Police order drivers to speed up ...
Discussion
but doesn't speed kill?
OK, it was on the M4 and it was the mobile protest against the fuel price, but threatening to book drivers for travelling slowly when there is no minimum speed limit and the overtaking lane was not being used by the protestors ...
Mind you, it would be nice if the traffic on many bits of the M25 got up to 40 occasionally
.
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Sunday 18th September 06:25
OK, it was on the M4 and it was the mobile protest against the fuel price, but threatening to book drivers for travelling slowly when there is no minimum speed limit and the overtaking lane was not being used by the protestors ...
Mind you, it would be nice if the traffic on many bits of the M25 got up to 40 occasionally
. Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Sunday 18th September 06:25
evenin' all
streaky said:
but doesn't speed kill?
OK, it was on the M4 and it was the mobile protest against the fuel price, but threatening to book drivers for travelling slowly when there is no minimum speed limit and the overtaking lane was not being used by the protestors ...
I'd agree Streaky, as I commented on the other thread I have difficulty rationalising those commands.
I would guess whoever gave that instruction is a) not traffic plod (pure guess) and b) never actually driven a heavy. (again a guess...)
One traffic school used to have an old AEC tractor unit and full height box on a twin axle trailer so that people could experience just how bad the visibility was and how noisy with all the rattles and bangs from everywhere.
The thing was so underpowered that anything of a head wind and it used to drop below 50 even on the flat, add anything of an incline. God knows what it would have been like to drive laden.
Personally I think some issues in policing of that protest were questionable. Just my private opinion.
Lol, this government really is loosing the plot, and making the police look even more stupid for trying to enforce the most contradicting reasoning.
Slow down, but speed up. Infact, drive at EXACTLY 70mph since then we can make the odd fine if you go over 70mph, and if you go under 70mph, we'll do you for terrorism and trying to disrupt the economy.
And all the time you'll be looking at your speedo increasing the chances of an accident by a squillion
Ah, the UK, we really are a joke of a country. Other nations must laugh at us they really must!
Dave
Slow down, but speed up. Infact, drive at EXACTLY 70mph since then we can make the odd fine if you go over 70mph, and if you go under 70mph, we'll do you for terrorism and trying to disrupt the economy.
And all the time you'll be looking at your speedo increasing the chances of an accident by a squillion
Ah, the UK, we really are a joke of a country. Other nations must laugh at us they really must!
Dave
Which bit are you all having trouble rationalising?
There was a protest, so the 'powers that be' ordered the Rozzers to keep disruption to a minimum. Mr and Mrs Plod want to get paid at the end of the week, so did as they were told (as most do).
I personally think the UK is great, and I can't stand those who keep on maoning about it. BUT....it's not perfect, and genuine freedom of speech and action is one of the bits missing. It's been going on for a long time, and I'm amazed that people are still surprised by it.
P.S. can we please stop reducing the effectiveness of the argument by claiming that glancing at a speedo is really really really dangerous. It may be unecessary, but come on....
There was a protest, so the 'powers that be' ordered the Rozzers to keep disruption to a minimum. Mr and Mrs Plod want to get paid at the end of the week, so did as they were told (as most do).
I personally think the UK is great, and I can't stand those who keep on maoning about it. BUT....it's not perfect, and genuine freedom of speech and action is one of the bits missing. It's been going on for a long time, and I'm amazed that people are still surprised by it.
P.S. can we please stop reducing the effectiveness of the argument by claiming that glancing at a speedo is really really really dangerous. It may be unecessary, but come on....
Big Fat F'er said:
P.S. can we please stop reducing the effectiveness of the argument by claiming that glancing at a speedo is really really really dangerous. It may be unecessary, but come on....
I dont think a quick glance of the speedo explaines the situation. I know personally as soon as I see apolice car I check and double check to make sure that I am not breaking the speed limit.
I have also lost count of the amount of times I have driven along straight dual carriageways with a 40mph limit at 35mph and the person in front of me has glanced and seen the camera late and as an immediate reaction stabbed onto their brakes...
As well as a taxpayer, I am an honest and public spirited citizen. In nine years of driving I have never even got close to causing a traffic accident. The only times I have been involved in an accident has been where (on two separate occasions) by car has been stationary and a woman has driven into the back of me. Once they were looking behind them, the other time they were 'texting'.
Yet, the overall feeling I have is that although I always drive safely and never even close to my car's or my own limit I feel ostracised and alienated by the system and unfortunately those who have the unfortunate job of implementing it: the police.
Is it just me?
justinp1 said:
P.S. can we please stop reducing the effectiveness of the argument by claiming that glancing at a speedo is really really really dangerous. It may be unecessary, but come on....
I dont think a quick glance of the speedo explaines the situation. I know personally as soon as I see apolice car I check and double check to make sure that I am not breaking the speed limit.
I have also lost count of the amount of times I have driven along straight dual carriageways with a 40mph limit at 35mph and the person in front of me has glanced and seen the camera late and as an immediate reaction stabbed onto their brakes...
As well as a taxpayer, I am an honest and public spirited citizen. In nine years of driving I have never even got close to causing a traffic accident. The only times I have been involved in an accident has been where (on two separate occasions) by car has been stationary and a woman has driven into the back of me. Once they were looking behind them, the other time they were 'texting'.
Yet, the overall feeling I have is that although I always drive safely and never even close to my car's or my own limit I feel ostracised and alienated by the system and unfortunately those who have the unfortunate job of implementing it: the police.
Is it just me?
I agree with you, and it's not just you.
I just dont by this "oh it's so dangerous to look at the speedo". It's not (unless you are a numpty).
Big Fat F'er said:
Which bit are you all having trouble rationalising?
Think about it.....
Drivers were instructed to use lane 1 only and keep to a minimum speed of 50 mph.
Most of these vehicles are speed limited to 56 mph (90kph). A few might be limited to 85 kph(53mph) for reasons we'll not go into as it's a side issue.
So this convoy of vehicles travelling at between 50 and 56 mph catch up a slower moving vehicle that is not part of the protest. Overtake in lane 2? offence; slow down to comply with lane 1 only instruction? again an offence. Both contrived but nevertheless offences in accordance with the instructions drivers were given.
Then we get to sections of the road involving off and on slips. They cannot move out into lane 2 to assist other vehicles to enter the motorway, lane 1 only remember. Equally trying to make adequate space around their vehicles to let other traffic leave and enter across the convoy. They can't speed up to make space behind their vehicle as the limiter kicks in. Can't slow down much as then drop below 50.
The instruction was designed to make the protest legally impossible so that anyone and everyone could, in theory, be charged.
Why you bring the subject of the implications of speedo watching I don't know.
On a side issue relating to speed limiters.
Yet to see any objective evidence as to the benefits of vehicle speed limiters. The DfT statistics that are publicly available together with some privately held figures make it impossible to prove the case either way.
The limit for a heavy on a motorway is 60 mph. So why are limiters set to 56 mph. It could be argued that this is to conform with EU rules.
Anecdotally it is more because of the "logic" (inverted " quite deliberate) that if limiters set to 56 mph then vehicles cannot exceed the 60mph limit.
VOSA quite clear that;
a) legislation will be put in place to ban all vehicles, required to be fitted with a road speed limiter, from using the offside lane on 3 or more lane motorways, and
b)once all the changes to vehicles requiring road speed limiters have taken place (after 1 January 2008), the national motorway speed limit for goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes and buses will be lowered.
The bits highlighted are direct quotes from VOSA.
Remember this doesn't just apply to heavies but now to anything >3.5t mgvw and > 8 seats.
Flat in Fifth said:
Which bit are you all having trouble rationalising?
Think about it.....
Drivers were instructed to use lane 1 only and keep to a minimum speed of 50 mph.
Most of these vehicles are speed limited to 56 mph (90kph). A few might be limited to 85 kph(53mph) for reasons we'll not go into as it's a side issue.
So this convoy of vehicles travelling at between 50 and 56 mph catch up a slower moving vehicle that is not part of the protest. Overtake in lane 2? offence; slow down to comply with lane 1 only instruction? again an offence. Both contrived but nevertheless offences in accordance with the instructions drivers were given.
Then we get to sections of the road involving off and on slips. They cannot move out into lane 2 to assist other vehicles to enter the motorway, lane 1 only remember. Equally trying to make adequate space around their vehicles to let other traffic leave and enter across the convoy. They can't speed up to make space behind their vehicle as the limiter kicks in. Can't slow down much as then drop below 50.
The instruction was designed to make the protest legally impossible so that anyone and everyone could, in theory, be charged.
Very similar to tactics as employed by more extreme govermnents in recent history in bid to control.
Was illogical instruction. Proves that 50mph speed limit as babbled by the greenies would not improve safety though. Better to raise it
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff