almost 16 years with out points, it had to end :(

[LucreLout]

ToothbrushMan said:

in 16 years its perfectly possible to have had almost a licence rammed full of points right up until the 11th year when they begin to drop off. then you arrive at year 16 with a blemish free one. it might look or sound good but can hide a multitude of spent convictions.

i often hear of folk who say oh ive had a clean licence for 120 years. never been stopped or ticketed once......yeah, right from members on this type of forum? .......OK.

23 years for me... Always been lucky, until today. Oops. Still, nice day for it, and worse things happen at sea n all.

[Phatboy317]

Jonsv8 said:

Jim1556 said:

Jonsv8 said:

But the bit that I found interesting was stopping as I mentioned earlier. Its an approximation but 2 cars, side by side, one doing 70 and the other 50 both slam on their brakes. How fast is the car that started at 70 still doing at the point on the road where the car doing 50 came to a halt? I thought maybe 30? The answer was 50.

That sounds like the biggest load of bks I've heard this year!

But, looking at the physics, and remembering they were on about distance, they're not far off...

Although, technology hasn't improved much:

In 1947 (bearing in mind drum brakes, crap suspension etc), the highway code states it'd take 125ft to brake from 50mph + 50ft thinking distance = 175ft

Today's highway code still states the same...

I reckon I could halve that with my RS29s!

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. He even mentioned the Highway Code and said it didn't really matter if stopping distances had improved. If both cars could stop in half the Highway Code distance, the same logic applies.

Yes, nothing wrong with the logic - it would still apply if the braking distances from 50 and 70 were 1ft and 2ft respectively - but it's essentially meaningless in the real world.

Basically, if you rely on stopping distances to keep you and those around you safe, then you've really missed the boat.

[Burwood]

Strangely it's been 16 years since I got caught. Good luck father than management.

[Jonsv8]

Phatboy317 said:

Yes, nothing wrong with the logic - it would still apply if the braking distances from 50 and 70 were 1ft and 2ft respectively - but it's essentially meaningless in the real world.

Basically, if you rely on stopping distances to keep you and those around you safe, then you've really missed the boat.

I thought one of the golden rules was to leave a distance in front of you in which you could stop. Is that not the stopping distance? Many driver may drive closer and irrespective we should all be reading the road further ahead to mitigate ever needing to invoke the full on braking but it's not always avoidable and understanding the way you slow helps calculate that risk.

I'm not sure how fast you drive where the distance to stop is irrelevant?

[swisstoni]

silverfoxcc said:

BertBert

You posted twice

You posted twice


What i meant was if you said yes, you ins may go up. ( as they assume you have been done speeding) By adding the rider you did it voluntarily, you are not lying but being economical with the truth.i.e you dont have to tell them it was that or 100.00 and three points

They will just tick the SAC box and up your premium. They won't give a damn about any steenking rider.

[cirian75]

A bit of twitter poking, 1st time a speed van has been there in 2 years, 2 months.

Last was Jan 2013.

[AndyNetwork]

cirian75 said:

A bit of twitter poking, 1st time a speed van has been there in 2 years, 2 months.

Last was Jan 2013.

I think this is more a case of no one bother to report it now, as it's there more often than not.

I regularly drive this stretch of road, and find it a suprise now when there isn't a van parked on one side or the other, quite often both.

Why this bit of road isn't 50/60 or even 70 MPH is a mystery to me, other than it boosts the coffers.

[cirian75]

AndyNetwork said:

cirian75 said:

A bit of twitter poking, 1st time a speed van has been there in 2 years, 2 months.

Last was Jan 2013.

I think this is more a case of no one bother to report it now, as it's there more often than not.

I regularly drive this stretch of road, and find it a suprise now when there isn't a van parked on one side or the other, quite often both.

Why this bit of road isn't 50/60 or even 70 MPH is a mystery to me, other than it boosts the coffers.

MMMmmm, when I go through there is either mega early 05.30, or after 17.00

This time it was 11.00

I only went this way from Chorlton to Warrington because Barlow moor road was chocca going the other way


I very rarely go through there in normal daytime hours

[speedking31]

Colleague has just been reported for 57 mph in the 50 mph average speed cameras on M6 northbound ... at 11:30 pm!

For goodness sake. AFAIK no-one working then and all lanes are full width. Completely pointless potential prosecution.

[L1OFF]

btcc123 said:

KFC said:

If I didn't have any points in 16 years, I wouldn't waste an afternoon on some stupid course. I'll just pay the fine and take the 3points.

Not a ‘Finger Lickin’ Good’ choice.You would probably learn something and have a KFC after.

my other half had one of these courses some time ago, and one of the fellow attendees she recognised was Jody Scheckter

[swisstoni]

speedking31 said:

Colleague has just been reported for 57 mph in the 50 mph average speed cameras on M6 northbound ... at 11:30 pm!

For goodness sake. AFAIK no-one working then and all lanes are full width. Completely pointless potential prosecution.

Well stone me; they actually work!

[Derwins Revenge]

swisstoni said:

speedking31 said:

Colleague has just been reported for 57 mph in the 50 mph average speed cameras on M6 northbound ... at 11:30 pm!

For goodness sake. AFAIK no-one working then and all lanes are full width. Completely pointless potential prosecution.

Well stone me; they actually work!

I always find it strange how people come steaming past me in an average speed check zone. Are they actually surprised 2 weeks later when they get a letter in the post? Or am I the thicko and it's ok to ignore the multitude of signs and cameras and just plough through at what speed I want without getting caught? Hmmm...

I'm not a member of BRAKE, but really, there is no beating these average speed zones, so just stick cruise control and settle in. Or you will get a ticket.

[Cliftonite]

AndyNetwork said:

cirian75 said:

A bit of twitter poking, 1st time a speed van has been there in 2 years, 2 months.

Last was Jan 2013.

I think this is more a case of no one bother to report it now, as it's there more often than not.

I regularly drive this stretch of road, and find it a suprise now when there isn't a van parked on one side or the other, quite often both.

Why this bit of road isn't 50/60 or even 70 MPH is a mystery to me, other than it boosts the coffers.

Who actually decided this road merited a 40 mph limit? They should be asked to justify their decision. Does anyone know how this can be done? FOI request? If so, on whom?

[herewego]

Cliftonite said:

AndyNetwork said:

cirian75 said:

A bit of twitter poking, 1st time a speed van has been there in 2 years, 2 months.

Last was Jan 2013.

I think this is more a case of no one bother to report it now, as it's there more often than not.

I regularly drive this stretch of road, and find it a suprise now when there isn't a van parked on one side or the other, quite often both.

Why this bit of road isn't 50/60 or even 70 MPH is a mystery to me, other than it boosts the coffers.

Who actually decided this road merited a 40 mph limit? They should be asked to justify their decision. Does anyone know how this can be done? FOI request? If so, on whom?

Either the local authority or the highways agency. Just email both.

[Jim1556]

Jonsv8 said:

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. He even mentioned the Highway Code and said it didn't really matter if stopping distances had improved. If both cars could stop in half the Highway Code distance, the same logic applies.

I was sort of agreeing with you, the maths are fine. But I don't agree with the highway code's arbitrary rubbish about stopping distances.

Both my M3 and my VRS would take considerably less than 315ft to stop from 70.

I know, I know, they have to equate for the lowest common denominator. Including tts on the phone, putting makeup on, shouting at the kids etc.

I really think the driving test should be a lot harder and should include reaction time tests and a skid pan...

But, it's not up to me!

[Jonsv8]

Jim1556 said:

Jonsv8 said:

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. He even mentioned the Highway Code and said it didn't really matter if stopping distances had improved. If both cars could stop in half the Highway Code distance, the same logic applies.

I was sort of agreeing with you, the maths are fine. But I don't agree with the highway code's arbitrary rubbish about stopping distances.

Both my M3 and my VRS would take considerably less than 315ft to stop from 70.

I know, I know, they have to equate for the lowest common denominator. Including tts on the phone, putting makeup on, shouting at the kids etc.

I really think the driving test should be a lot harder and should include reaction time tests and a skid pan...

But, it's not up to me!

I agree with you about the driving test although I suspect half the drivers in this world would never pass.

Funny how only 2 in 3 people can pass GCSE maths after 2-3 hours per week education for years and years yet we think they can understand how to drive a car, comprehend the mechanics of it and be let lose on the road. (No offence meant to anyone on here who's not got maths, nor am I equating maths to driving). Its seemingly OK to fail maths but driving is a life skill that you have to be a real clot to not pass after a few attempts, the bar is set that low.

I think the stopping distance is now predicated on not spilling your costa coffee while braking

Not sure how we got so off topic but this is PH.

OP fingers crossed for a SAC, enjoy the tea and biscuits and the lucky did on who takes the course.

[BertBert]

Jim1556 said:

Both my M3 and my VRS would take considerably less than 315ft to stop from 70.

It's really odd, but I have no idea whether I can stop in 315ft at 70. Like most drivers I have got a strong sense of whether I've left enough gap and what speed feels ok for the "seeable" distance. Couldn't the clever govt make up a better way to train people to be able to stop in time?
Bert

[Flibble]

swisstoni said:

Well stone me; they actually work!

Given the number of people I've seen bombing it through them, they must be making a tidy sum too! Especially on the inbetween roadworks bit, which is fully cameraed up and well signed, but still sees a good proportion of drivers hoof it off like it's NSL.

[Cliftonite]

BertBert said:

It's really odd, but I have no idea whether I can stop in 315ft at 70. Like most drivers I have got a strong sense of whether I've left enough gap and what speed feels ok for the "seeable" distance. Couldn't the clever govt make up a better way to train people to be able to stop in time?
Bert

Something like "Only a fool breaks the two-second rule" perhaps?

[Phatboy317]

Jonsv8 said:

Phatboy317 said:

Yes, nothing wrong with the logic - it would still apply if the braking distances from 50 and 70 were 1ft and 2ft respectively - but it's essentially meaningless in the real world.

Basically, if you rely on stopping distances to keep you and those around you safe, then you've really missed the boat.

I thought one of the golden rules was to leave a distance in front of you in which you could stop. Is that not the stopping distance? Many driver may drive closer and irrespective we should all be reading the road further ahead to mitigate ever needing to invoke the full on braking but it's not always avoidable and understanding the way you slow helps calculate that risk.

The gap you leave in front of you has nothing to do with your stopping distance. A two-second gap at 70mph is slightly more than 200ft, which is well short of the stopping distance from 70.

Jonsv8 said:

I'm not sure how fast you drive where the distance to stop is irrelevant?

I didn't say it's irrelevant, but rather that it's not a good idea to rely on it to keep you out of trouble.
If something happens ahead of you, you have absolutely no control over how far ahead of you it happens, and you either have time to stop, or you don't.
You might have a slightly better statistical chance of being able to stop in time if you're travelling a bit slower, but that doesn't help in the event.

You said it yourself - it's much better to read the road properly so as to mitigate the need for last-moment braking.
If everybody left things until the situation became critical, then the accident rate would probably be at least an order of magnitude higher than it is.

Edited by Phatboy317 on Tuesday 7th April 22:55