Caught speeding 85 in a 30

[Dick Turpin]

Pannywagon said:

it would be 30mph (regardless of where the works are and type of road) for 3-4 miles!

Putting that into perspective, 70mph for 4 miles would take just under 3½ minutes.
30mph for 4 miles would take 8 minutes.

So you're complaining about less than 5 minutes delay.
Not really worth getting peeved over IMO.

[Pannywagon]

Dick Turpin said:

Putting that into perspective, 70mph for 4 miles would take just under 3½ minutes.
30mph for 4 miles would take 8 minutes.

So you're complaining about less than 5 minutes delay.
Not really worth getting peeved over IMO.

It wasn't the delay I was concerned about. The issue was that the speed limit went against the regs that are in place to govern this sort of thing and because the speed limit was set way too low (no roadworks, no narrow lanes and no reason for it) those who were doing 30 (ish) were running the risk of getting hit by those who refused to slow down.

Obviously, the drivers who were speeding would be responsible for their actions, but I feel that the ultimate responsibility would have to lie with the muppet who decided that a blanket 30mph speed limit was sensible.

[Dick Turpin]

Pannywagon said:

Dick Turpin said:

Putting that into perspective, 70mph for 4 miles would take just under 3½ minutes.
30mph for 4 miles would take 8 minutes.

So you're complaining about less than 5 minutes delay.
Not really worth getting peeved over IMO.

It wasn't the delay I was concerned about. The issue was that the speed limit went against the regs that are in place to govern this sort of thing and because the speed limit was set way too low (no roadworks, no narrow lanes and no reason for it) those who were doing 30 (ish) were running the risk of getting hit by those who refused to slow down.

Obviously, the drivers who were speeding would be responsible for their actions, but I feel that the ultimate responsibility would have to lie with the muppet who decided that a blanket 30mph speed limit was sensible.

Yeah, that's not an unreasonable position to take. Sounds like a cockup somewhere.

[Pannywagon]

Dick Turpin said:

Yeah, that's not an unreasonable position to take. Sounds like a cockup somewhere.

Glad I'm not going totally mad!

Here's the rule in question:

D3.7.28 Speed reduction should be considered on a case-by-case basis and should involve a site-specifi c risk
assessment. Generally for motorways and dual carriageway roads normally subject to the national speed limit,
a temporary maximum speed limit should not be less than 40 mph and for other high-speed roads not less than
30 mph. Temporary mandatory speed limits are not required for relaxation works.

Bearing in mind the roadworks were in the SC stretch after a roundabout (apart from some minimal nightworks at the roundabout and a prefab pedestrian bridge installed during a night shutdown) and not on the DC stretch I couldn't understand the justification for the speed limit.

The engineer was trying to tell me it was to get drivers ready for the 30mph limit after the roundabout, but he had no answer when I asked him why drivers couldn't be expected to modify their speed for the road conditions after the roundabout.

I think the Police realised it was a stupid speed limit and they didn't bother with it at all.

[turbobloke]

Dick Turpin said:

Pannywagon said:

Dick Turpin said:

Putting that into perspective, 70mph for 4 miles would take just under 3½ minutes.
30mph for 4 miles would take 8 minutes.

So you're complaining about less than 5 minutes delay.
Not really worth getting peeved over IMO.

It wasn't the delay I was concerned about. The issue was that the speed limit went against the regs that are in place to govern this sort of thing and because the speed limit was set way too low (no roadworks, no narrow lanes and no reason for it) those who were doing 30 (ish) were running the risk of getting hit by those who refused to slow down.

Obviously, the drivers who were speeding would be responsible for their actions, but I feel that the ultimate responsibility would have to lie with the muppet who decided that a blanket 30mph speed limit was sensible.

Yeah, that's not an unreasonable position to take. Sounds like a cockup somewhere.

It sure does. At least one Coroner has in the past stated at inquest that a speed limit set too low was in all probability a contributory factor in a road death.

Suffolk Coroner at a road death inquest said:

This is the Coroner's Verdict re Frank Gray deceased. I accept Dr Biedrzycki's report as to the medical cause of death and it follows from that that I find that the injury causing death is: "1(a) Multiple Injuries". I now come to the most important part of my Verdict and that is the legal cause of death, what is called on the Verdict form "Conclusion of the Coroner as to the Death". Quite plainly, I only have one reasonable Verdict open to me there and that is one of Accidental Death. Part 3 of my Verdict which I have deliberately skipped until now is the time place and circumstances at or in which the injury was sustained, I find that that was between 6 and 6.10am on the 4th November 1996 on the A134 road at Bradfield Combust, circumstances: "due to a road traffic accident". I have had reported to me three fatal accidents on this road and these three fatal accidents follow very shortly after certain speed limits have been imposed on this road at Alpheton, Bradfield Combust and Sicklesmere. I think that there is a very high probability indeed that this tragic fatality has the speed limits as a contributory cause.

[turbobloke]

This clarifies the position further:

Coroner said:

I am going to deal with the speed limit at Bradfield Combust first. I think almost
anybody would agree that it is thoroughly reasonable to restrict cars to 40 miles per
hour as they negotiate the double bend which is, coming from Sudbury, just beyond
the Bradfield Manger. Not only is there a double bend there but also there is a road junction. However, I think that the 40 mile an hour speed limit extends too far in either direction from there and I think that it would be more reasonable and that more drivers would keep to the limit if where the 40 mile an hour signs are at the moment, that is at the ends of the speed limits, there were 50 mile an hour signs and a bit later on the legal speed was reduced to 40 miles an hour. In respect of the speed limits through Sicklesmere and Alpheton, I don't think there can be any doubt whatsoever that 30 miles an hour is ridiculously slow to compel drivers to go through those two villages.

[MrBarry123]

10/10 for effort OP.

Some get caught at 35mph, you get caught at 85mph.

[lukexy]

Devil2575 said:

joefraser said:

grand cherokee said:

i'll take a risk here and suggest the guy is from one of our ethnic groups?

the type of post and the link to his previous post about being a 'named driver' makes this spring to mind

i'm happy to be proved wrong

Wow.


What relevance does that have at all?

The guys a plum for driving quick, your generalisations/assumptions about his ethnicity are embarrassing.

This.

Who cares about my ethnicity what the heck this is Pistonheads...

[lukexy]

MrBarry123 said:

10/10 for effort OP.

Some get caught at 35mph, you get caught at 85mph.

Yup not proud of it but at least i will learn from my mistakes now,

Just a killer waiting for this letter to appear in the post.

[Hamish Finn]

lukexy said:

Just a killer waiting for this letter to appear in the post.

Now calm down, you're not a killer.

This time.

And more good news! As all this never happened anyway, the letter will never appear in the post!

Result, innit.

[lukexy]

For anyone who cares I have been to court today. 57 day ban and a £450 fine and 85£ court costs

Looks like I'll be on the road again sooner then all you little trolls on here thought you bunch of try hard fks.

Thanks to the people who tired to help I have been very lucky indeed.

[Zoon]

lukexy said:

For anyone who cares I have been to court today. 57 day ban and a £450 fine and 85£ court costs

Looks like I'll be on the road again sooner then all you little trolls on here thought you bunch of try hard fks.

Thanks to the people who tired to help I have been very lucky indeed.

Assuming you realise how lucky you've been, maybe you'll take it steadier in future to avoid having to post another thread explaining how you've killed somebody. 70 on a normal road is ridiculous and I'm amazed at the folks who have tried to defend doing 85. No excuse at all.

[anonymous-user]

Surely you have to retake your test too as obviously you can't read road signs.

Judging by your smug attitude towards other posters I'm sure you'll be posting this on Facebook or what ever, nearly triple the speed limit and you get 57 day ban, that's ridiculous.

'yeh, doin 85 in a 30, got off innit, f** d polize'.

[lukexy]

Zoon said:

Assuming you realise how lucky you've been, maybe you'll take it steadier in future to avoid having to post another thread explaining how you've killed somebody. 70 on a normal road is ridiculous and I'm amazed at the folks who have tried to defend doing 85. No excuse at all.

Let me worry about that buddy cheers.

[lukexy]

Trexthedinosaur said:

Surely you have to retake your test too as obviously you can't read road signs.

Judging by your smug attitude towards other posters I'm sure you'll be posting this on Facebook or what ever, nearly triple the speed limit and you get 57 day ban, that's ridiculous.

'yeh, doin 85 in a 30, got off innit, f** d polize'.

Hahaha stay mad son it's called a good mitigating statement no need to cry about it prick.

[lbc]

lukexy said:

For anyone who cares I have been to court today. 57 day ban and a £450 fine and 85£ court costs

Looks like I'll be on the road again sooner then all you little trolls on here thought you bunch of try hard fks.

That's assuming you can get insured.

Insurance companies don't like banned drivers.

[lukexy]

lbc said:

That's assuming you can get insured.

Insurance companies don't like banned drivers.

Any driver policy so yeah keep trying mate

[SlackBladder]

lukexy said:

For anyone who cares I have been to court today. 57 day ban and a £450 fine and 85£ court costs

Looks like I'll be on the road again sooner then all you little trolls on here thought you bunch of try hard fks.

Thanks to the people who tired to help I have been very lucky indeed.

That's a great result!

In court, convicted, fined, out and posted the result by 9.32

[anonymous-user]

lukexy said:

Any driver policy so yeah keep trying mate

You are driving as a named driver? You still need to declare any previous convictions ..

[lukexy]

Trexthedinosaur said:

You are driving as a named driver? You still need to declare any previous convictions ..

No I'm not named it's any driver over the age of 25 fully comp or 21 3rd party I don't need to declare anything already checked pal.