|
shambolic
720 posts
36 months
|
Dibble said: I don't know the road/conditions so I've no idea whether or not it was dangerous.
I do know of a few former NSL duals that have been dropped to 50/40 though - both urban and rural. A82 great western road in Glasgow is a 3 lane carraigeway on both sides and is a 30mph for a good few miles of it.
|
|
|
Cat
1,071 posts
138 months
|
GoneAnon said: The road used to be a 70mph limit until some years ago when they dropped it because it is an "urban" DC.
Of course, it was still an urban DC when the limit was 70, but one day they just changed it. I don't remember any other reason being given and can't recall any extra junctions or other hazards appearing suddenly. That stretch of road has never been a 70 limit whilst it has been a dual carriageway. The dualling of the A92 between Dundee and Arbroath was completed in 2005 and since then the section between Claypotts and Ethiebeaton has been 40mph. The same as the limit on the single carriageway road it replaced which was dropped to a 40 limit in the late 90s. Cat
|
|
|
GoneAnon
903 posts
21 months
|
Not defending the guy or his speed, just highlighting that the speed limit maybe isn't as appropriate as other 40mph limits.
My favourite remains the Stepps by-pass. Brand new motorway with 2 lanes + hard shoulder on each side, full central reservation and barriers - just like any other motorway, except for the 50mph limit.
Which means you can leave the motorway, join the B-Road to Kirkintilloch, and accelerate to 60mph, with no dividers or refuges between you and the oncoming traffic which can also legally (and safely) do 60mph, so the closing speed is 20mph faster than on the shiny multilane motorway.
|
|
|
Steffan
6,182 posts
97 months
|
GoneAnon said: Not defending the guy or his speed, just highlighting that the speed limit maybe isn't as appropriate as other 40mph limits.
My favourite remains the Stepps by-pass. Brand new motorway with 2 lanes + hard shoulder on each side, full central reservation and barriers - just like any other motorway, except for the 50mph limit.
Which means you can leave the motorway, join the B-Road to Kirkintilloch, and accelerate to 60mph, with no dividers or refuges between you and the oncoming traffic which can also legally (and safely) do 60mph, so the closing speed is 20mph faster than on the shiny multilane motorway. No doubt you are correct in your assessment. The law is administered by humans and therefore is imperfect. But the law remains the law despite the imperfections. The imperfections constitute neither a defence nor a plea in mitigation. As the OP will no doubt discover in the fullness of time. Always remember that the wheels of justice grind very slowly but they grind exceeding small. As the Greek philosopher reminded us years ago.
|
|
|
GoneAnon
903 posts
21 months
|
Cat said: That stretch of road has never been a 70 limit whilst it has been a dual carriageway. The dualling of the A92 between Dundee and Arbroath was completed in 2005 and since then the section between Claypotts and Ethiebeaton has been 40mph. The same as the limit on the single carriageway road it replaced which was dropped to a 40 limit in the late 90s.
Cat You are right - I had thought this stretch was on the Kingsway, so my apologies. The Kingsway was 70 before the Dundee - Aberdeen stretch was fully dualled, wasn't it? Or is my memory failing in old age?
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
matchmaker
3,254 posts
69 months
|
GoneAnon said: Not defending the guy or his speed, just highlighting that the speed limit maybe isn't as appropriate as other 40mph limits.
My favourite remains the Stepps by-pass. Brand new motorway with 2 lanes + hard shoulder on each side, full central reservation and barriers - just like any other motorway, except for the 50mph limit.
Which means you can leave the motorway, join the B-Road to Kirkintilloch, and accelerate to 60mph, with no dividers or refuges between you and the oncoming traffic which can also legally (and safely) do 60mph, so the closing speed is 20mph faster than on the shiny multilane motorway. Sorry to rain on your parade, but isn't the M80 NSL by that point?
|
|
|
GoneAnon
903 posts
21 months
|
The opening of the new bit of the M80 may have changed it but I haven't been on the road for a while now.
When it was still the Stepps by-pass it was certainly 50mph and I have a letter from Sarah Boyack, the Transport Minister at the time, saying the 50 limit was necessary because of the "horizontal alignment" of the road at each end.
The same letter also said that the 50 limit at Newbridge is because of the "vertical alignment" of that road.
|
|
|
RtdRacer
1,274 posts
70 months
|
Derek Smith said: He could always nominate Steve Cooghan.
If you fail to nominate the driver at the time of the offence then can the person, under Scottish law, be punished for the offence of speeding or only faiing to notify? Or if caught lying, Perversion of the Course of Justice (or the scottish equiv), which has a jail sentence as a starting point. ANd was he caught on camera or stopped there and then?
|
|
|
paranoid airbag
1,301 posts
28 months
|
JimmyTheHand said: Driving at 40 is dangerous, it is just a much lower risk than at 122. Big problem with anti-speed is it seems to imply driving under the limit makes it "safe", when it isn't and is probably the most risky thing the vast majority of people do (other than maybe walking alongside road)  30 in the 30 limit isn't safe - it's the speed that represents the highest acceptable risk to other road users given an otherwise competent driver in good conditions. If the weather is bad, you're not at your best, or the car isn't, that's just as dangerous as over 30 in good conditions. It's just harder to catch people for the latter. That's the theory, anyway - reality is councils find it incredibly difficult, and have no real reason to, hold out under pressure from road safety groups and greaving families the second someone dies on a given road - they need to be seen doing something, and lower speed limits are much easier than redesigning the road, simply accepting no preventative safety measures are completely effective, or, god forbid, putting police on it. So they're often lower than they should be.
|
|
|
Somewhatfoolish
3,627 posts
55 months
|
Steffan said: I think it is the illegal immigrant sentence that is clearly wrong. DD in an urban setting in a 40 limit must be a serious concern to the courts. The other sentencing is disgraceful, but not relevant.
Two wrongs can never make a right. It is an oddity of PH that this is often suggested. A jail sentence of more than say a week (about the level I assume most people could keep their jobs at), when given to a respectzble person rather than an unemployed no hope scally, is at least a decade of punishment. Remember that when you condemn short sentences.
|
|
|
P50
188 posts
32 months
|
On a superbike one assumes this is a daily regular occurrence.
A mere few seconds and you're well over the ton. The offence isn't the problem. Getting caught is! Like anything he's come unstuck massively.
Oh well good luck old boy!
|
|
|
CapriV6S
421 posts
11 months
|
A mere error of judgement.
|
|
|
eccles
7,698 posts
91 months
|
CapriV6S said: A mere error of judgement. A conscious error of judgement though
|
|
|
Motorrad
3,869 posts
56 months
|
While not condoning what he allegedly did I can't help feeling that a jail term for a crime that hurt nobody is over the top. Better would be a lifetime removal of his privilege to use the roads on motorised transport as he presumably can't be trusted to behave responsibly-if he did it that is.
|
|
|
Pothole
18,021 posts
151 months
|
lombardo8 said: The law is truly an ass.
6 months for riding your bike fast and an illegal immigrant, without a drivers license, insurance or MOT kills a little girl and gets all of 4 months! I thought you believed that rules should be applied equally to everyone, so why is the fact that a person is an 'illegal immigrant' relevant?
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,443 posts
46 months
|
Motorrad said: While not condoning what he allegedly did I can't help feeling that a jail term for a crime that hurt nobody is over the top. Better would be a lifetime removal of his privilege to use the roads on motorised transport as he presumably can't be trusted to behave responsibly-if he did it that is. What you've proposed is much harsher than a short jail term and a few years ban.
|
|
|
Motorrad
3,869 posts
56 months
|
LoonR1 said: What you've proposed is much harsher than a short jail term and a few years ban. Harsher maybe but fairer. If he did what's alleged he clearly isn't fit to use a motor vehicle. However a jail term not only costs the taxpayer money (cost of imprisonment and lost revenue from his taxes/future benefit payments if he loses his job) it also doesn't reflect the gravity of the offence ie he hurt nobody and all he did was prove he can't be trusted on the roads. So simply remove the option from him.
|
|
|
LoonR1
12,443 posts
46 months
|
Motorrad said: Harsher maybe but fairer. If he did what's alleged he clearly isn't fit to use a motor vehicle. However a jail term not only costs the taxpayer money (cost of imprisonment and lost revenue from his taxes/future benefit payments if he loses his job) it also doesn't reflect the gravity of the offence ie he hurt nobody and all he did was prove he can't be trusted on the roads. So simply remove the option from him. Too draconian. He f  ked up, there's no disputing that but a lifetime ban? What about those that do cause harm to others? Jail and a lifetime ban? That would hurt given the proliferation of injury claims.
|
|
|
Corpulent Tosser
2,956 posts
114 months
|
Pothole said: lombardo8 said: The law is truly an ass.
6 months for riding your bike fast and an illegal immigrant, without a drivers license, insurance or MOT kills a little girl and gets all of 4 months! I thought you believed that rules should be applied equally to everyone, so why is the fact that a person is an 'illegal immigrant' relevant? The irony, wasn't lombardo complaining about prejudice based on appearance recently. The law should be blind to creed, colour, appearance, and in my opinion social or economic status, and should be administered on the basis of the crime.
|
|
|
Motorrad
3,869 posts
56 months
|
LoonR1 said: Too draconian. He f ked up, there's no disputing that but a lifetime ban? What about those that do cause harm to others? Jail and a lifetime ban? That would hurt given the proliferation of injury claims. It's perfectly possible to live without a vehicle, it's a privilege not a right and some people just aren't suited to it. If he's guilty of the offence I think he's proved he isn't fit to use the roads. If someone caused injury through dangerous driving then I think it's reasonable to remove their licence and punish them accordingly. Less drivers on the road would be a good thing. A different topic but personally I think we should all be tested every 5 yrs in any case.
|
|
