68 in a 60

[driverrob]

I can empathise with the OP.
Some years ago I learned that in NZ, over special holiday periods, all discretion vanishes. My only speeding ticket in 50 years on the road for 106 in a 100 limit

[anonymous-user]

cmaguire said:

So you acknowledge that you think many limits unjustified, yet take the high ground because you don't whinge about it if caught.
Seems a bit incongruous to me.

I don't own the roads, control public opinion or otherwise set the agenda. I'm allowed to use the roads in return for abiding by a set of rules.

I don't follow or agree with every rule and I understand it's at my own risk to do so. Nothing incongruous in accepting punishment for breaking a rule I've decided I don't wish to abide by.

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

Said benefits are largely poorly-defined and often tenuous - besides being poorly supported by the data.

Yes, well it's difficult to demonstrate the benefits of speed limits without having a control group.

So it's currently based on little more than belief then.

No, it's based on reason.

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

But that's another matter - we're talking about their enforcement here, and many of the ACPO guidelines often appear to be either ignored or 'interpreted' by the enforcers.

Guidelines being used as guidelines shocker!

Guidelines being ignored aren't being used as guidelines

Have you actually read them, btw?

You evidently don't understand what 'guideline' means.

[Pete317]

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

Said benefits are largely poorly-defined and often tenuous - besides being poorly supported by the data.

Yes, well it's difficult to demonstrate the benefits of speed limits without having a control group.

So it's currently based on little more than belief then.

No, it's based on reason.

A lot of it faulty and unsupported by the data.

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

But that's another matter - we're talking about their enforcement here, and many of the ACPO guidelines often appear to be either ignored or 'interpreted' by the enforcers.

Guidelines being used as guidelines shocker!

Guidelines being ignored aren't being used as guidelines

Have you actually read them, btw?

You evidently don't understand what 'guideline' means.

Guidelines, established by someone to set codes of practice as well as ethical and moral standards.

Yes, they can be ignored, but they really ought not to be in civilised society.

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

Said benefits are largely poorly-defined and often tenuous - besides being poorly supported by the data.

Yes, well it's difficult to demonstrate the benefits of speed limits without having a control group.

So it's currently based on little more than belief then.

No, it's based on reason.

A lot of it faulty and unsupported by the data.

There isn't any data, and your disagreeing with the reasoning behind speed limits is not the same as it being faulty.

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

But that's another matter - we're talking about their enforcement here, and many of the ACPO guidelines often appear to be either ignored or 'interpreted' by the enforcers.

Guidelines being used as guidelines shocker!

Guidelines being ignored aren't being used as guidelines

Have you actually read them, btw?

You evidently don't understand what 'guideline' means.

Guidelines, established by someone to set codes of practice as well as ethical and moral standards.

Yes, they can be ignored, but they really ought not to be in civilised society.

Most of the time they are not ignored. If some drivers didn't ignore the speed limits there would be no need for guidelines to deal with their behaviour. Consider this part of our conversation at an end, I will continue to correct you on the other matter.

[jm doc]

janesmith1950 said:

cmaguire said:

Trouble is, salaried idiots keep playing around with the limits, near enough always in the same direction. Is there a point at which your acceptance wanes and you just think "Boll@cks to it"?

Yes, often, however I don't cry foul if I get caught!

perhaps that makes you a sheep

[jm doc]

janesmith1950 said:

cmaguire said:

So you acknowledge that you think many limits unjustified, yet take the high ground because you don't whinge about it if caught.
Seems a bit incongruous to me.

I don't own the roads, control public opinion or otherwise set the agenda. I'm allowed to use the roads in return for abiding by a set of rules.

I don't follow or agree with every rule and I understand it's at my own risk to do so. Nothing incongruous in accepting punishment for breaking a rule I've decided I don't wish to abide by.

You're "allowed" to use the roads. And you're unceasingly grateful for that. Well done

Edited by jm doc on Monday 28th November 00:09

[Pete317]

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

Said benefits are largely poorly-defined and often tenuous - besides being poorly supported by the data.

Yes, well it's difficult to demonstrate the benefits of speed limits without having a control group.

So it's currently based on little more than belief then.

No, it's based on reason.

A lot of it faulty and unsupported by the data.

There isn't any data, and your disagreeing with the reasoning behind speed limits is not the same as it being faulty.

There's plenty of data - just one tiny example being the decades of casualty data which show that approx 1% of pedestrians hit by cars in 30mph limits are killed.
None of the reasoning I've seen so far comes close to explaining why this figure isn't a lot higher.

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

But that's another matter - we're talking about their enforcement here, and many of the ACPO guidelines often appear to be either ignored or 'interpreted' by the enforcers.

Guidelines being used as guidelines shocker!

Guidelines being ignored aren't being used as guidelines

Have you actually read them, btw?

You evidently don't understand what 'guideline' means.

Guidelines, established by someone to set codes of practice as well as ethical and moral standards.

Yes, they can be ignored, but they really ought not to be in civilised society.

Most of the time they are not ignored. If some drivers didn't ignore the speed limits there would be no need for guidelines to deal with their behaviour. Consider this part of our conversation at an end, I will continue to correct you on the other matter.

Oh, I get it now - you're apparently concentrating specifically on section 9.6, and ignoring the rest of the document, eg section 1.1

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

cmaguire said:

tapereel said:

Perhaps the way you meant it was that limits should be 'unenforced' or driver's should 'self-regulate'.

I think the attitude and approach to speed enforcement and limits was about right in the eighties, bar the 70 limit being at least 10mph too slow.
Cameras have brought with them a whole lot of baggage that has only tenuous if any links to their claimed purpose in many instances.

The claimed purpose is to catch people who are speeding. Hardly tenuous.

That would make the law self-serving

No, because the purpose of speed limits are safety, environment, social acceptability etc.
The cameras purpose is catching people who don't obey the speed limits (& through that attempt to influence/change future behaviour in respect of chosen speed).

Enforcement which is seen as being done for the sake of enforcement is not in the public interest, besides going against the ACPO guidelines.

It's for the sake of the benefits that speed limits offer.
If speed limits don't offer a benefit then we simply shouldn't have them, then there'd be no enforcement of them.
Speed limits = enforcement as a consequence of their existence & the need for that existence.
No speed limits = no enforcement as there is no need for them to exist.

Said benefits are largely poorly-defined and often tenuous - besides being poorly supported by the data.

But that's another matter - we're talking about their enforcement here, and many of the ACPO guidelines often appear to be either ignored or 'interpreted' by the enforcers.

ACPO guidelines were that they'd expect that people would have been reported by the time they got 10% + 2mph over the limit unless there were exceptional circumstances.
You're right that often gets ignored & people don't get reported for speeds beyond that.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

We're in a halfway house, it would require a massive ramp up of interventions for it not to be.

We're on Everest's North face at the moment. Are the camera companies trading on the stock exchange, at least if I had some shares I could get some solace from all of this.

You're having a laugh, it's more like a grassy knoll.
A minute fraction of infringements result in fines & it's no great secret where you're most likely to be caught & reported if you exceed the limit.
Pretty easily avoidable.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 27th November 22:30

[tapereel]

singlecoil said:

cmaguire said:

tapereel said:

Perhaps the way you meant it was that limits should be 'unenforced' or driver's should 'self-regulate'.

I think the attitude and approach to speed enforcement and limits was about right in the eighties, bar the 70 limit being at least 10mph too slow.
Cameras have brought with them a whole lot of baggage that has only tenuous if any links to their claimed purpose in many instances.

The claimed purpose is to catch people who are speeding. Hardly tenuous.

And by that function deter drivers who would chose to exceed the limit if no risk of detection was perceived. Still not tenuous in the least.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

ACPO guidelines were that they'd expect that people would have been reported by the time they got 10% + 2mph over the limit unless there were exceptional circumstances.
You're right that often gets ignored & people don't get reported for speeds beyond that.

As in my reply to singlecoil above - try reading the rest of the document, like sect 1.1 for example.
Only a very small part of the guidelines deals with enforcement thresholds, but that's apparently the only bit you guys see.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

You're having a laugh, it's more like a grassy knoll.
A minute fraction of infringements result in fines & it's no great secret where your most likely to be caught & reported if you exceed the limit.
Pretty easily avoidable.

The last couple of years these cameras are breeding like rabbits. We might be at the early stages of the ascent but recent form indicates a tough climb.
The Motorway would be the answer to your second comment, the safest roads in the country where speed has the least consequence. Why do we put up with this?

[cmaguire]

Why should I be most conscious of my speed on the roads where it matters the least? Madness.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

Why should I be most conscious of my speed on the roads where it matters the least? Madness.

Matters least?
To who?
You?


Wherever there is a limit in force it you're supposed to be complying with it, otherwise there'd be no point in imposing the limit if there was no such expectation. You should be conscious of your speed on any road.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 27th November 22:50

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

ACPO guidelines were that they'd expect that people would have been reported by the time they got 10% + 2mph over the limit unless there were exceptional circumstances.
You're right that often gets ignored & people don't get reported for speeds beyond that.

As in my reply to singlecoil above - try reading the rest of the document, like sect 1.1 for example.
Only a very small part of the guidelines deals with enforcement thresholds, but that's apparently the only bit you guys see.

I've read the documents many times, which bit is your beef about?

(Even though ACPO guidelines are defunct, ACPO doesn't exist).

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

Matters least?
To who?
You?

What is the reason speed limits should not be exceeded? Is it more or less wrong to exceed the limit on the Motorway rather than an urban street?

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

ACPO guidelines were that they'd expect that people would have been reported by the time they got 10% + 2mph over the limit unless there were exceptional circumstances.
You're right that often gets ignored & people don't get reported for speeds beyond that.

As in my reply to singlecoil above - try reading the rest of the document, like sect 1.1 for example.
Only a very small part of the guidelines deals with enforcement thresholds, but that's apparently the only bit you guys see.

I've read the documents many times, which bit is your beef about?

(Even though ACPO guidelines are defunct, ACPO doesn't exist).

I didn't say I had a beef about any of it - merely pointing out that there's a lot more to it than sect 9.6

[cmaguire]

Pete317 said:

I didn't say I had a beef about any of it - merely pointing out that there's a lot more to it than sect 9.6

And half of that is contradictory.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

Matters least?
To who?
You?

What is the reason speed limits should not be exceeded? Is it more or less wrong to exceed the limit on the Motorway rather than an urban street?

The limits exist for many reasons.
Wherever they exist we aren't supposed to be exceeding them, hence the legislation & sanctions for doing so.