they're off again.

I'm not sure what happened with the poster's friend. Maybe the policeman saw her doing 80, put the reg number through the (car) computer, saw some convictions, and decided to pounce. Perhaps Steven's Dads WPC.

We have a points system. Which basically means it's OK to get caught. It's actually in the rules to get caught now and again.

Here are some rules you could use.

The following assumes you ensure you are driving safely within conditions, increasing your reacting / partial stopping distances with speed, taking no more risks at high speed than you would at lower speed, adjusting for fatigue etc and concentrating on driving and not eating an orange etc.

It also assumes you have done at least the minimum 100,000 miles driving in a mix of conditions. A lot of decent research shows that if you haven't done this, your hazard awareness isn't worth shit.

RULE 1 - obey all urban speed limits - 30, 40, 50. Clever people set these for good reasons in almost all cases. Occasionally not - but 99% sensible.

RULE 2 - obey all semi-urban national limits. Your hazard awareness-fu should tell you why.

RULE 3 - only drive > 100 mph if you can cope with a ban (assuming conditions, risk etc)

RULE 4 - (assuming conditions, traffic ya de ya de ya) drive at 99 mph if you like. Try not to do it near policemen or traffic cameras.

RULE 5 - If you get caught 71-99 mph, take your three points like a man, don't whine - you broke the law and got caught. You have two more "get caughts" left.

RULE 6 - If you get up to 6 or 9 points SLOW DOWN. SLOW DOWN for 3 to 4 years. 9 Point = obey the speed limit or get a collapsable bike and a season ticket.

RULE 7 - You must accept that however much good judgement you are using some idiot can wipe you out and if you are doing 99 you stand less chance of surviving than 70. Not much less, but less. A lot less than if you were doing 50.

They are actually just one possible set of rule. But work with the legislation. To say 70 mph is the speed limit is too simple a statement.

On the other hand I'd support an outright 10 year ban for reckless or dangerous driving. One difficulty is you could argue that just about any 17 year old HAS to drive recklessly - because the pattern matching heuristic human brain doesn't know the difference between sensible and reckless without practice. That's the real tough question. How do you get 100,000 miles of experience into someone without driving 100,000 miles? Answer that and you can cut in half the annual road deaths.
That's a very good post, actually.

How about limiting the power of car available to a driver based on their number of years actual driving experience? Like motorbikes, for example.

In my opinion, yes it should be OK to knock-off a 14 year old lass with her full consent. It's legal to do so in Austria - a highly civilised country. So why not in the UK? With greater knowledge and technology applied to education the average 14 year of today should be rather more sophisticated and better informed than one of a generation ago.

I don't see why it should be illegal to have a dozen wives - or husbands. If both parties agree willingly to it, why not? Why should the government interfere with this type of personal business?

-----------------------------------------------------------

The motorway speed limit of 70mph was set way back in the 60's. With the application of technology and greater knowledge - cars with far better braking, road-holding, crash protection than 50 years ago - better awareness of causes of motorway accidents - the UK motorway speed limit should be increased.

I think it's ridiculous that this woman is being punished so harshly for such victimless crimes. 81 on a clear motorway is not dangerous to anyone in any way whatsoever. Certainly far less dangerous than using steps or stairs. Or even chairs or beds. Look at the government figures for how many people die each year from accidents involving beds and chairs and compare that to how many people die from doing 81 on clear motorways.

Burglars get less punishment than this woman. 20 hour community sentance vs driving ban. I'd rather do the community sentance.

Victimless crimes IMO should never be punished.
Victim crimes should be punished.

I agree with most of your comment below the line, though not with the "victimless crimes should never be punished."

PS That you would rather do community service, I'm sure lots of others would feel the same, means a driving ban is a better deterrent.

That's a very good post, actually.

How about limiting the power of car available to a driver based on their number of years actual driving experience? Like motorbikes, for example.

Its a good idea...in theory...but having seen the kids round here on their power-limited scooters going everywhere with the throttle wound right open and without a care for how dangerously they over/under take cars / pedestrians / each other (as an ex-biker myself I can tell the difference between a safe and a dodgy manouver) I remain to be convinced it actually works, or maybe the limits are set too low.


There is an attempt to power-limit young drivers anyway - its virtually impossible to get them insurance nowerdays as the rates have been racked-up so high. So many of them just don't bother with it - pay £3000 to insure a £500 car?

Mick, this definitely can be filed under the dumbing down category. Just because you're not in the Freemasons (to talk your way out of a ticket at 85) does not mean you cannot exercise sound judgement.

PS: I remember my Dad years ago being invited to join said organisation but he refused because he felt it would compromise his integrity.

My licence remains as clean as the day I got it back in March 1988. I'm either lucky or cynically careful. I'm certainly not blindly obedient outside of urban areas and not always so on suburban arterial roads that are now 30 but used to be 40. I'm always respectful of 30 limits in areas near shops, outside schools in the daytime and in residential areas at all times.

I have utter contempt for 20 limits outside school hours and where there are no parked cars and other obstacles though.

Steve

So you trust every motorist to excercise good judgement. Then you are bloody mad. There are good motorists and there are also some total idiots driving around who have no judgement at all. Also in this day and age if you dim enough to be clocked for speeding on a motorway then you are too dim to be behind a wheel.

Getting 3 points is unfortunate, getting 6 is stupid and at that stage you should be driving to the letter of the law. Anyone who collects a further set of points after having six on their licence must be a total brain dead moron and I, for one, want them off the road. They are so bloody thick they should only be trusted to walk on pavements.

Regards

Mick

I remember my Dad getting done for 90 overtaking vehicles before dropping back to 70 on the M54 (a two-lane motorway) a few years back. The male copper made it clear he did not want to book him because he'd noted that my Dad was clearing a backlog of traffic forming behind a couple of trucks and a dithering driver in an old Vectra but his female (but aesthetically challenged) associate insisted on the ticket being issued.

There's the letter of the law and also the spirit of it that some law enforcement agents appreciate and uphold whilst their colleagues are just gleeful opportunists.

A genuine shift towards free movement, progress and real safety will see changes to the oppressive regime on our roads.
What has "aesthetically challenged" got to do with anything? Are you trying to be funny?


Mick Parry was totally correct when he said:
We have 10 million+ motorists in this country and you cannot trust all of them to exercise good judgement, therefore you need rules that have to be enforced.
Mick, this definitely can be filed under the dumbing down category. Just because you're not in the Freemasons (to talk your way out of a ticket at 85) does not mean you cannot exercise sound judgement.
Mick's comment is most clearly not an example of your second favourite phrase of the moment, dumbing down. (Your favourite being "moral compass" whatever that is)


PS: I remember my Dad years ago being invited to join said organisation but he refused because he felt it would compromise his integrity.
What has being a Freemason got to do with anything?

My licence remains as clean as the day I got it back in March 1988. I'm either lucky or cynically careful. I'm certainly not blindly obedient outside of urban areas and not always so on suburban arterial roads that are now 30 but used to be 40. I'm always respectful of 30 limits in areas near shops, outside schools in the daytime and in residential areas at all times.

I have utter contempt for 20 limits outside school hours and where there are no parked cars and other obstacles though.
So you admit to ignoring 30mph limits because YOU deem them not needed and ignore 20mph limits where they are set. Your selfishness and arrogance is staggering. Who do you think you are?

Indeed. Burglars get slapped wrists to reoffend and bump up crime clear-up rates.

This government clearly is the enemy of the people.
:D:D Emigrate if you hate it so much.

Good point point of reference on the moral compass as Austria is clearly a civilised country. However, morally it does not sit comfortably with me to regard 14 year olds as capable of exercising sexual consent.
I think you've shown you don't have a moral compass. If you did, you would see that a 20mph limit is set for a specific reason and you would not ignore it.

As for the 70 limit, it was set by the non-driving Labour Transport Minister, Barbera Castle back in 1965. 70 was set well above the safe capability of most cars at that time. it's now time to move on but for the fact that Tony B.Liar stated that no matter how much cars may have improved, drivers haven't. He clearly nailed his colours to the mast regarding his faith in human nature. Hell will freeze over before the 70 limit is moved upwards as far as he and his party are concerned, even when cars can be made to stop on a 5p piece.
I'd say Mr Blair is correct.

Its a good idea...in theory...but having seen the kids round here on their power-limited scooters going everywhere with the throttle wound right open and without a care for how dangerously they over/under take cars / pedestrians / each other (as an ex-biker myself I can tell the difference between a safe and a dodgy manouver) I remain to be convinced it actually works, or maybe the limits are set too low.

There is an attempt to power-limit young drivers anyway - its virtually impossible to get them insurance nowerdays as the rates have been racked-up so high. So many of them just don't bother with it - pay £3000 to insure a £500 car?
Yes, good points. Agree with all of your post.

Lets say you have to drive 50 miles to your destination, half of which will be on motorway :

30mph off motorway, 70mph on motorway, it will take you 1 hour 11 mins

If you instead drive at 100mph on the motorway (because you can), and like a loony in town (will hardly make any difference due to traffic / lights / etc - say an average 35mph) - it will take you 58 minutes.

So by driving highly aggressively in town and on the motorway - and thus increasing your chance of an accident considerably quite apart from points on your licence - you have saved 13 minutes. Bugger-all, really - what will you do with that extra time, except de-stress yourself?

And that's a "best case" - in practice you can't increase your average speeds (note : not peak!) this much (anyone who's got an on-board trip computer or GPS and compared similiar journeys will have found this out...)


One of the few occasions where I'll agree with Mick (instead of baiting him) - if you've got 9 points on your licence (over time), you shouldn't be on the road as you are clearly too stupid / dangerous to be on the road. One of the biggest problems we have as a society is the belief that everyone has the "right" to drive...

I've been caught speeding on the M6 at 84mph on a clear day with little traffic. Pissed off though I was I can't deny I wasn't speeding. Just those 3 points and fine made me more cautious of limits in general. What was very annoying was blinking and missing a 110 kph mandatory limit on a French toll road when all the others had been weather related, there at the bottom of a hill were the Gendarmes and their radar gun. Ouch. But I never so much as once went 1kph over the limit for over 1000 miles of continental driving from then on.

The problem with the 2 second rule for leaving a gap in front of you is actually having a gap. If you're a regular driver on the M25 for example you'll know that if you left a 2 second gap at least 3 vans would fill it instantly. All you can do is drop back further and further and drive slower and slower. This is easily solvable by technology. Cars just need a proximity sensor that sees the vehicle in front and advises the driver based on speed that he/she is too close. It would take years to get all cars converted or sold with it but it might change our driving habits.

I'm all for the personal policing attitude to these offences where condition and driving standards are taken into consideration rather than a yes/no conviction based on absolute speed from a camera. My partner also reckons that [motor]bike riding should be compulsory for learner drivers as the amount of road sense needed far exceeds that for driving a nice safe 4 wheeled box.

Mark.

That's a very good post, actually.

How about limiting the power of car available to a driver based on their number of years actual driving experience? Like motorbikes, for example.

how is this enforced with the bikers currently..? - the mileage that they do, or the length of time they've had a licence..?

just that they could have passed their test years ago but for whatever reason only done a few hundred miles...

Lets say you have to drive 50 miles to your destination, half of which will be on motorway :

30mph off motorway, 70mph on motorway, it will take you 1 hour 11 mins

If you instead drive at 100mph on the motorway (because you can), and like a loony in town (will hardly make any difference due to traffic / lights / etc - say an average 35mph) - it will take you 58 minutes.

So by driving highly aggressively in town and on the motorway - and thus increasing your chance of an accident considerably quite apart from points on your licence - you have saved 13 minutes. Bugger-all, really - what will you do with that extra time, except de-stress yourself?

And that's a "best case" - in practice you can't increase your average speeds (note : not peak!) this much (anyone who's got an on-board trip computer or GPS and compared similiar journeys will have found this out...)


One of the few occasions where I'll agree with Mick (instead of baiting him) - if you've got 9 points on your licence (over time), you shouldn't be on the road as you are clearly too stupid / dangerous to be on the road. One of the biggest problems we have as a society is the belief that everyone has the "right" to drive...

A relative of mine has always had a dim view of speed limits and just drives at whatever speed she likes. She was on the verge of 12 points and got her mum to take the latest 3 for her. Stupid? yes. especially when 6 of those points were from the same camera in a 30mph residential area. It seems some people never learn.

I agree about the average speed and journey times though. My tomtom gives me an ETA which is never more than 5 minutes out on a 100 mile or so journey. Has anyone ever tried to improve on those figures? If you drive constantly fast you can get 2, maybe 3 minutes off that. Better to go with the flow and arrive stress-free. Sometimes though you want to feel like you're actually getting somewhere and push that pedal a bit..

Mark.

how is this enforced with the bikers currently..? - the mileage that they do, or the length of time they've had a licence..?

just that they could have passed their test years ago but for whatever reason only done a few hundred miles...

As I recall, the system nowerdays is that you are power-limited for two years, there is no mileage or further testing - but you can skip all this by doing "Direct Access" which is basically a test to show you have higher skills and can handle a more powerful machine. This direct access is aimed at older people turning to bikeing with experience at normal driving rather than children, you aren't going to get insurance for a harley/ducati/etc under 25 anyway....

Brian you have no undestanding of morality only absolute rules. You have made this very clear. Also, if you didn't get the Freemason connection then I suggest that you are not very bright.
The difference between me and you is that I don't blindly trust authority. I even place more faith in the nature of the general population than I do in the scum that rises to positions of power.
You otoh are an authoritarian and you fall for all their soundbites hook, line and sinker.
The only reason why the 20 mph limits outside schools are permanent because its simpler that way not because it is right.
If I do 30 outside a school this afternoon I am doing nothing wrong - because it's shut, the kids are on holiday!
While I am on my school run in the afternoon during term time my speed on approach to the school gates is less than 20.

Brian you have no undestanding of morality only absolute rules. You have made this very clear. Also, if you didn't get the Freemason connection then I suggest that you are not very bright.
The difference between me and you is that I don't blindly trust authority. I even place more faith in the nature of the general population than I do in the scum that rises to positions of power.
You otoh are an authoritarian and you fall for all their soundbites hook, line and sinker.
The only reason why the 20 mph limits outside schools are permanent because its simpler that way not because it is right.
If I do 30 outside a school this afternoon I am doing nothing wrong - because it's shut, the kids are on holiday!
While I am on my school run in the afternoon during term time my speed on approach to the school gates is less than 20.

Steven

I believe you are a taxi driver and therefore presumably licensed. I would imagine the council that grants your license would take a dim view of you deliberately flouting speeding laws.Writing as an ex-licensee myself (alcohol) I would have had mine removed and would find it extremely diffcult in the future if I ever wanted to apply for another one.

Regards

Ian

how is this enforced with the bikers currently..? - the mileage that they do, or the length of time they've had a licence..?

just that they could have passed their test years ago but for whatever reason only done a few hundred miles...
Yes, that's why I said "actual" driving experience.

[QUOTE=MJS;966784]A relative of mine has always had a dim view of speed limits and just drives at whatever speed she likes. She was on the verge of 12 points and got her mum to take the latest 3 for her. Stupid? yes. especially when 6 of those points were from the same camera in a 30mph residential area. It seems some people never learn.

Very stupid, and her mum was too. The cops and are very hot on people trying manipulate the justice system. If found out a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice is a certainty, and people have been known to go to jail for doing what your relatives did.

Brian you have no undestanding of morality only absolute rules. You have made this very clear. Also, if you didn't get the Freemason connection then I suggest that you are not very bright.
The difference between me and you is that I don't blindly trust authority. I even place more faith in the nature of the general population than I do in the scum that rises to positions of power.
You otoh are an authoritarian and you fall for all their soundbites hook, line and sinker.
The only reason why the 20 mph limits outside schools are permanent because its simpler that way not because it is right.
If I do 30 outside a school this afternoon I am doing nothing wrong - because it's shut, the kids are on holiday!
While I am on my school run in the afternoon during term time my speed on approach to the school gates is less than 20.
You've made it very clear you don't give a toss about anyone other than yourself, so your judgment of me means nothing to me.

Imagine being fined for being 1.87 secs away from the car in front instead of the proscribed 2 secs-what a stupid idea, the uproar that would ensue would make the howls about speed limits sound like a whisper.
Unless you could physically control the speed and distance of the cars it couldn't possibly work. What for instance happens to an already full strip of motorway with a full stream of suitably placed cars when you get more cars joining the motorway, are you only permitted to join if you spot a 4 sec gap? How would the operation of emergency vehicles mess it all up, how long to clear the ensuing jams after an accident etc? Now if the only practical way of making this work is to hand over speed control to some government computer I'm not sure were that leaves the 'freedom from authoritarianism' mindset.

Lets say you have to drive 50 miles to your destination, half of which will be on motorway :

30mph off motorway, 70mph on motorway, it will take you 1 hour 11 mins

If you instead drive at 100mph on the motorway (because you can), and like a loony in town (will hardly make any difference due to traffic / lights / etc - say an average 35mph) - it will take you 58 minutes.

So by driving highly aggressively in town and on the motorway - and thus increasing your chance of an accident considerably quite apart from points on your licence - you have saved 13 minutes. Bugger-all, really - what will you do with that extra time, except de-stress yourself?

And that's a "best case" - in practice you can't increase your average speeds (note : not peak!) this much (anyone who's got an on-board trip computer or GPS and compared similiar journeys will have found this out...)


One of the few occasions where I'll agree with Mick (instead of baiting him) - if you've got 9 points on your licence (over time), you shouldn't be on the road as you are clearly too stupid / dangerous to be on the road. One of the biggest problems we have as a society is the belief that everyone has the "right" to drive...

Say a 150 mile motorway journey split 20 urban and rural, 125 motorway and 5 urban.

30 mph / 65 mph / 30 mph = 02:45
45 mph / 85 mph / 30 mph = 02:05

(Assumes peak 70 and peak 99 to get those average motorway speeds, sticking to 30 in town and driving to hazards on rural roads)

Half an hour extra in bed. There and back in a day - you get 01:20 back.

If you work a nine hour day in between the journeys - you want the extra 01:20 back.

The other factor: Enjoyment, or at least splitting up the boredom a bit. Invigorating as the Today programme is, it does repeat after an hour. A little flat six whine, some careful investigation of the laws of physics, spoiler up, crisp bright winter morning, Kraftwerk singing about roads in the background. Keeps a chap sane.

If you want to improve road safety, if you want less dead people - speed is not the root cause* to go for. It's easily measurable, can be delegated to machines, makes good headlines, politically expedient, doesn't need a complex explanation to the great unwashed who stone pediatrists. It's just the wrong issue.

(* it will be a huge factor in what happens when something does go wrong though)

Some facts from my neighbour who is a traffic cop in the Borders where we have a lot of speed cameras. The police up here will stop you but generally wont prosecute if you are driving below the speed limit +10% + 1mph so typically you wont get done unless you exceed 34 in an 30 limit or 78 in a 70 limit, hence there is an 'allowance' given; other areas may be different. My neighbour says he will 'discuss' speeding with a caught driver and generally will just caution them if a) they weren't doing silly speeds and b) the don't give him lip. Seems fair enough.

I've been driving for 31 years with a clean licence (one stop for speeding but no prosecution) but in poor conditions last year I wrote my car off by driving too quickly for the conditions and was lucky to get out of it by all accounts. Now I drive much more slowly as I would if I ever got 3 points.

CHE

Imagine being fined for being 1.87 secs away from the car in front instead of the proscribed 2 secs-what a stupid idea, the uproar that would ensue would make the howls about speed limits sound like a whisper.
Unless you could physically control the speed and distance of the cars it couldn't possibly work. What for instance happens to an already full strip of motorway with a full stream of suitably placed cars when you get more cars joining the motorway, are you only permitted to join if you spot a 4 sec gap? How would the operation of emergency vehicles mess it all up, how long to clear the ensuing jams after an accident etc? Now if the only practical way of making this work is to hand over speed control to some government computer I'm not sure were that leaves the 'freedom from authoritarianism' mindset.

Exactly. As Steven aludes to earlier the 'safe distance' is itself directly connected to speed, so in reality assessing this parameter would have to be in addition to speed enforcement, not a replacement for same. As such I can't see why Steven would be in favour for such a thing.

As I see it there are two realistic methods of controlling / enforcing road use:

a) the current system of assuming many motorists on our roads are of substandard ability and setting speed limits, traffic control systems etc appropriately for this level of driver.

b) making motoring entirely compensation based: if a motorist kills / maims / damages property it is dealt with as a proper criminal act just as using any other weapon, and with compensation paid to the victim by selling off any assets.

In a lot of respects I'm in favour of the latter. No speed limits, few if any traffic controls (the traffic flow due to removing traffic lights is very interesting, drivers actually start to think), but it would need far more realistic realistic penalties for causing death, damage and injury, not the pathetic "accident" excuse we have now where drunks can drive into a bus stop full of people and get out of jail a year or so later having paid nothing of value.

Tony.

You've made it very clear you don't give a toss about anyone other than yourself,

Only in your dim mind Brian. If you understood the conceptual difference between blindly following rules laid down by our hallowed leaders and exercising your own judgement you would not make this statement.

Exactly. As Steven aludes to earlier the 'safe distance' is itself directly connected to speed, so in reality assessing this parameter would have to be in addition to speed enforcement, not a replacement for same. As such I can't see why Steven would be in favour for such a thing.

Safe distance is directly related to speed and in dense traffic you would be forced to reduce your speed in order to maintain a safe distance. This would reduce the number of shunt type collisions on our motorways that usually occur when traffic density suddenly increases, say, after a junction where high traffic volumes are joining the motorway. On the plus side the rewards come in the form of it being safe to drive faster when the road opens up. In Germany the strict enforcement of distance often, although not always, exists in the absence of a speed limit.

Steven

I believe you are a taxi driver and therefore presumably licensed. I would imagine the council that grants your license would take a dim view of you deliberately flouting speeding laws.

I hope this isn't one of those internet forum assertions that my opinion on driving matters and road safety make me unfit to do my job. :mad:

Our council Licensing Unit is probably one of the most authoritarian and gleefully opportunistic where enforcement is concerned in the country. On average they issue either a driver's or proprietor's licence suspension notice once every eight days in a district with just over 300 licensed drivers. Between July 2007 and July 2009 they issued eighty such suspension notices for offences like forgetting to put your badge on or not ensuring it remains visible when you zip up your jacket over it in the cold, failing to notify them within 72 hours of a scratch or minor dent on your front bumper or wheel arch, or rather, failing to ensure they don't lose your letter of notification!

I am actually head of the trade association for the district and I've never been suspended, probably in part because they know I'd have them before a magistrate pretty sharpish if they did.... We don't tend to lose appeal cases against unjust or disproprtionate suspensions or revocations. Taking a dim view is all very well, but they need evidence to act not just some disgruntled motorist or bystander with a grudge, certainly not from being pointed to opinions expressed on an internet forum :D They need an actual conviction else we appeal and win. Even with a conviction an appeal against revocation of the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver's Licence would stand on the basis of a this being considered unduly harsh, unless the DVLA driving licence itself was revoked, i.e. the driver was banned. If a driver successfully claimed hardship in the magisatrates court to escape such a ban, the local authority would not likely revoke the HC/PH licence.

Our Council's policy on speeding is no action is taken against a driver for speeding offences. However, they do require drivers to notify them within seven days of the offence and failure to do so carries the penalty of driver's licence suspension, usually for 2 days. It's probably clumsy wording of licence conditions but we've got seven days to notify them from the offence date but the police/camera partnerships have 14 days to notify us. Go figure.

Perhaps we should turn up at the Licensing Unit every Friday for confession.

Safe distance is directly related to speed and in dense traffic you would be forced to reduce your speed in order to maintain a safe distance. This would reduce the number of shunt type collisions on our motorways that usually occur when traffic density suddenly increases, say, after a junction where high traffic volumes are joining the motorway. On the plus side the rewards come in the form of it being safe to drive faster when the road opens up. In Germany the strict enforcement of distance often, although not always, exists in the absence of a speed limit.

Nice in theory, but probably impossible to enforce in practice. IMO any enforcement solution has to be cost neutral, it is unfair to expect the tax payer to foot the bill (especially in a bankrupt country) so it would need to be done with cameras etc. I suspect the technology to do this does not exist yet.

Tony.

A single SPECS camera supported with video evidence to mitigate against sudden braking and/or other vehicles joining the lane in front of the vehicle in question would do it. The SPECS camera records the time of every vehicle passing and therefore the time delay between them. The video footage confirms tailgating as the cause not braking or vehicles joining the lane and filling the gap. This would cost less than the required brace of SPECS cameras (used to record the time taken to travel between two points along the road) commonly used to enforce speed limits on our motorways, usually through roadworks.

The fines would work on a sliding scale; the closer you are the the greater the penalty. Fines could begin at say sixty quid at less than 2 seconds and go up to a grand for driving within 0.5 seconds of the vehicle in front. I'd have no issue with the fines actually generating revenue. I like the idea of a tax on stupidity.

Yes, that's why I said "actual" driving experience.


yes, but how would one prove to the authoritys exactly the amount of driving one has done..? serious question, just in case you think I'm being a cnut! :)

In practice there always has been a margin of error of around 10% before prosecution. Add the probable 5-10% high side error on the speedometer and it would have to be showing about 35-37 mph for you to face prosecution in a 30 zone. That is a lot more than 30 mph so anyone who can't keep below that doesn't want too, and therefore shouldn't complain if they are caught and penalized.

Some forces are reducing those margins though so don't rely on it.

The other thing to bear in mind is that pedestrians who are hit at 40 mph are twice as likely to die than if they are hit at 30 mph. For children the fatality rate is higher.

I like the idea of a tax on stupidity.

Taxi driving must pay well...

Exactly. As Steven aludes to earlier the 'safe distance' is itself directly connected to speed, so in reality assessing this parameter would have to be in addition to speed enforcement, not a replacement for same. As such I can't see why Steven would be in favour for such a thing.

As I see it there are two realistic methods of controlling / enforcing road use:

a) the current system of assuming many motorists on our roads are of substandard ability and setting speed limits, traffic control systems etc appropriately for this level of driver.

b) making motoring entirely compensation based: if a motorist kills / maims / damages property it is dealt with as a proper criminal act just as using any other weapon, and with compensation paid to the victim by selling off any assets.

In a lot of respects I'm in favour of the latter. No speed limits, few if any traffic controls (the traffic flow due to removing traffic lights is very interesting, drivers actually start to think), but it would need far more realistic realistic penalties for causing death, damage and injury, not the pathetic "accident" excuse we have now where drunks can drive into a bus stop full of people and get out of jail a year or so later having paid nothing of value.

Tony.

Interesting stance. I still maintain that speed in itself is not the problem. It is speed at the appropriate place, given all the factors at that time. That becomes a judgement for the driver. The skill required to actually drive a car is already quite high and we are only talking about extending those skills. Speed limits are a poor substitute for judgement.

Last December a guy pulled out of a side road onto a main (30mph) road into the side of my wife's car, punting her car across the road into the oncoming traffic. She luckily did not incur any serious injury and was not hit by a car coming the other day - pure good fortune or it may have been fatal.

Now my point is this. The other driver was not even charged with careless driving. How can that not be careless. As long as the police and other authorities insist on easy camera based prosecutions and ignore taking action in cases like this then I despair. Most of society seems to be brain washed in to thinking that speed limits per se ensure safety - they do not.

Nigel Cavendish I thought you didn't read my posts.

unfortunetly its dead easy to measure and prosecute speeding (especially when you offer people things like "admit it and you won't go to court"), whereas getting someone banged-up for driving like a <censored> takes lots of work and money.

And even if you do, you'll get a light slap on the wrist for killing someone with a car - rob a bank on the other hand... what does that tell you about priorities...

I've had more friends who've died on the road than any other way...there comes a point where no matter how skilled and experienced you are, some twat will still pull out in front of you... and in more than one occasion they were unlicenced, uninsured, or just plain untraceable... (in one case, the person responsible was under 16 on a stolen moped and they couldn't find a adult who would take responsibility (!) so it just got quietly dropped)

Imagine being fined for being 1.87 secs away from the car in front instead of the proscribed 2 secs-what a stupid idea, the uproar that would ensue would make the howls about speed limits sound like a whisper. It seems odd to me that on one hand, increasingly in the UK, anyone who drives even a smidge above speed limits (which in some cases are entirely arbitrary) are vilified as if they have climbed into their vehicle at twice the legal blood alcohol limit, yet on the other hand, other quite significant issues of road safety, such as proximity to the vehicle in front, are treated with derision.

what does that tell you about priorities...

Clear up rates. They are a statistic the government likes to use to blow its own trumpet. If we tackled the cause of crime and actually stopped people from reoffending clear up rates would fall.

...yet on the other hand, other quite significant issues of road safety, such as proximity to the vehicle in front, are treated with derision.

They are here. We've got at least one on this thread plus others that try to put guilt trips on you regarding safety and the well being of others because you express concern for the 97% of collision causes not the 3%.

It seems odd to me that on one hand, increasingly in the UK, anyone who drives even a smidge above speed limits (which in some cases are entirely arbitrary) are vilified as if they have climbed into their vehicle at twice the legal blood alcohol limit, yet on the other hand, other quite significant issues of road safety, such as proximity to the vehicle in front, are treated with derision.

Naughty, that's not what I said at all-you're usually much better than that Greg.
My point was that any system based on the gap between vehicles with obviously throw up insane technical transgressions caused not by the driver in question but by incidents, maneuvers etc much further up the road and as such will cause howls of complaint far in excess of anything to do with speeding fines. I went on to point out the only practical way for it to work would be computer control of the vehicles.
Nowhere in my post did I deride the safety aspects of keeping a safe distance.

Naughty, that's not what I said at all-you're usually much better than that Greg.
My point was that any system based on the gap between vehicles with obviously throw up insane technical transgressions caused not by the driver in question but by incidents, maneuvers etc much further up the road and as such will cause howls of complaint far in excess of anything to do with speeding fines. I went on to point out the only practical way for it to work would be computer control of the vehicles.
Nowhere in my post did I deride the safety aspects of keeping a safe distance.

That's why any camera shots recording times would have to be backed up with video footage (as in Germany) to eliminate incidents, manouvres etc. I've said this three times now and you've still missed it.

That's why any camera shots recording times would have to be backed up with video footage (as in Germany) to eliminate incidents, manouvres etc. I've said this three times now and you've still missed it.

No I haven't missed it, I think it is more cumbersome, more intrusive and no guarantee it'll be any safer or anymore fair than the present system and that is assuming, given humans are already incapable of sticking to a simple speed limit they would be capable of sticking to this.
Are the road markings going to change their spacings in response to the traffic flow so drivers will know the correct time/distance intervals? It only takes one person to brake or get it wrong for the whole thing to fall apart imo.

Last December a guy pulled out of a side road onto a main (30mph) road into the side of my wife's car, punting her car across the road into the oncoming traffic. She luckily did not incur any serious injury and was not hit by a car coming the other day - pure good fortune or it may have been fatal.


According to you,
Areas where driving 100mph is completely safe; A roads with good visibility for short distances.
My point being it doesn't matter how good a driver you are, what matters is how bad a driver the other guy is. There are plenty of bikers on here who can attest to the stupidity of some drivers, driving at speed increases your chances of not being able to avoid one.
PS Glad she was ok btw.

Quite a few seem to think that causing death by dangerous driving is a slap on the wrist offense, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Penalties are much higher now than at any time in the past and a custodial sentence is the norm, while only a few years ago a fine and disqualification was usual.

Road traffic laws and penalties have to be set for the normal driver. The law can't say that some people are really good, in their own opinions, or even by objective test, so should be exempt from road traffic laws.

To use the increasing instances of trained police drivers killing other road users as an example, excessive speed was found in almost all cases to be the main cause. Even if you are in total control of your car, you cannot expect everyone else to be as aware as you or as capable of judging speed and distances.

In fact with cars traveling in opposite directions a few feet apart at closing speeds of 120 mph on single carriageways, and drivers of all capabilities having to deal with complex events and decisions, I'm always surprised that there are not more accidents. The faster these complex events happen the more likely it is that someone will make a misjudgment, and the more destructive of life the resultant accident will be. Most drivers are not highly skilled, they aren't fast jet pilots used to fine judgments. So excessive speed is almost always going to be dangerous on our crowded roads, and even if the road is empty the law can't be expected to be infinitely flexible enough to take that into account. The law is a blunt instrument, it cannot be other than that.

yes, but how would one prove to the authoritys exactly the amount of driving one has done..? serious question, just in case you think I'm being a cnut! :)
I don't know, which is why I posted the suggestion on pfm. There are some massive intellects around here.

Only in your dim mind Brian. If you understood the conceptual difference between blindly following rules laid down by our hallowed leaders and exercising your own judgement you would not make this statement.

Your personal insults and bully-boy tactics aren't going to work, mate. Your posts say it all.

It seems odd to me that on one hand, increasingly in the UK, anyone who drives even a smidge above speed limits (which in some cases are entirely arbitrary) are vilified as if they have climbed into their vehicle at twice the legal blood alcohol limit, yet on the other hand, other quite significant issues of road safety, such as proximity to the vehicle in front, are treated with derision.
By whom? They go hand in hand as far as I'm concerned. The moron who never moves out of the "fast lane" and wants to drive at100mph is the same person who will be 2" off your rear bumper if you dare to be in their lane doing anything less.

.yet on the other hand, other quite significant issues of road safety, such as proximity to the vehicle in front, are treated with derision.

They are here. We've got at least one on this thread plus others that try to put guilt trips on you regarding safety and the well being of others because you express concern for the 97% of collision causes not the 3%.
Same question to you. I haven't noticed anyone saying they aren't bothered about the proximity of other vehicles. Perhaps you or Greg can post a link?

Naughty, that's not what I said at all-you're usually much better than that Greg.
My point was that any system based on the gap between vehicles with obviously throw up insane technical transgressions caused not by the driver in question but by incidents, maneuvers etc much further up the road and as such will cause howls of complaint far in excess of anything to do with speeding fines. I went on to point out the only practical way for it to work would be computer control of the vehicles.
Nowhere in my post did I deride the safety aspects of keeping a safe distance.
Blimey! They think that's what YOU meant in your post earlier on. Amazing.

Quite a few seem to think that causing death by dangerous driving is a slap on the wrist offense, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Penalties are much higher now than at any time in the past and a custodial sentence is the norm, while only a few years ago a fine and disqualification was usual.

Road traffic laws and penalties have to be set for the normal driver. The law can't say that some people are really good, in their own opinions, or even by objective test, so should be exempt from road traffic laws.

To use the increasing instances of trained police drivers killing other road users as an example, excessive speed was found in almost all cases to be the main cause. Even if you are in total control of your car, you cannot expect everyone else to be as aware as you or as capable of judging speed and distances.

In fact with cars traveling in opposite directions a few feet apart at closing speeds of 120 mph on single carriageways, and drivers of all capabilities having to deal with complex events and decisions, I'm always surprised that there are not more accidents. The faster these complex events happen the more likely it is that someone will make a misjudgment, and the more destructive of life the resultant accident will be. Most drivers are not highly skilled, they aren't fast jet pilots used to fine judgments. So excessive speed is almost always going to be dangerous on our crowded roads, and even if the road is empty the law can't be expected to be infinitely flexible enough to take that into account. The law is a blunt instrument, it cannot be other than that.
Which is mainly my position that I've made clear in the past. I can't be bothered to go into that kind of detail about it anymore because it's a waste of time with some people. They want to drive at whatever speed they like and for them, that's the end of it. They don't really care about anything else or anyone else because they would go to any lengths to make changes that will allow them to do what they want to do with impunity.

According to you,
Areas where driving 100mph is completely safe; A roads with good visibility for short distances.
My point being it doesn't matter how good a driver you are, what matters is how bad a driver the other guy is. There are plenty of bikers on here who can attest to the stupidity of some drivers, driving at speed increases your chances of not being able to avoid one.
PS Glad she was ok btw.
Someone crashed into me last week as I left a Cardiac Rehab session. :) All her fault and the first time I've been involved in a collision since starting driving in 1977.

It seems odd to me that on one hand, increasingly in the UK, anyone who drives even a smidge above speed limits (which in some cases are entirely arbitrary) are vilified as if they have climbed into their vehicle at twice the legal blood alcohol limit, yet on the other hand, other quite significant issues of road safety, such as proximity to the vehicle in front, are treated with derision.


I think it is always frustrating when you see the ill informed "public opinion" on any side of any argument where you know a reasonable amount about the subject being discussed. Having worked in UK logistics for just under 20 years and after taking part in a great deal of driver training exercises and seeing the real statistical impact of different strategies to improve safety - newspaper headlines, political campaigns and the more emotionally charged pressure group campaigns really annoy me. They are mostly in error about cause and strategy to improve.

Some of the professionals working in this area that I have come across impress me greatly. Road designers explaining how little changes can seriously change driver behaviour at a completely subconscious level, driving simulations demonstrating hazard awareness (or lack of it) and how they attempt to distill experience into courses on hazards and driving styles, use of quite sophisticated modern training techniques that customise driver training sessions (simulations, accompanied driving tuition) - what can be done and what the data shows about how people can learn to be very good drivers is quite impressive. Costly though. It you stop people bending your £200,000 HGV + trailer it's worth it. Harder to sell a driving tuition + test that costs £2K though.

When you see a very experienced and skilled professional driver at work, it's like watching someone who has ESP. Little cues of variation in road speed, road positioning etc of all the other drivers in sight build up as a model in the head of the experienced driver - so they can often see trouble coming before the drivers that are going to be involved in an incident do. I can do it a little myself - but some HGV drivers (who might driver a couple of thousand miles a week) have god like prescient powers. They are a joy to behold if you are into analysing how people work.

Alternatively, if you don't want to read all the research, statistics, impact assessments etc and would just like an opinion - maybe because you have a friend who has a friend who knows it's true - just fill out the coupon on the back of the cereal packet...


I THINK ALL DRIVERS SHOULD _____________ BECAUSE ____________.

(please remember to enclosed a stamped addressed envelope)

I had a really interesting chat about "informed opinion" with a Biology researcher the last time FRANKENSTEIN FOOD was an issue. Her insights into the questions that were being asked and the questions that she thought ought to be asked were alarming. The problems with the questions that should have been asked were they were subtle and required considerable thought to understand. It was impossible to create a soundbite or a headline from them. So no chance.

If driving cars was invented tomorrow they would be instantly banned. How people approach risk is interesting.

Socrates. We need him back.

Socrates. We need him back.

Wasn't he a pediatrist?

I think it is always frustrating when you see the ill informed "public opinion" on any side of any argument where you know a reasonable amount about the subject being discussed. Having worked in UK logistics for just under 20 years and after taking part in a great deal of driver training exercises and seeing the real statistical impact of different strategies to improve safety - newspaper headlines, political campaigns and the more emotionally charged pressure group campaigns really annoy me. They are mostly in error about cause and strategy to improve.

Some of the professionals working in this area that I have come across impress me greatly. Road designers explaining how little changes can seriously change driver behaviour at a completely subconscious level, driving simulations demonstrating hazard awareness (or lack of it) and how they attempt to distill experience into courses on hazards and driving styles, use of quite sophisticated modern training techniques that customise driver training sessions (simulations, accompanied driving tuition) - what can be done and what the data shows about how people can learn to be very good drivers is quite impressive. Costly though. It you stop people bending your £200,000 HGV + trailer it's worth it. Harder to sell a driving tuition + test that costs £2K though.

When you see a very experienced and skilled professional driver at work, it's like watching someone who has ESP. Little cues of variation in road speed, road positioning etc of all the other drivers in sight build up as a model in the head of the experienced driver - so they can often see trouble coming before the drivers that are going to be involved in an incident do. I can do it a little myself - but some HGV drivers (who might driver a couple of thousand miles a week) have god like prescient powers. They are a joy to behold if you are into analysing how people work.

Alternatively, if you don't want to read all the research, statistics, impact assessments etc and would just like an opinion - maybe because you have a friend who has a friend who knows it's true - just fill out the coupon on the back of the cereal packet...


I THINK ALL DRIVERS SHOULD _____________ BECAUSE ____________.

(please remember to enclosed a stamped addressed envelope)

I had a really interesting chat about "informed opinion" with a Biology researcher the last time FRANKENSTEIN FOOD was an issue. Her insights into the questions that were being asked and the questions that she thought ought to be asked were alarming. The problems with the questions that should have been asked were they were subtle and required considerable thought to understand. It was impossible to create a soundbite or a headline from them. So no chance.

If driving cars was invented tomorrow they would be instantly banned. How people approach risk is interesting.

Socrates. We need him back.
Saw one of these skilled HGV drivers on the M42 today no more than 1' off the rear bumper of a Range Rover. I don't think he was happy the driver of the Range Rover was complying with the 40mph limit due to adverse weather conditions and weight of traffic. He definitely must have ESP since he seemed to know in advance this wasn't going to create a problem. Course, luck may have had something to do with it as well.

Personally, I think he was a pleb and driving dangerously, but there you go.

here's another Controversial Suggestion :

Instead of Points on your licence, for every trafic offense you have an item of safety equipment removed from your car.

So instead of 3 points - no air bags
6 points - no crumple zones
9 points - a bloody great big spike in the middle of your steering wheel

Be interesting to see if that would make people change their driving behaviour more. And if so, why didn't they make that change beforehand...

Well speed was a factor in the collision that ruined my niece's life.
The driver got 2 years for dangerous driving.
No one is saying it is the only factor in road safety-indeed it may be an easy target or then again it could just be a good place to start.
Stiffer driving tests, probationary plates, defensive driving training, better road design, stiffer MOT's will all help. I suppose until we all develop ESP we'll just have to rely on ill informed common sense.

Well you must be blind then. They still need to be in a position to take a clear photo of your plate, they can't hide them behind a wall or in some trees.

This is true but I was thinking about a van I remember being used on the A1. It sits on a flyover which is at the end of a sweeping bend. You will not see it until you're nearly underneath it and it's too late to slow down. OK, yes, you shouldn't be speeding 'n' all that but, other than making money, why is it in such a place?

You might find this site interesting:

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/van2.htm

It's a bit too biased but shows some 'interesting' placements of safety camera vans.

I must have special powers as I have 0 points and very rarely take notice of fixed speed limits, instead I drive dependant on conditions, which obviously means using my eyes.

Do you know? So must I. Zero points too but I do stick to the speed limits. A bit boring I agree but seems to have done me OK. ;)

Steven, how would you measure and enforce this 'safe distance' in a cost effective manner?

Tony.

Snipers on motorway bridges.

Wasn't he a pediatrist?

HA! :)

Steve T - that's where I'm missing out then...not being in the masons...

:-(

****ing hell if you lot drove like you "pfm-speeding-thread-discussed" you would just need one big circular race track. Job done!

I hope this isn't one of those internet forum assertions that my opinion on driving matters and road safety make me unfit to do my job. :mad:


Our council Licensing Unit is probably one of the most authoritarian and gleefully opportunistic where enforcement is concerned in the country. On average they issue either a driver's or proprietor's licence suspension notice once every eight days in a district with just over 300 licensed drivers. Between July 2007 and July 2009 they issued eighty such suspension notices for offences like forgetting to put your badge on or not ensuring it remains visible when you zip up your jacket over it in the cold, failing to notify them within 72 hours of a scratch or minor dent on your front bumper or wheel arch, or rather, failing to ensure they don't lose your letter of notification!

I am actually head of the trade association for the district and I've never been suspended, probably in part because they know I'd have them before a magistrate pretty sharpish if they did.... We don't tend to lose appeal cases against unjust or disproprtionate suspensions or revocations. Taking a dim view is all very well, but they need evidence to act not just some disgruntled motorist or bystander with a grudge, certainly not from being pointed to opinions expressed on an internet forum :D They need an actual conviction else we appeal and win. Even with a conviction an appeal against revocation of the Hackney Carriage/Private Hire Driver's Licence would stand on the basis of a this being considered unduly harsh, unless the DVLA driving licence itself was revoked, i.e. the driver was banned. If a driver successfully claimed hardship in the magisatrates court to escape such a ban, the local authority would not likely revoke the HC/PH licence.

Our Council's policy on speeding is no action is taken against a driver for speeding offences. However, they do require drivers to notify them within seven days of the offence and failure to do so carries the penalty of driver's licence suspension, usually for 2 days. It's probably clumsy wording of licence conditions but we've got seven days to notify them from the offence date but the police/camera partnerships have 14 days to notify us. Go figure.

Perhaps we should turn up at the Licensing Unit every Friday for confession.

No.It's if you drive in the same way as your opinion states that you will that makes you unfit to do your job.Don't forget you are transporting members of the public.How do your passengers feel about you flouting speeding limits just because you don't like them?

Well speed was a factor in the collision that ruined my niece's life.
The driver got 2 years for dangerous driving.
No one is saying it is the only factor in road safety-indeed it may be an easy target or then again it could just be a good place to start.
Stiffer driving tests, probationary plates, defensive driving training, better road design, stiffer MOT's will all help. I suppose until we all develop ESP we'll just have to rely on ill informed common sense.
As well as all those things you mention, more severe penalties for those who flout the law would also help. Banning these people for longer periods would get irresponsible people off the road with the added bonus of easing congestion.

****ing hell if you lot drove like you "pfm-speeding-thread-discussed" you would just need one big circular race track. Job done!

This thread should be merged with the 'F1 2010/11 Season' thread when that appears.

No.It's if you drive in the same way as your opinion states that you will that makes you unfit to do your job.

This is an absolutist view that is not shared by anyone I have met away from PFM.

Don't forget you are transporting members of the public.

After 15 years of doing the job how could I forget? :D

How do your passengers feel about you flouting speeding limits just because you don't like them?

Customer complaints are usually made either to the base operator after the journey has been completed or the next time they order a taxi they ask for a particular driver not to be sent.

In 15 years I've received two complaints for driving above a speed limit. The first time was in 1996 when a certain regular customer of ours from the bingo hall in the next town had a bit of a crush on one of the other drivers. Rather than request him she would make complaints about all the others to eliminate them from picking her up. She said I was driving too fast when I had been driving at an indicated 70 in a 60 zone. I'd also nipped the kerb slightly with my back wheel on a tight junction just after picking her up at about 15 mph. Eventually the subject of her affections came to pick her up from the same place. He drove at 80 and completely mounted the pavement on the same tight junction. She made no complaint.

The second time was about a year later in 1997. I received a complaint to the base operator for driving at an indicated 50 in a 40 zone. I wasn't to know at the time but the passenger had just been released from a mental hospital. It is entirely possible that her mental state may have impaired her sense of perspective and ability to assess risk.

Since then I've received no complaints for speeding from any passenger. The reason is that in the real world away from the po-faced middle-aged internet forum contributors we find here, provided you don't drive like a complete lunatic and compromise their safety, the general public just want you to get them to their destination as quickly as is reasonably possible, be it the pub, home, the railway station to catch a train, the airport to catch a plane or to arrive on time for a table booked at a restaurant. They aren't watching your speedometer like hawks ready to pounce if you stray over the limit by a few mph. They also want you to turn up on time.

I tend to drive quicker when empty and en-route to a pick-up point than when I actually have passengers on board. Most of my motorway driving is private.

There is an old boy who works our patch. He's been licenced for over 40 years and has always had a reputation for being "a bit steady" and for always keeping to the speed limits. While he was working for the same firm as me he used get a lot of complaints and requests that he not be sent were common.

"I want to get there some time today!" was the reason usually given.

He is affectionately known as "Captain Chaos."

It could just be coincidence but there seems to be a perceived 'wisdom' from some quarters here that speed limits are universally set too low.
Make of that what you will but if set at 20 they want to drive at 30, 40 they want to do 50, 60 they want to do 70 and so on...

Eventually the subject of her affections came to pick her up from the same place. He drove at 80 and completely mounted the pavement on the same tight junction. She made no complaint.

Oo-er missus!

Rather him than me. The woman was scarily grotesque.

It could just be coincidence but there seems to be a perceived 'wisdom' from some quarters here that speed limits are universally set too low.
Make of that what you will but if set at 20 they want to drive at 30, 40 they want to do 50, 60 they want to do 70 and so on...
Nearly right. Certain people simply want to drive at whatever speed they like wherever they like.

Customer complaints...<snipped to save even more boredom>

It says a lot that you have to go into a diatribe in an effort to justify your constant breaking of the law.

More anecdotal than diatribe Brian. And true. In the real world how I drive is considered normal. You are indeed one of the po-faced middle-aged I refered to above.

Nearly right. Certain people simply want to drive at whatever speed they like wherever they like.

Or what, in their judgement, is safe given the circumstances. I don't need a law to tell me how to use a kitchen knife, walk on the pavement, walk or run up and down stairs, ride a mountain bike in the woods etc.

A speed limit of 30mph does not mean that it is safe to do 30mph. I judge the standard of a driver by how much he varies his speed, not whether he drives at the prescribed limit.

I imagine Brian would apply the lethal voltage in the Milgram experiment.

I don't need a law to tell me how to use a kitchen knife, walk on the pavement, walk or run up and down stairs, ride a mountain bike in the woods etc.

...But there are laws making it necessary for you to make (and follow) lengthy Risk Assessments for all those activities should you invite anyone else to join you...


A speed limit of 30mph does not mean that it is safe to do 30mph. I judge the standard of a driver by how much he varies his speed, not whether he drives at the prescribed limit.

This is a very good attitude - just because it says 30mph does not mean you should be doing that past a school gate at 3.30pm.

(not that you can, because the road will be stationary due to double-parked SUV's because the precious little darlings can't walk 1/4 mile home on their own any more...)

One of the two things I was told when I first drove in the USA was "never ever overtake a school bus with flashing lights on, no matter how slow it is going or if stationary". The other was how to make sure you don't get shot if you get pulled-over by the cops, but the attitude towards school buses was the more important one to get right - social death if you got it wrong, even before the cops had A Word!

Chaps

I took my driving licence out in 1965. I have never had an accident and I have never even scaped any car. My driving record is perfect and on that basis my driving judgement cannot be questioned.

My judgement is simple, anyone with an IQ of 80 can legally sit behind a driving wheel and only a fool would trust them to exercise any form of judgement.

The 30mph limit is precisely that, you can drive at any safe speed up to 30mph. That way we all remain safe.

There is a good argument to drop the limit to 20mph thanks to having our roads clogged up with more cars than when the 30 mph rule was imposed. There is going to be a lot more cars carked on the roads thanks to the recently introduced law of only 1.5 parking spaces (including a garage) being allowed for all new dwellings.

As regards to "professional" drivers, such as bus or taxi drivers, I would make the rules much tougher, one speeding conviction and you are out of public driving for life. That will soon bring things into line. Public safety is to precious to trust to risk takers.


If you cannot accept that, then tough.


Regards

Mick

More anecdotal than diatribe Brian. And true. In the real world how I drive is considered normal. You are indeed one of the po-faced middle-aged I refered to above.
Since I haven't gone into detail of how I drive, you (once again) don't know what you're talking about. As a matter of fact, I have been known to hit 100mph on the M6, for example.

Or what, in their judgement, is safe given the circumstances. I don't need a law to tell me how to use a kitchen knife, walk on the pavement, walk or run up and down stairs, ride a mountain bike in the woods etc.
Well I'm surprised, tbh.

A speed limit of 30mph does not mean that it is safe to do 30mph. I judge the standard of a driver by how much he varies his speed, not whether he drives at the prescribed limit.
Yes, so do I. Where did I say that someone has to drive at 30mph in a 30mph limit? Making stuff up like this will only encourage me to point out you're lying should you appear to be responding to something I haven't even said. I hope that's not what you mean above, because if you are, that would be stupid of you.

Chaps

I took my driving licence out in 1965. I have never had an accident and I have never even scaped any car. My driving record is perfect and on that basis my driving judgement cannot be questioned.
Me too.

My judgement is simple, anyone with an IQ of 80 can legally sit behind a driving wheel and only a fool would trust them to exercise any form of judgement.

The 30mph limit is precisely that, you can drive at any safe speed up to 30mph. That way we all remain safe.

There is a good argument to drop the limit to 20mph thanks to having our roads clogged up with more cars than when the 30 mph rule was imposed. There is going to be a lot more cars carked on the roads thanks to the recently introduced law of only 1.5 parking spaces (including a garage) being allowed for all new dwellings.

As regards to "professional" drivers, such as bus or taxi drivers, I would make the rules much tougher, one speeding conviction and you are out of public driving for life. That will soon bring things into line. Public safety is to precious to trust to risk takers.


If you cannot accept that, then tough.


Regards

Mick
Agree with all of that, which is surprising but goes to show he isn't wrong all the time.

So caan I safely conclude that you are a hypocrite then Brian?

I won't go above 90 on the M6 ever.

Mr Toy

Any Taxi Driver who drives at 90mph should be publically whipped. That statement is the pinacle of irresponsibility and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

For a start, you could find your insurance invalid.

I suggest you return to school teaching.

Regards

Mick

How is my insurance invalid?

Steven

You already know the answer to that.

Professional drivers are expected to drive sensibly and your insurance premium is based on your track record and age etc.

If you drive "reckless", your insurer has the right to walk away from any claim, although in fairness, they often pay out, but they are not obliged to do so.

Regards

Mick

So caan I safely conclude that you are a hypocrite then Brian?

I won't go above 90 on the M6 ever.
You usually don't read posts properly so you passed the test and obviously managed it this time.

Well done.

Mick speeding alone is not considered reckless. I wouldn't face more than a fixed penalty notice below 90.
Insurance companies go on points and usually ignore the first three. I have none and never have had.

Mr Toy

Any Taxi Driver who drives at 90mph should be publically whipped. That statement is the pinacle of irresponsibility and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

For a start, you could find your insurance invalid.

I suggest you return to school teaching.

Regards

Mick
Eh? This idiot used to teach people? Hope they weren't kids. I'd hate someone like this to have any influence at all over young people.

Steven

Reckless is a legal definition.

Broadly it is several points beyond negligent or stupid.

It means acting wilfully stupid and a professional driving 20% above the legal limit is classified as reckless.

Not to be confused with reckless driving.

It is a get out for insurance companies not to pay a claim.

If you don't believe me, check with your insurer.

Regards

Mick

Eh? This idiot used to teach people? Hope they weren't kids. I'd hate someone like this to have any influence at all over young people.

Brian

Steven is a qualified Teacher. Although he may be at odds with me on this issue, he is not stupid and commands far more respect than you. He argues a point, you just drone.

Regards

Mick

Brain is just dim and he snivels when this is pointed out by those whose integrity he has questioned.

Brian

Steven is a qualified Teacher. Although he may be at odds with me on this issue, he is not stupid and commands far more respect than you. He argues a point, you just drone.

Regards

Mick
Talking about commanding respect. How about that book you offered me? I'm happy to collect in person, as I've said a number of times since you typed your offer...

Brain is just dim and he snivels when this is pointed out by those whose integrity he has questioned.
Keep the insults coming, Stevie. It doesn't bother me. Others can consider your integrity based upon your posts and regular admissions of breaking the law.

Brain I am just honest about it that's all.

Talking about commanding respect. How about that book you offered me? I'm happy to collect in person, as I've said a number of times since you typed your offer...


Brian

There is no pleasant way of saying this. I would rather dunk my head in a large bucket of camel dung for a full day than spend just one minute of time with you. In other words, if you want a book, do a google and buy it.

Regards

Mick

Brain I am just honest about it that's all.
Mate, it's nowt to do with honesty. Everyone speeds at some point.

Talking about commanding respect. How about that book you offered me? I'm happy to collect in person, as I've said a number of times since you typed your offer....


Brian

There is no pleasant way of saying this. I would rather dunk my head in a large bucket of camel dung for a full day rather than spend just one minute of time with you. In other words, if you want a book, do a google and buy it.

Regards

Mick
In other words, you're an internet tough guy.

You offered me a book to do with "making friends" or something like that. I'm happy to come collect it. It's an open offer, let me know if you change your mind and decide you want to earn some respect.

Brian

I am not a masochist and you must rank as the dullest person ever to drone on PFM. Why would any sane person want to meet you, I would end up shouting at you within five minutes of meeting you.

Regards

Mick

Brian

I am not a masochist and you must rank as the dullest person ever to drone on PFM. Why would any sane person want to meet you, I would end up shouting at you within five minutes of meeting you.

Regards

Mick
No you wouldn't.

Brain. Everyone speeds. I am honest about it. I also do everything else according to the rules.

Oh yes he would

I am not a masochist

I'm sure many have had you down as a sadist for quite a while.

Maybe it's time for a poll; Who'd you rather get in a car with, Wannabe boy racer Toy, Trilby dodderer parry or Mr sensible Brian?:D

Brain. Everyone speeds. I am honest about it. I also do everything else according to the rules.
You're back to not reading posts properly. I thought it wouldn't last...

See #170.

Yes the bucket of camel dung is definately the preferable option

Yes the bucket of camel dung is definately the preferable option
See post #171 (http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showpost.php?p=967642&postcount=171)

Tasha feels sorry for you Brian and is considering sending you the book herself.

Gents hasn't this all been covered now?

+ can't we be nice to each other bearing in mind the time of year?

David, see my post above.

Tasha feels sorry for you Brian and is considering sending you the book herself.
I don't have the faintest idea what you're on about, which is fair enough as you don't know what you're on about either.

No comment about #177? Thought not.

I suggest you read the posts properly then start again.

<moderating>
Can we please take the personal arguments off-line. Be nice folks - it's the season of goodwill, consumerism, mince pies, 4000 year old dinosaurs etc.

Tony.

+ can't we be nice to each other bearing in mind the time of year?

come the new year, we're all going to be nice and friendly, even brian! :)

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.

:D:D:D very very good.

I've been up and about since 6am. Santa has been to my house but nobody else is awake yet, such is the level of excitement now the "kids" are 19 and 17. So, while waiting for the chaos to kick off I thought I'd see how much more chaff has been added to this thread....

<moderating>
Can we please take the personal arguments off-line. Be nice folks - it's the season of goodwill, consumerism, mince pies, 4000 year old dinosaurs etc.

Tony.
It's nowt to do with me, all I've done is reply. Send a PM to Steven Toy. He's what is known as a catalyst.

come the new year, we're all going to be nice and friendly, even brian! :)
I'm a very friendly bloke, in fact nobody could be more so. Those pfm members who have met me will agree with that, I'm sure.

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
I don't have the faintest idea what you're on about.

:D:D:D very very good.
Glad you got it. Perhaps a PM...?

Oh, and Happy Christmas to you all. Even you selfish, habitual law-breakers.

I don't have the faintest idea what you're on about.


It's a line from a Monty Python film called 'The Life of Brian'.

Brian I think you'll find that stating that I had no regard for others' safety was the catalyst and from this the fact that you associate moral rectitude with blind obedience makes you dim.
I think this rather sums it up. Then to add confusion you admit to driving at 100 mph on the M6 which is rather hypocritical.

There, merry Christmas to all fellow contributors of varying levels of intellectual capacity.
Peace be with you all.

I am off to work and to mow down a few innocent fellow road users.

I am off to work and to mow down a few innocent fellow road users.


Just remember that it's double points for pedestrians over the holiday, and triple points if you can get a wheelchair user.

Good hunting.

It's a line from a Monty Python film called 'The Life of Brian'.
Patrick,

Thanks. Not a film I've seen so I'd never have thought of that when wondering where the snipe was.

Brian I think you'll find that stating that I had no regard for others' safety was the catalyst and from this the fact that you associate moral rectitude with blind obedience makes you dim.
I think this rather sums it up. Then to add confusion you admit to driving at 100 mph on the M6 which is rather hypocritical.

There, merry Christmas to all fellow contributors of varying levels of intellectual capacity.
Peace be with you all.

I am off to work and to mow down a few innocent fellow road users.
Steven

If you drive in the manner you describe in your posts then it's clear you do have no regard for others safety. You appear to have little respect for the rules of the road.

I completely stand behind my earlier comment when I said, "Your problem is you think you have the right to drive at whatever speed you like, you are another one prepared to show complete disregard for the safety of others. Speed limits are there to project the innocent majority from people like you." If you don't like that comment you should modify your thinking and post accordingly. Also, if you think that comment was the catalyst for your personal snipes and general vitriol you're way off the mark. The catalyst has been your own comments (made earlier than my post) where you refer to "idiots", "morons", "tools of oppression" and then go on yet again about your conspiracy theory. Never yet have you been able to explain to me how I've managed to drive from the south Midlands to Newcastle almost every week for 6 months without any problems of note. The fact is, there is no conspiracy.

As regards being dim. You're the failed teacher.

Brian
Haven't you got a Christmas dinner to cook or something?

I had to discuss my driving with the magistrates...possible ban for overtaking 2 Polish lorries in convoy before a single carriageway loomed. Allegedly doing 106 by copper stood in a lay by at the end of the dual section. Dubious but difficult to challenge. Clean licence until then.
Solicitor was ace and the first thing he did was get me to obtain as many character reference letters as possible from business colleagues and social acquaintances of good standing (!) Also told me that an early afternoon appearance was also good news as they had likely enjoyed a good lunch!
Appeared as directed, solicitor did all the talking and passed the letters to the bench. They read them all, quick chat and a big fine plus 6 points. Far better than a ban. Guy before me got done for no insurance and other offences which took him to 14 points. He pleaded for a last chance and they didn't ban him either!

Answer to your last question Brian: you don't drive overnight.

I am not a failed teacher btw. I did not fail, I left of my own choosing.

Brian
Haven't you got a Christmas dinner to cook or something?
Yup, I did that, we've all scoffed and jolly good it was too if I say so myself. Some are now having a snooze and as planned, there's plenty left for later as well as homemade apple pie.

Thanks for your interest.

I had to discuss my driving with the magistrates...possible ban for overtaking 2 Polish lorries in convoy before a single carriageway loomed. Allegedly doing 106 by copper stood in a lay by at the end of the dual section. Dubious but difficult to challenge. Clean licence until then.
Solicitor was ace and the first thing he did was get me to obtain as many character reference letters as possible from business colleagues and social acquaintances of good standing (!) Also told me that an early afternoon appearance was also good news as they had likely enjoyed a good lunch!
Appeared as directed, solicitor did all the talking and passed the letters to the bench. They read them all, quick chat and a big fine plus 6 points. Far better than a ban.
I can understand that one.

Guy before me got done for no insurance and other offences which took him to 14 points. He pleaded for a last chance and they didn't ban him either!
People like this should be banned for life.

Brian yours is the minority view that we don't live in a police state.

Nice to see that threads relating to speeding and driving on PFM still don't degenerate into personal insults...

Steve - your idea and mine of what a police state is somewhat different, i feel. But I've fenced that one on fox's thread on the topic, so won't spoil this healthy thread with that sub-topic.

Mick - correction in terms - you need to replace 'reckless' with 'dangerous'.

Happy xmas to all on here, regardless of whether you think we are in a police state etc...

Andrew

Reckless in legal terms has nothing to do with being dangerous. You are thinking of reckless driving which is totally different.

I was referring to insurance criteria and get out clauses.

Regards

Mick

Mick,

Section 2 of the road traffic act 1988 changed the terms some considerable time ago from reckless to dangerous. Your reference to driving standards refers to this legislation.

By all means use what words you like (who am i to say anything anyway), but when referring to the above you either need to use the terminology relating to careless or dangerous.

I note your comment re insurance etc, but your explanation alluded to the road trafic act definition, which in fact is what most reputable ins companies use anyway.

andy

Andy

I was talking insurance.......................nothing else.

Regards

Mick

ok, appreciate the clarification.

In that case it might be worth you looking at the road traffic act, it gives interesting examples of some of the stuff mentioned in this thread, and what would be construed 'careless' or 'dangerous'.

example - failing to clear your windscreen properly, or just making a 'hole' where you need to see thru, thru the snow or ice on said screen = dangerous = obligatory ban.

Brian yours is the minority view that we don't live in a police state.

Clearly we don't (otherwise we'd hardly be allowed to say we were on an internet forum).

However, the price of liberty being eternal vigilance, we need to complain very loudly as our traditional freedoms (eg right to jury trial, right to remain silent, freedom from 'double jeopardy') are eroded, to ensure that a police state is not where we end up.

But this has little or nothing to do with speed limits or speed cameras.

Guy before me got done for no insurance and other offences which took him to 14 points. He pleaded for a last chance and they didn't ban him either!

People like this should be banned for life.

What good is it banning someone for life when they already doesn't take any notice on making sure they are driving legally???

Its almost as impractially daft as the law saying its illegal to serve drunk people in bars...

What good is it banning someone for life when they already doesn't take any notice on making sure they are driving legally???

Its almost as impractially daft as the law saying its illegal to serve drunk people in bars...
Because at the same time you introduce proper penalties for people who are caught driving without any right to do so. Deterrent and all that. It's a "joined up" policy.

Because at the same time you introduce proper penalties for people who are caught driving without any right to do so. Deterrent and all that. It's a "joined up" policy.

um... but... you've already caught them.

um... but... you've already caught them.

A person has reached 12 points for the 3rd time while having the legal right to drive. ie they have a licence. They are now banned for life, they have no licence and will not get another one. They are now not legally entitled to drive ever again. If the person is then noted driving they are doing so without a licence, so they get banged up. Get it?
It's not a daft idea at all. People who drive without a licence are definitely a menace. They should be sorted with severe penalties imo.

If this isn't what you're questioning can you please be a bit clearer in what you're asking...
What good is it banning someone for life when they already doesn't take any notice on making sure they are driving legally???

What good is it banning someone for life when they already doesn't take any notice on making sure they are driving legally???

Its almost as impractially daft as the law saying its illegal to serve drunk people in bars...
Reply With Quote

Because you have to have the option - not all illegal driving is done by 'criminals' per se, is it? Depends what your definition of criminal is.

e.g. a person with no conviction history at all apart from driving offences, who is a habitual law breaker when it comes to, say, speeding or exceeding the drink drive limit? As opposed to someone who uses a car to commit acquisitive crime...

If this isn't what you're questioning can you please be a bit clearer in what you're asking...

If you look back at your original post (#197) you suggest that someone who is caught driving without insurance should be banned for life - this is what I was questioning the point of - if they don't care about making sure they have one set of paperwork in order, why should they care about another bit of paper, they'll just carry on regardless anyway? (Unless they apply for a job as a delivery driver). It just seemed a bit of a daft punishment really...

I can see you point that if they are ever caught again, then you throw the book at them - but if they have been bad, you should throw the book at them this time, not let them off and wait until they do it again...

Flossie - you need to look at the imprisonment rate for repeat dq drivers....


Your question then gets answered.

If you look back at your original post (#197) you suggest that someone who is caught driving without insurance should be banned for life - this is what I was questioning the point of - if they don't care about making sure they have one set of paperwork in order, why should they care about another bit of paper, they'll just carry on regardless anyway? (Unless they apply for a job as a delivery driver). It just seemed a bit of a daft punishment really...

I can see you point that if they are ever caught again, then you throw the book at them - but if they have been bad, you should throw the book at them this time, not let them off and wait until they do it again...
Sorry mate, I get it now.For some reason I was thinking way back to when I mentioned bans in post #50.

Driving without insurance/tax is usually a good indicator of other criminality.
The police conduct regular large scale stop/inspection operations(informed by ANPR cameras) along the A59 and just before the entrance to the M58. The Wallasey end of the Mersey tunnels is also a good bottleneck point.
Another worthwhile development near me is the electronic speed limit signs that flash you to slow down-doesn't stop some who know better but I've often wondered if the penalty is higher if you get pulled after passing one that has already warned you, such as driving without due care and attention...

Driving without insurance/tax is usually a good indicator of other criminality.

really?

Mmm...

I saw a newspaper story saying that drivers caught by the id checking vans in cars that were not insured or taxed had a high probability of carrying illicit goods be it drugs, stolen property etc and that the driver or passengers had a good chance of being wanted by the police for other "misdemenors".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4757583.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article504091.ece

Derek - I'd bet that was location and info specific, as opposed to a national trait? Did the article refer to a specific media release by a police force?

Given the newspaper articles from the Times in the previous post

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_067639

Meredydd Hughes, police lead on roads policing and Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police said:http://www.tiscali.co.uk/money/features/car-no-insurance.html

"The police service and the government are constantly striving to make our roads as safe as possible for all road users. Evidence indicates that up to 10% of vehicles on our roads are being used illegally and many of these will be people who drive with no insurance. We know that people who don't insure their vehicles, or indeed drive with no licence or test certificate are more likely to be involved in other criminal activity, and in collisions. Collisions in which people may be killed or seriously injured.

"We are sending out a very clear message to those who drive without insurance- there is now no place to hide. It is estimated that every law-abiding motorist pays an extra £30 a year because of uninsured drivers. Drivers are rightly fed-up with those who flout the law and we are determined to rid the roads of this small hardcore of anti-social drivers,." said Transport Secretary Alistair Darling.
Our own Chief Constable says similar during a recent Total policing exercise.

Andrew C!
Quote:
Driving without insurance/tax is usually a good indicator of other criminality.
really?

Mmm...

If you have ever wathched Police Camera Action, you will know that the Police think so...

Cav,

Why would I watch police camera action?

could help you in your musical career by gaining publicity by getting on the show <g> (friendly humour here Andy)

Derek - LOL.