Somewhat peeved - done for 82 on motorway????

[Dibble]

Vipers said:

Dibble said:

I can sympathise with someone getting done for being over the speed limit on some of the roads round me, which used to be NSL (dual carriageway, two running lanes, proper central reservation,no junctions) but are nowreduced to 40 and 50. My own view is that these roads aren't signed enough.

Not sure why the mention of junctions, dual carriageways do have junctions.

And not sure about not being signed enough. The A90 here (Aberdeen) starts with 40, then NSL, further down the road reduces to 50 for a dodgy junction, then back to NSL to Dundee.

Dare I say it, if you miss the sign, you are not paying attention to the road.

No, I just meant sections of DC near me without junctions for the majority of their length, which used to be NSL but are now 40 or 50 limits.

Ah, the A90. Delightful road... Driven it a few times as I've friends and family in and around Aberdeen. I seem to remember a few of the 50 limits between Aberdeen and Dundee, which make sense as they're dealing with specific hazards. For the whole road to be 50 would, IMHO, be madness.

And yes, if you miss a limit sign, you're probably not paying enough attention. But more signs might make the less attentive amongst us more aware, so if the limit is reduced for a reason, it's less likely that the inattentive would be exceeding it.

[Wacky Racer]

Corpulent Tosser said:

Davidonly said:

The motorway speed limit seems to be the most routinely ignored / broken one (set to change as we seem ever increasing numbers of unjustified reductions to NSL to 50mph). The MAJORITY of UK citizens that fund and use motorways drive over 80 mph and a significant proportion over 85 mph. Despite the very low speed limit the 85 percentile speed would appear to be more like 90 mph.

This is backed up my free flowing speeds on German motorways which is steadily increasing and is around 95 mph.

So the 'UK law' does not have popular support is not justified by established road engineering science and is only maintained due to political cowardice.

Given the improvements in car brakes/handling/general safety features in the years since the 70 limit was adopted it would make sense to increase the limit to perhaps 80mph, but I agree the backlash from safety organisations and the green lobby could make it very difficult for the government to make the change. So they will very likely make no change.

Against that, there are probably three or four (maybe more) times more cars, commercial vehicles on the road than there were in the mid sixties, when the top speed of an average car was around 80mph.

Yes, I would like an 80mph limit, but am quite happy with 70, it's perfectly adequate for today's driving conditions.

(I'm not talking about a deserted stretch of motorway at 3am).

[CrutyRammers]

vonhosen said:

CrutyRammers said:

vonhosen said:

You can't equate people breaking a law with people thinking it is unreasonable.

Indeed, it has to be considered along with harm done, or the increase in risk it may cause.

So, thousands every day do 80-90 on the motorway. They cause no harm to others. Virtually none of them not get punished. They do not harm society.
Ergo, the law has little public support, achieves no good for society as a whole, and hence should be changed.

I'd be happy to hear a good reason why the limit should be 70, so far all arguments have been "because it is", or "there have to be limits".

Danger of collision isn't the only consideration.

There is little public support for change (the speed they choose isn't evidence of their support for change).

I can just as well say, "yes it is". That's just an assertion, and even if true, doesn't mean it's a good law that helps society. You need to show what harm is done by exceeding 70 on the motorway in order to convince me that we should punish those who do.

[Dr Jekyll]

vonhosen said:

The mentality is they want the rules for others (others both need the rules & they benefit society generally), but they are better or more important than others & they can bend them because of that.

So in effect they are saying that it's OK for them to do 71MPH but I should be prosecuted for doing exactly the same thing. Excuse me if I find that a less than cogent argument. Why should I respect their opinion that I must be restricted to 69MPH if it doesn't apply to them? I'm just as much 'society' as they are.

vonhosen said:

It can therefore be safe to exceed them , you are just forbidden from doing so for administrative ease.

My point exactly.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

There is little public support for change (the speed they choose isn't evidence of their support for change).

There's probably as much, if not more public support for change than there was for when the 70mph limit was introduced in the first place.

And then it was only because a speed which few cars of the day could sustain was seen to be a reasonable limit.

[Pete317]

Vipers said:

Dare I say it, if you miss the sign, you are not paying attention to the road.

Or you're just not paying attention to what's at the side of the road just for the moment at which you pass the sign - possibly because your attention is focused on something more pressing at that moment.

[Devil2575]

CrutyRammers said:

Devil2575 said:

CrutyRammers said:

To which the obvious rejoiner would be something about the Suffragettes, Rosa Parks, or Harry Willcock. It's entirely right to complain about being convicted under a bad law, IMO.

Are you really trying to compare speed limits with women's votes and racial equality?

Not at all. I was showing by example that not all laws are good and/or worthy of being complied with, to counter mph's argument that "it's the law, therefore you must comply because it's the law." The above examples demonstrate that this is not always the case.

The above are examples of where people are forced to take direct action because they are excluded from the democratic process. If you object to speed limits you can take it up at the ballot box. The Suffragettes could not.

[Pete317]

mph1977 said:

now this is a demonstration of the 'BMW / Audi lane ' mentality ...

what is the justification of a driver in an vehicle which is not exempted, by virtue and purpose of use , from the speed limits in trying to force someone who is in the outside lane at or slightly over the speed limit AND passing stuff in lanes to his/her left into one of those lanes except unmitigated arrogance asnd/or crap planning on their behalf meaning they are running late.

In my experience it's far more likely to be some numpty who waits until you're almost on top of them before pulling out in front of you, and then decides to stay there for the next 10 miles.

Edited by Pete317 on Sunday 17th May 13:56

[Pete317]

Devil2575 said:

If you object to speed limits you can take it up at the ballot box.

Where do I put my X?

[CzechItOut]

Would the police let this slide for someone with no previous convictions, but prosecute someone who has previous speedway convictions?

[vonhosen]

CrutyRammers said:

vonhosen said:

CrutyRammers said:

vonhosen said:

You can't equate people breaking a law with people thinking it is unreasonable.

Indeed, it has to be considered along with harm done, or the increase in risk it may cause.

So, thousands every day do 80-90 on the motorway. They cause no harm to others. Virtually none of them not get punished. They do not harm society.
Ergo, the law has little public support, achieves no good for society as a whole, and hence should be changed.

I'd be happy to hear a good reason why the limit should be 70, so far all arguments have been "because it is", or "there have to be limits".

Danger of collision isn't the only consideration.

There is little public support for change (the speed they choose isn't evidence of their support for change).

I can just as well say, "yes it is". That's just an assertion, and even if true, doesn't mean it's a good law that helps society. You need to show what harm is done by exceeding 70 on the motorway in order to convince me that we should punish those who do.

There doesn't have to be harm in every case for it to be valid. Also the limit affects behavioural choices of a lot of those who choose to exceed it (i.e. they will only exceed the limit by a certain margin so the limit still affects choices made).

If there was sufficient public support for a change upward we'd see more movement on it. Most don't care sufficient enough for it to be of concern to political leaders.

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

vonhosen said:

The mentality is they want the rules for others (others both need the rules & they benefit society generally), but they are better or more important than others & they can bend them because of that.

So in effect they are saying that it's OK for them to do 71MPH but I should be prosecuted for doing exactly the same thing. Excuse me if I find that a less than cogent argument. Why should I respect their opinion that I must be restricted to 69MPH if it doesn't apply to them? I'm just as much 'society' as they are.

They think they are better than you, you think you are better than them. Most think they are better than they actually are.

[Dr Jekyll]

vonhosen said:

Dr Jekyll said:

vonhosen said:

The mentality is they want the rules for others (others both need the rules & they benefit society generally), but they are better or more important than others & they can bend them because of that.

So in effect they are saying that it's OK for them to do 71MPH but I should be prosecuted for doing exactly the same thing. Excuse me if I find that a less than cogent argument. Why should I respect their opinion that I must be restricted to 69MPH if it doesn't apply to them? I'm just as much 'society' as they are.

They think they are better than you, you think you are better than them. Most think they are better than they actually are.

Where did I say I thought I was better than them? Better at what exactly?
What I actually said was that the same rules should apply to everybody.

[mph1977]

CzechItOut said:

Would the police let this slide for someone with no previous convictions, but prosecute someone who has previous speedway convictions?

unlikely if it;s got the point of NiP rather than when people get stopped at the time.

[Vipers]

Dibble said:

Ah, the A90. Delightful road... Driven it a few times as I've friends and family in and around Aberdeen. I seem to remember a few of the 50 limits between Aberdeen and Dundee, which make sense as they're dealing with specific hazards. For the whole road to be 50 would, IMHO, be madness.

Unless it's changed, only one bit is 50, it's a busy junctions and was an accident black spot. I recall a video taken in broad daylight, a car waiting to cross the southbound carriageway and join the northbound.

Truck coming down the southbound, almost at the junction and the car driver pulled out into the path of the truck.

Loads of cameras, I always drive Aberdeen to Dundee with cc spot on 70. The bit coming out of Aberdeen heading south after 4 ish it's like a race track. Couple of years ago at the junction at Portlethen, a bus was waiting to cross the southbound carriageway into Portlethen during the rush hour. He misjudged it, was T boned by a car travelling southbound, it's NSL at this point.

Interestingly enough, we have a fly over just a bit further up the road, so I thought this junction to allow vehicles to cross the southbound carriageway would be blocked off, but it's still open.

Anyone trying to cross it during the rush hour is mental.




:

[RobinOakapple]

I'm happy that the speed limit remains at 70mph (with apparently a generous margin of allowance over that) not because that is the speed that I don't want to exceed, it's because it's the speed I don't want anyone else to exceed. And because I am a reasonable kind of guy, I expect laws which are needed to stop other people being silly to apply equally to me even though I am not silly.

[cmaguire]

R32 said:

Yeah as you say, not from motorways though.

Considering motorways are the safest type of road in the UK and police resources are limited, you would think priority would be given to more dangerous roads or the ones most complained about...

Far more productive on Motorways and Dual Carriageways as regards numbers.
I'm not one of those who rattles off the well-worn gripe about money-making, for my part I'm more inclined to believe the motivation is more about the numbers making the stats look good.

[bridgdav]

A Limit is a Limit..
Not the suggested road speed. Drivers should be driving below the Limit in truth.
I know TG have made the joke of our speed system, but as someone before said its the others I'm worried about.

We all speed and stretch that Limit knowing it is likely to get you a fine etc when it's done. Take the risk take the punishment.

DD has a limit, and some try to push that boundary on each occasion. Just because you might think everyone has 2 pints instead of 1.. Does that make the limit too low..?

[Dr Jekyll]

RobinOakapple said:

I'm happy that the speed limit remains at 70mph (with apparently a generous margin of allowance over that)

[CrutyRammers]

vonhosen said:

Most don't care sufficient enough for it to be of concern to political leaders.

And why's that? Because there's a general acceptance that you can break the law, up to a point, and that point (80-85 I would say) is fast enough for most. I'm willing to bet that if there was sudden, zero tolerance enforcement of 70mph on motorways, there would be a great deal of public outcry. What we have now is a uneasy unwritten understanding which works well enough for most people, most of the time.

Which brings us back around to why the OP is reasonable, IMO, to feel a bit aggrieved when the state breaks its side of that understanding.