12 Points on the Horizon...

[TooMany2cvs]

LunarOne said:

In my entire 25-year driving career I've only ever received points once, and that was for a lane change that the police decided was "undertaking".

DWC&A/Careless?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

The question on this thread is not whether people speed or not, but how they would behave if they were on 9 points.

The OP's attitude seems to be that getting banned on totting up is an occupational hazard and it's pure luck whether you get to 12 points or not. And it's all a big scam anyway.

I just can't see that. If I was on 9 points I just wouldn't speed. I wouldn't risk any amber lights, I wouldn't stop for 30 seconds on the zig zags. I just wouldn't do it. I would stick to every rule going.

If that makes me a compliant fool, so be it. But I'm a compliant fool with a licence.

[TooMany2cvs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

IS it a big scam? Look at the alternative - no speed limit on any road anywhere. Not exactly enticing, is it? So the question is just one of how those limits are enforced, and at what point leniency stops in favour of prosecution.


In a 30, damn near 20% over before any action's taken, then 40% over before the option of a half-day tea-and-biscuits education session is withdrawn. Damn near 70% over before you get a definite date with a magistrate.

In a 70, you've got just over 10% for not-much-happening, over 20% before the tea goes cold, and about 40% before you're getting the suit out.

That's pretty damn lenient, really.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Really...?
Never been paid in cash for anything that should have gone on the tax return? Never brought a bit more through customs than you should've? Never left any litter anywhere? Never been just a bit loud and lairy after a few drinkies too many? When you were a kid, never filch a couple of sweets or a mag from the newsagents while his back was turned, when you should have been in school anyway?

anonymous said:

[redacted]

<raises eyebrow> And you think that's a decent comparison, do you?

[cmaguire]

The alternative to the existing speed limits is not solely no speed limits.
And leniency measured on punishment by % over is only valid if we accept that the limits are reasonable in the first place.

[Roo]

The only person I know of among friends and family who have points on their licence is my 77 year old mum who got done for doing 45 in a 30.

I don't know about anyone also because they've never said/I've never asked.

[TooMany2cvs]

cmaguire said:

The alternative to the existing speed limits is not solely no speed limits.

But when we talk about "It's all a big scam, getting nicked for speeding", we're not talking about the appropriateness of the limits, are we? We're talking about the basic concept. You might think 70 is not the right speed for a motorway, or 50 on a motorway when there's a warning of a hazard ahead, or 30 in a town. But you KNOW that's what it is, and you CHOOSE to go above it anyway.

[cmaguire]

TooMany2cvs said:

But when we talk about "It's all a big scam, getting nicked for speeding", we're not talking about the appropriateness of the limits, are we? We're talking about the basic concept. You might think 70 is not the right speed for a motorway, or 50 on a motorway when there's a warning of a hazard ahead, or 30 in a town. But you KNOW that's what it is, and you CHOOSE to go above it anyway.

If the cameras (which are ultimately the cause of all the angst) were all we were dealing with then I can accept, but disagree, with your point.
However, these cameras are now operating in conjunction with inappropriately reduced limits in many cases. The most obvious of these are 60 limits that have in many cases been reduced to 50 or 40. Or even 30 in some cases.

[0000]

NJK44 said:

Most people at work simply can't afford a car or don't want to own one at this point in time.

And no, they all commute by car. I'm assuming they just don't break the law..

If they don't own it they probably are breaking a law. I wish I worked somewhere most people can't afford a car, I'd have a fighting chance of finding a space then.

[0000]

TooMany2cvs said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Really...?
Never been paid in cash for anything that should have gone on the tax return? Never brought a bit more through customs than you should've? Never left any litter anywhere? Never been just a bit loud and lairy after a few drinkies too many? When you were a kid, never filch a couple of sweets or a mag from the newsagents while his back was turned, when you should have been in school anyway?

What are you admitting to?!

Can't say I've ever done those things, other than probably being a bit loud after a few drinks too many but I'm not sure that's a crime. Sheltered life I guess.

[LunarOne]

TooMany2cvs said:

LunarOne said:

In my entire 25-year driving career I've only ever received points once, and that was for a lane change that the police decided was "undertaking".

DWC&A/Careless?

Yes SP30 + CD10. A30 between Staines and Bedfont, 40mph DC. I was doing 55mph in lane 2, same speed as everyone else. Filter lane in central reservation allowing traffic to U-turn overflows and the line of traffic in my lane slows to a stop harshly. Noticing this going on up ahead I calmly mirror-signal-manoeuvre into lane 1 so as not to have to slow down. However there's a roundabout half a mile ahead where I need to go right, so when I'm past the blockage I again mirror-signal-manoeuvre to get back into lane 2. Neither of my manoeuvres disturbed any other traffic.

I was stopped by an unmarked car after the roundabout, and they said I had been driving without due care. Apparently they weren't bothered about my speed, but now that I was stopped they were going to do me for speeding and without due care. I was young at 19 and ready to argue the point. I accepted the speeding as I clearly was speeding but I told them that I was very careful, and that had I been driving without due care, I would have found myself also having to stop gingerly. In fact, I told the officer, the only reason they were still behind me rather than stuck in the stationary line of traffic in L2 is because they had done exactly the same as me. Office Dibble then told me that if it wasn't careless, then I must have been driving like that purposely and therefore maybe he should report me for dangerous driving rather than just without due care.

Anyway, I was (and still am) positive that what I had done was neither dangerous nor careless, in fact my manoeuvre showed that I was paying full attention to the traffic conditions ahead.

We went to court, and me never having been anywhere near a court room had no idea and duly lost the case. Having replayed things in my mind hundreds of times, I'm sure I could have argued against the due care, but in the end I got 3 points for SP30 and an extra point for the CD10 making 4 in total, plus a small fine. This was more than 20 years ago though, so I can't remember how much it was exactly.

After the points I was definitely on my best behaviour for a few months. Nowadays I drive far faster and much more aggressively. I'm also much more observant, so I've avoided any more points.

[TooMany2cvs]

cmaguire said:

TooMany2cvs said:

But when we talk about "It's all a big scam, getting nicked for speeding", we're not talking about the appropriateness of the limits, are we? We're talking about the basic concept. You might think 70 is not the right speed for a motorway, or 50 on a motorway when there's a warning of a hazard ahead, or 30 in a town. But you KNOW that's what it is, and you CHOOSE to go above it anyway.

If the cameras (which are ultimately the cause of all the angst) were all we were dealing with then I can accept, but disagree, with your point.
However, these cameras are now operating in conjunction with inappropriately reduced limits in many cases. The most obvious of these are 60 limits that have in many cases been reduced to 50 or 40. Or even 30 in some cases.

You might think that they're inappropriately reduced. I might agree with you in some case. But that's irrelevant. You and I both KNOW they're reduced, and you and I both CHOOSE to ignore that reduction. It really doesn't change my point.

[TooMany2cvs]

0000 said:

TooMany2cvs said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Really...?
Never been paid in cash for anything that should have gone on the tax return? Never brought a bit more through customs than you should've? Never left any litter anywhere? Never been just a bit loud and lairy after a few drinkies too many? When you were a kid, never filch a couple of sweets or a mag from the newsagents while his back was turned, when you should have been in school anyway?

What are you admitting to?!

Can't say I've ever done those things

Really...? <looks sceptical>
And, yes, I may very well have done any and all of those at least once. Perhaps not as regularly or recently as I've exceeded the speed limit, sure, but...

0000 said:

other than probably being a bit loud after a few drinks too many but I'm not sure that's a crime. Sheltered life I guess.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/80/section/91

[TooMany2cvs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

And you miss mine.

Comparing something that most people would regard as very serious with something most people would regard as very minor is not a great way to demonstrate their attitude to minor offences in general.

[selym]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The question on this thread is not whether people speed or not, but how they would behave if they were on 9 points.

The OP's attitude seems to be that getting banned on totting up is an occupational hazard and it's pure luck whether you get to 12 points or not. And it's all a big scam anyway.

I just can't see that. If I was on 9 points I just wouldn't speed. I wouldn't risk any amber lights, I wouldn't stop for 30 seconds on the zig zags. I just wouldn't do it. I would stick to every rule going.

If that makes me a compliant fool, so be it. But I'm a compliant fool with a licence.

I'd seriously consider not driving unless I had to. Can anyone really afford to lose their licence?

[surveyor_101]

NJK44 said:

Some people in here acting like they all stick to variable speed limits, when the reality is 99% of people ignore them and carry on their merry way at 70-80.

99% of people aren't car enthusiasts who take their driving seriously. Driving unless focused is a over learn't task and most people drive on autopilot. Therefore they will not react to SOME changes in conditions in some cases. Switching you eyes to full beam and dipped would assist in identifying the upcoming gantry and modifying your speed to the one displayed.

I managed to drive the m25 twice in the last 6 weeks and achieve matched speed to the gantries. If you are on auto pilot at 70/80/90 or whatever the car you stuff up the back end of in lane 3/4 is doing you will possibly miss the change as you mind was not on the task in hand. Then its HE's cashcow plan and not the drivers fault.

[TooMany2cvs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Because only somebody with some seriously sociopathic tendencies would suggest it was. What result do you think you'd get if you asked people to compare attitudes to bringing too many bottles of duty free through the green channel at Heathrow with drink-driving whilst banned and uninsured, say?

[TooMany2cvs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That you're deliberately skewing the point you're trying to make.

Compare speeding with another minor offence, not with a serious one.

[TooMany2cvs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Then I clearly am. What IS it?

[TooMany2cvs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Oh. Right. So it is just as I understood it to be, then.

A bit of a daft, meaningless comparison between a really minor offence on one side and a bloody serious one on the other side, massively deliberately skewed to try to prove something that it really doesn't.

[TooMany2cvs]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

One of us is.

I don't think it's me.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So, basically, your point is that people view minor offences as being more minor than serious offences? Well, thanks for that. I'm glad you're here to clear it all up.

There was me, thinking that it was relevant that you'd chosen "speeding" as the minor offence, and you were trying to make some point about motoring offences in particular.