81mph in 50mph - speed camera van - advice please?
Discussion
emmaT2014 said:
People are criminalised for doing 81 in a 50 and 60 and 70 because it is a criminal offence. They know it before they do it and therefore they have criminalised themselves.
As for your last comment, more people are pissed-off by your behaviour rather than the reasonable enforcement. It's safer that way.
What stake do you have in speed enforcement then?As for your last comment, more people are pissed-off by your behaviour rather than the reasonable enforcement. It's safer that way.
aww999 said:
...... which gives the appearance of doing something useful to appease the electorate, but that doesn't make it right or just.
That's the issue though isn't it. The 'electorate' is the majority and in their mind it is both 'right and just'. The concept of driving for fun doesn't compute with most people, and the concept of driving at 81mph along a countyside road puts the OP in the same category as you have with those two who ploughed into a tree. To the electorate, the crime is the same with the only difference being that in that case two people died, in the OP's case he got a speeding ticket. I'm generally agreeing with most things that you are saying, however I am a realist and I know that what ever alternative to the current position is proposed by motoring enthusiasts, it will be seen as being as unworkable and ridiculous as we see the notion of 'Speed kills'.
Clivey said:
What stake do you have in speed enforcement then?
From all of her posts to me it is clear she has links to the Anti Speed Brigade. If she has not here we have a perfect example of how people become brainwashed into swallowing all the usual crap they spout.No one want a free for all on the roads, no one want to see people killed, however there are many things that can be done with road safety but it is the only club that is in use time after time.
Many years ago when I was 17 I got an endorsement for speeding. At the time I was treated like a lunatic as only really bad drivers had endorsments.
Now go to any gathering of people and the vast majority of drivers will now have had or someone in their home will have been caught speeding.
And most of these do not see it as anything other than a way of making money. It has lost any impact and is now seen as something we will all get as a result of unreasonable limits.
I have a clean licence and have had for years, however driving 30k a year it is not hard to see how people fall foul of a camera.
Liquid Tuna said:
I don't think that happens any more. Not since the mid-90s really. Gone are the days of a telling-off and be on your way, don't do it again etc.
Well I can tell you that it does exist. In Decemener I had a conversation with a nice officer from an unmarked car whilst his colleague renowned in his car. I'd managed to outdrag them form a set of lights to 90 and whip round a roundabout and gain a bit more time on them there. The dual carriageway was a 40 btw.I got a couple of questions with civil replies and then a "take this a friendly warning not to do it again".
The Surveyor said:
The concept of driving for fun doesn't compute with most people, ...
But it’s not just about fun is it? It’s also about efficiency of movement and productivity in the economy. Why don’t we impose a 20 mph limit on the motorways, that would surely reduce accidents? Because there has to be a balance between the cost of accidents, financial, emotional and economical, and the cost to the nation of reduced mobility. All those hours that would be lost sat in a car at 20 mph when you are statistically only a minuscule amount safer than when allowed to do 70 mph would cost the nation enormously.Even people who see driving only as a means of getting from A to B and no fun at all will not want all of their trips to the cinema, to watch football or to the shops to take twice as long. They could legally drive at 20 mph now, but they don’t, they do 30 or 40 as the limit allows. The benefit far outweighs any increase in risk.
citizensm1th said:
pinchmeimdreamin said:
citizensm1th said:
Is it wrong to hope the op gets a ban?
Yes.Have you ever driven over snake pass ?
spaximus said:
From all of her posts to me it is clear she has links to the Anti Speed Brigade. If she has not here we have a perfect example of how people become brainwashed into swallowing all the usual crap they spout.
No one want a free for all on the roads, no one want to see people killed, however there are many things that can be done with road safety but it is the only club that is in use time after time.
Many years ago when I was 17 I got an endorsement for speeding. At the time I was treated like a lunatic as only really bad drivers had endorsments.
Now go to any gathering of people and the vast majority of drivers will now have had or someone in their home will have been caught speeding.
And most of these do not see it as anything other than a way of making money. It has lost any impact and is now seen as something we will all get as a result of unreasonable limits.
I have a clean licence and have had for years, however driving 30k a year it is not hard to see how people fall foul of a camera.
I think EmmaT is pitmansboots.No one want a free for all on the roads, no one want to see people killed, however there are many things that can be done with road safety but it is the only club that is in use time after time.
Many years ago when I was 17 I got an endorsement for speeding. At the time I was treated like a lunatic as only really bad drivers had endorsments.
Now go to any gathering of people and the vast majority of drivers will now have had or someone in their home will have been caught speeding.
And most of these do not see it as anything other than a way of making money. It has lost any impact and is now seen as something we will all get as a result of unreasonable limits.
I have a clean licence and have had for years, however driving 30k a year it is not hard to see how people fall foul of a camera.
Liquid Tuna said:
longblackcoat said:
1 The law IS the law. You may not like it, but it exists, and you ignore it at your peril. When you're at the side of the road having been pulled at 80 in a 50, telling the officer that the law's an ass/I'm a great driver/why don't you catch some real criminals is a quick way to guarantee a booking rather than a lecture.
I don't think that happens any more. Not since the mid-90s really. Gone are the days of a telling-off and be on your way, don't do it again etc.The camera location the OP mentions is used quite often. It has certainly slowed me down on that stretch.
However, I would like to see the accident stats for the road, showing crash locations. Now what seems to happen, is that people who travel the road regularly dont overtake on what is the best sighted part of the road.
Now where the OP got caught is the end of a long downhill stretch with great visibility. Imagine you are sat behind a lorry doing say 48 mph as you approach this long straight. You know, that at the end of the straight the road starts to climb and becomes increasingly twisty, the lorry's speed will drop to 30 mph tops for the next 6 miles or so. You can no longer overtake the lorry where it is safest to do so. So you now have to sit behind the lorry as its speed drops. Regrettably, people get very frustrated following the slow lorry, and will attempt to overtake where visibility is limited.
I consider this to be far more dangerous than doing the 81mph that the OP was doing on the long straight.
As we live locally, I travel on this road quite regularly, and I see the frustrated overtakes happening all too frequently. I have also seen a few very close calls with dangerous overtakes.
I addition to the above, the majority of accidents on the Snake Pass involve motorbikes, none of whom can be caught by the forward facing camera van.....
However, I would like to see the accident stats for the road, showing crash locations. Now what seems to happen, is that people who travel the road regularly dont overtake on what is the best sighted part of the road.
Now where the OP got caught is the end of a long downhill stretch with great visibility. Imagine you are sat behind a lorry doing say 48 mph as you approach this long straight. You know, that at the end of the straight the road starts to climb and becomes increasingly twisty, the lorry's speed will drop to 30 mph tops for the next 6 miles or so. You can no longer overtake the lorry where it is safest to do so. So you now have to sit behind the lorry as its speed drops. Regrettably, people get very frustrated following the slow lorry, and will attempt to overtake where visibility is limited.
I consider this to be far more dangerous than doing the 81mph that the OP was doing on the long straight.
As we live locally, I travel on this road quite regularly, and I see the frustrated overtakes happening all too frequently. I have also seen a few very close calls with dangerous overtakes.
I addition to the above, the majority of accidents on the Snake Pass involve motorbikes, none of whom can be caught by the forward facing camera van.....
speedking31 said:
...said loads of irrelevant tosh about imposing a 20mph speed limit on motorways and.... They could legally drive at 20 mph now, but they don’t, they do 30 or 40 as the limit allows. The benefit far outweighs any increase in risk.
OK I'll bite, so you agree that risks increase as speeds increases which kind of kills off your own argument. No body is asking for 20mph motorways in the same way nobody really expects roads to be universally unlimited. So the answer lies somewhere in the middle which is where we are now!The Surveyor said:
As for your ridiculous claim that people can be trusted to set their own limits on the grounds that we are not all nearly dead is as simplistic as the argument that 'speed kills'.
Well, perhaps "nearly dead" is a taking it a bit far, but that's beside the point.What speed do you do when you, for example, go around a corner, negotiate between two rows of parked cars on a narrow street, pass a group of schoolchildren playing on the pavement, etc?
Chances are, you don't know exactly what speed you're doing as you're probably not looking at your speedo, but you do know that your speed is more-or-less appropriate for conditions, and also that you're probably well below the limit.
That's the kind of thing that millions of drivers do automatically many times every day, and it's really only a tiny number that use really excessive speeds when and where they shouldn't - although this relatively tiny number probably causes a disproportionate amount of trouble.
As to limits being there for to control the few who can't control themselves, you may have a point if not for the fact that limits are increasingly being set at below the speed which most drivers would drive at if left to their own devices, and that enforcement generally takes place where and/or when not only is it safe to exceed the limit, but many people are likely to do so if they're not actively thinking about their exact speed.
A careful, competent driver really ought to be able to drive at what they judge to be an appropriate speed without undue fear that they may be falling foul of the law.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 18th February 23:46
Phatboy317 said:
Well, perhaps "nearly dead" is a taking it a bit far, but that's beside the point.
What speed do you do when you, for example, go around a corner, negotiate between two rows of parked cars on a narrow street, pass a group of schoolchildren playing on the pavement, etc?
Chances are, you don't know exactly what speed you're doing as you're probably not looking at your speedo, but you do know that your speed is more-or-less appropriate for conditions, and also that you're probably well below the limit.
That's the kind of thing that millions of drivers do automatically many times every day, and it's really only a tiny number that use really excessive speeds when and where they shouldn't - although this relatively tiny number probably causes a disproportionate amount of trouble.
As to limits being there for to control the few who can't control themselves, you may have a point if not for the fact that limits are increasingly being set at below the speed which most drivers would drive at if left to their own devices, and that enforcement generally takes place where and/or when not only is it safe to exceed the limit, but many people are likely to do so if they're not actively thinking about their exact speed.
A careful, competent driver really ought to be able to drive at what they judge to be an appropriate speed without undue fear that they may be falling foul of the law.
Hear, hear. The only thing I'd add is that enforcement generally only takes place (at least around here) where it'll make money!What speed do you do when you, for example, go around a corner, negotiate between two rows of parked cars on a narrow street, pass a group of schoolchildren playing on the pavement, etc?
Chances are, you don't know exactly what speed you're doing as you're probably not looking at your speedo, but you do know that your speed is more-or-less appropriate for conditions, and also that you're probably well below the limit.
That's the kind of thing that millions of drivers do automatically many times every day, and it's really only a tiny number that use really excessive speeds when and where they shouldn't - although this relatively tiny number probably causes a disproportionate amount of trouble.
As to limits being there for to control the few who can't control themselves, you may have a point if not for the fact that limits are increasingly being set at below the speed which most drivers would drive at if left to their own devices, and that enforcement generally takes place where and/or when not only is it safe to exceed the limit, but many people are likely to do so if they're not actively thinking about their exact speed.
A careful, competent driver really ought to be able to drive at what they judge to be an appropriate speed without undue fear that they may be falling foul of the law.
aww999 said:
Setting ever-lower limits and enforcing them more stringently may catch slightly more of the tiny minority of drivers who are dangerous. It will definitely criminalise the legitimate driving behaviour of thousands more drivers who are safely, competently going about their business without causing distress or inconvenience to anyone. This ratio will only be magnified when limited enforcement resources are deployed on safe roads where the limit is far lower than most would choose to travel, instead of busy or high-risk areas where most drivers naturally pick a lower speed but occasional nutters may endanger others. It rakes in loads of tickets, which gives the appearance of doing something useful to appease the electorate, but that doesn't make it right or just.
The robots are coming though. Lower limits ultimately enforced by cheap to build / maintain machines will end up a goldmine for the Govt.TX.
LoonR1 said:
Errrrrrrrrrr, if it won't "make money" then there's no speeding issue, so nothing to enforce.
Step 1: Dictate inappropriate limitStep 2: Carry-out enforcement
Step 3: Profit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...
If everyone agreed with the limits, they wouldn't be caught exceeding them.
A lot of interesting and diverse arguments on here. I write as a keen driver as well as a retired cop who spent several years on Traffic investigating many crashes.
From the police perspective I'd say there are two views; the political arguments from senior officers who want to reassure the Home Office that they're doing their bit to reduce crashes and bringing in the money. While the guys doing the job on the roads, generally say; it's not speed that kills, it's driving like a T**t. For example, if speed kills there should be many dead Traffic officers every week, as officers all over the country often exceed over 100mph going to incidents. And blue lights and lots of noise don't stop you from crashing and very often don't even wake people up to your presence.
Back in the 80s when there were lots of Traffic officers out there, if the offence wasn't too severe you'd see if the offender passed the attitude test. Were they contrite, or did they want an argument; if so the response would be, "You can argue your case in court". If someone was doing 50 in a 30 at 15:00, you'd book them. If they're doing 50 in a 30 at 03:00 you'd have a word. Camera's don't take account of the time of day, weather conditions, or density of traffic.
70mph is legal on a motorway even if it's dark, the traffic is nose to tail and it's pouring with rain. 80mph isn't, even if it's 04:00 on a spring morning, dry road, good visibility, no traffic. Of course it doesn't make sense, it's politics.
Personally I sympathise with the guy who was caught. I've been driving cars and motorbikes for 48 years; I passed the IAM 41 years ago and became a Police Advanced Driver 27 years ago, and I still have moments when I suddenly realise I'm over the speed limit, I'm human. Sure the guy was having a whizz, but he'll probably receive a greater punishment than a first offence burglar. The police enforce the law, it doesn't mean they agree with it all.
My favourite speed limit is the first average speed section as you leave Macclesfield towards the Cat and Fiddle. It's 50mph, but with the severity of the corners I couldn't achieve it even when I had my Ariel Atom, so if you manage a ticket there I'd give Toto Wolff a call.
From the police perspective I'd say there are two views; the political arguments from senior officers who want to reassure the Home Office that they're doing their bit to reduce crashes and bringing in the money. While the guys doing the job on the roads, generally say; it's not speed that kills, it's driving like a T**t. For example, if speed kills there should be many dead Traffic officers every week, as officers all over the country often exceed over 100mph going to incidents. And blue lights and lots of noise don't stop you from crashing and very often don't even wake people up to your presence.
Back in the 80s when there were lots of Traffic officers out there, if the offence wasn't too severe you'd see if the offender passed the attitude test. Were they contrite, or did they want an argument; if so the response would be, "You can argue your case in court". If someone was doing 50 in a 30 at 15:00, you'd book them. If they're doing 50 in a 30 at 03:00 you'd have a word. Camera's don't take account of the time of day, weather conditions, or density of traffic.
70mph is legal on a motorway even if it's dark, the traffic is nose to tail and it's pouring with rain. 80mph isn't, even if it's 04:00 on a spring morning, dry road, good visibility, no traffic. Of course it doesn't make sense, it's politics.
Personally I sympathise with the guy who was caught. I've been driving cars and motorbikes for 48 years; I passed the IAM 41 years ago and became a Police Advanced Driver 27 years ago, and I still have moments when I suddenly realise I'm over the speed limit, I'm human. Sure the guy was having a whizz, but he'll probably receive a greater punishment than a first offence burglar. The police enforce the law, it doesn't mean they agree with it all.
My favourite speed limit is the first average speed section as you leave Macclesfield towards the Cat and Fiddle. It's 50mph, but with the severity of the corners I couldn't achieve it even when I had my Ariel Atom, so if you manage a ticket there I'd give Toto Wolff a call.
emmaT2014 said:
cptsideways said:
emmaT2014 said:
I have never suggested that speed enforcement was the sole cause of reduction in fatal casualties. You can however be assured that it has made a very significant contribution especially since 2003. Just look at the graph.
Since 2003? about the same time ESP went mainstream, one single additional safety feature. If you were to narrow the stats down to car types you will find small low end models without ESP the graph your quoting hardly changes.Research by Mercedes Benz suggests ESP has reduced serious accidents by 43% alone in that same time period. http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://paginas.fe.up...
So anyone saying its speed cameras that have done it, is talking utter b
ksks indeed!ks then Emma ?robinessex said:
emmaT2014 said:
cptsideways said:
emmaT2014 said:
I have never suggested that speed enforcement was the sole cause of reduction in fatal casualties. You can however be assured that it has made a very significant contribution especially since 2003. Just look at the graph.
Since 2003? about the same time ESP went mainstream, one single additional safety feature. If you were to narrow the stats down to car types you will find small low end models without ESP the graph your quoting hardly changes.Research by Mercedes Benz suggests ESP has reduced serious accidents by 43% alone in that same time period. http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://paginas.fe.up...
So anyone saying its speed cameras that have done it, is talking utter b
ksks indeed!ks then Emma ?Clivey said:
LoonR1 said:
Errrrrrrrrrr, if it won't "make money" then there's no speeding issue, so nothing to enforce.
Step 1: Dictate inappropriate limitStep 2: Carry-out enforcement
Step 3: Profit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...
If everyone agreed with the limits, they wouldn't be caught exceeding them.
Step 1 dictate inappropriate li t
Step 1a most obey it, albeit through gritted teeth
Step 2 carry out enforcement
Step 3 nothing
Or
Step 1 dictate inappropriate speed limit
Step 1a most ignore it
Step 2 carry out enforcement
Step 3 people caught speeding
Whose fault is It?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff