"SAFESPEED" in the London Lite Today
Discussion
deeps said:
TripleS said:
Anyhow Mrs TripleS has decided she fancies a few days in Cornwall, so we're going to have a tootle down there tomorrow. Save us a bit of nice weather Mr Deeps, if you would be so kind. 
Take care all, and best wishes,
Dave.
Take care all, and best wishes,
Dave.
I'm not quite that far down Dave, but it's been glorious down this way today.
If you're using the M5, watch out for specs cameras near Exeter when the motorway ends, there was a thread about them a couple of weeks back.
Ah yes, you're not quite where I thought. Having checked I see you're in Somerset. Anyhow thanks for the M5 SPECS info.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
deeps said:
vonhosen said:
Are you not an experienced & responsible driver & have you not been too hot into a hazard on occasion ?
Please tell me, you are & you haven't.
I know I am & I have.
Please tell me, you are & you haven't.
I know I am & I have.
If I may ask, what were the circumstances Von? Did it happen above or below the limit, and would the same thing have happened if you had glanced at your speedo?
Do those "hot" moments still happen, and if so do you believe it's because you don't use the speedo enough?
The mistakes I've made tended to be where I had attained speeds in excess of the limits & failed to lose enough on the approach to hazards to be "perfectly safe", so the speedo was not of a concern to me there. As I've said the speedo is for ensuring compliance with the limit at safe times between hazards more than anything.
I don't tend to get it wrong as much anymore, but that doesn't mean that I assume that I won't either. I do however witness experienced & responsible drivers doing so regularly.
The points from that are
1)We do make mistakes where judgement of speed are concerned however responsible & experienced we are.
2)We can't guarantee that we won't in future.
3)The more progress we try to make, the more likely those mistakes are & the worse the consequences are likely to be if it results in a collision.
We all have to attempt to drive safely to the circumstances at all times & that is going to mean traveling at speeds below the limit a lot of the time.
The limit therefore is inconsequential in adverse conditions if you are driving responsibly & as it is, so are speedo checks in the main at those times.
The limit is there to limit the progress that we can try to make between hazards at favourable times, so that the risks of 1), 2) & 3) are reduced. This is when the speedo is most used (at favourable safe times) to ensure compliance with the limit.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd February 22:29
vonhosen said:
[...]
I don't tend to get it wrong as much anymore, but that doesn't mean that I assume that I won't either. I do however witness experienced & responsible drivers doing so regularly.
The points from that are
1)We do make mistakes where judgement of speed are concerned however responsible & experienced we are.
2)We can't guarantee that we won't in future.
3)The more progress we try to make, the more likely those mistakes are & the worse the consequences are likely to be if it results in a collision.
I don't tend to get it wrong as much anymore, but that doesn't mean that I assume that I won't either. I do however witness experienced & responsible drivers doing so regularly.
The points from that are
1)We do make mistakes where judgement of speed are concerned however responsible & experienced we are.
2)We can't guarantee that we won't in future.
3)The more progress we try to make, the more likely those mistakes are & the worse the consequences are likely to be if it results in a collision.
Have you heard the phrase: "Of course you don't really start to learn to drive until you're driving well in excess of the speed limits" (or similar)?
Do you think it might be relevant here? [Further discussion on: www.safespeed.org.uk/problem2.html ]
Which is greater?
- the damage to skills gained by too much emphasis on speed limits?
OR
- the reduction in crash risk that comes from adhering to speed limits in low hazard environments?
And why?
safespeed said:
vonhosen said:
[...]
I don't tend to get it wrong as much anymore, but that doesn't mean that I assume that I won't either. I do however witness experienced & responsible drivers doing so regularly.
The points from that are
1)We do make mistakes where judgement of speed are concerned however responsible & experienced we are.
2)We can't guarantee that we won't in future.
3)The more progress we try to make, the more likely those mistakes are & the worse the consequences are likely to be if it results in a collision.
I don't tend to get it wrong as much anymore, but that doesn't mean that I assume that I won't either. I do however witness experienced & responsible drivers doing so regularly.
The points from that are
1)We do make mistakes where judgement of speed are concerned however responsible & experienced we are.
2)We can't guarantee that we won't in future.
3)The more progress we try to make, the more likely those mistakes are & the worse the consequences are likely to be if it results in a collision.
Have you heard the phrase: "Of course you don't really start to learn to drive until you're driving well in excess of the speed limits" (or similar)?
Do you think it might be relevant here? [Further discussion on: www.safespeed.org.uk/problem2.html ]
Which is greater?
- the damage to skills gained by too much emphasis on speed limits?
OR
- the reduction in crash risk that comes from adhering to speed limits in low hazard environments?
And why?
I would say that if everybody could be lucky enough to have had the level of training I have, then it would be for the better.
I would also say that if everybody tried to gain the experience I have, in the same amount of time that I have, without some form of appropriate training but instead simply through their own trial & error. That would IMHO lead to unacceptably high risks whilst they did so.
It is my opinion that if you are going to travel well in excess of the speed limits, the best manageable way of doing that, is to first have had instruction prior to going out & doing it. At the moment there is no recognised way that people can do that & that is why I have said that whilst I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea of people being able to do it, IMHO there first has to be a system of training & testing, to ensure they have reached a sufficient competence level that they may go out on their own & safely operate within these vastly different parameters.
The question over the respective risks/gains of that situation, is one for society to consider before determining whether they are going to allow it or not.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 4th February 01:21
deeps said:
herewego said:
Some bends have maximum advised speeds. A speedometer comes in pretty handy then.
There's one around here that is advised at 30 max, the handy speedo confirms what a nonsense that is when I take it comfortably at 60!
I came to the conclusion that maximum advised speeds are about half the speed that a competent driver in a reasonable road car could take it at without any drama
herewego said:
deeps said:
herewego said:
Some bends have maximum advised speeds. A speedometer comes in pretty handy then.
There's one around here that is advised at 30 max, the handy speedo confirms what a nonsense that is when I take it comfortably at 60!
Exactly. And if you didn't have your speedometer, how would you know if you were approaching at a reasonable speed or what you know to be a safe speed?
Edited by herewego on Saturday 3rd February 18:00
Not really h-w-g. It is useful to use the speedo to read the much higher speed that is safe for the max advised speed bends. I drive in competition on loose surfaced roads. In competition one drives to within 3 or 4 mile/h of the optimum/maximum speed. The concentration required makes it absolutely impossible to read the speedo and it does not feaure in competition driving process. On the public road at lower speeds and greater margins there is more time to look at the speedo but it is no more necessary for sage progress than in the forest. I mostly look at the speedo in the vicinity of cameras and enforcement blackspots; because exact numerical speed matters only at these places
Edited by Richard C on Sunday 4th February 02:04
vonhosen said:
deeps said:
vonhosen said:
Are you not an experienced & responsible driver & have you not been too hot into a hazard on occasion ?
Please tell me, you are & you haven't.
I know I am & I have.
Please tell me, you are & you haven't.
I know I am & I have.
If I may ask, what were the circumstances Von? Did it happen above or below the limit, and would the same thing have happened if you had glanced at your speedo?
Do those "hot" moments still happen, and if so do you believe it's because you don't use the speedo enough?
The mistakes I've made tended to be where I had attained speeds in excess of the limits & failed to lose enough on the approach to hazards to be "perfectly safe", so the speedo was not of a concern to me there. As I've said the speedo is for ensuring compliance with the limit at safe times between hazards more than anything.
I don't tend to get it wrong as much anymore, but that doesn't mean that I assume that I won't either. I do however witness experienced & responsible drivers doing so regularly.
The points from that are
1)We do make mistakes where judgement of speed are concerned however responsible & experienced we are.
2)We can't guarantee that we won't in future.
3)The more progress we try to make, the more likely those mistakes are & the worse the consequences are likely to be if it results in a collision.
We all have to attempt to drive safely to the circumstances at all times & that is going to mean traveling at speeds below the limit a lot of the time.
The limit therefore is inconsequential in adverse conditions if you are driving responsibly & as it is, so are speedo checks in the main at those times.
The limit is there to limit the progress that we can try to make between hazards at favourable times, so that the risks of 1), 2) & 3) are reduced. This is when the speedo is most used (at favourable safe times) to ensure compliance with the limit.
Good answer von, I don't agree with it all but thanks for being human.
Just one point, when you say "The limit is there to limit the progress that we can try to make between hazards at favourable times, so that the risks of 1), 2) & 3) are reduced" why then do the limits not apply to all drivers however responsible and experienced they are? Reading 1) 2) and 3) suggests they should, in your experience.
Do you believe emergency service drivers on a shout are more likely to be involved in a collision over any given journey than a competent ordinary driver/MOP?
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
vonhosen said:
[...]
I don't tend to get it wrong as much anymore, but that doesn't mean that I assume that I won't either. I do however witness experienced & responsible drivers doing so regularly.
The points from that are
1)We do make mistakes where judgement of speed are concerned however responsible & experienced we are.
2)We can't guarantee that we won't in future.
3)The more progress we try to make, the more likely those mistakes are & the worse the consequences are likely to be if it results in a collision.
I don't tend to get it wrong as much anymore, but that doesn't mean that I assume that I won't either. I do however witness experienced & responsible drivers doing so regularly.
The points from that are
1)We do make mistakes where judgement of speed are concerned however responsible & experienced we are.
2)We can't guarantee that we won't in future.
3)The more progress we try to make, the more likely those mistakes are & the worse the consequences are likely to be if it results in a collision.
Have you heard the phrase: "Of course you don't really start to learn to drive until you're driving well in excess of the speed limits" (or similar)?
Do you think it might be relevant here? [Further discussion on: www.safespeed.org.uk/problem2.html ]
Which is greater?
- the damage to skills gained by too much emphasis on speed limits?
OR
- the reduction in crash risk that comes from adhering to speed limits in low hazard environments?
And why?
I would say that if everybody could be lucky enough to have had the level of training I have, then it would be for the better.
I would also say that if everybody tried to gain the experience I have, in the same amount of time that I have, without some form of appropriate training but instead simply through their own trial & error. That would IMHO lead to unacceptably high risks whilst they did so.
It is my opinion that if you are going to travel well in excess of the speed limits, the best manageable way of doing that, is to first have had instruction prior to going out & doing it. At the moment there is no recognised way that people can do that & that is why I have said that whilst I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea of people being able to do it, IMHO there first has to be a system of training & testing, to ensure they have reached a sufficient competence level that they may go out on their own & safely operate within these vastly different parameters.
I more or less agree with all of that. But my point was slightly different.
I'm suggesting that the changes in speed enforcement over the last 20 years are sufficient to have a serious detrimental effect on the rate and extent of acquisition of driver skills.
It's helpful to consider a 'hot house' learning environment to prove that the effects exist. But if the effect is present AT ALL, ANYWHERE, it's more than reasonable to suggest that it is probably present to a lesser degree in the wider driving population.
vonhosen said:
The question over the respective risks/gains of that situation, is one for society to consider before determining whether they are going to allow it or not.
It certainly is. However the sort of expertise that is required to identify the problems correctly isn't present in researchers or in politicians. This is how we've arrived at the wrong policy; why Safe Speed exists; why I can run rings round their claims and drive a coach and horses through their 'research'.
deeps said:
vonhosen said:
deeps said:
vonhosen said:
Are you not an experienced & responsible driver & have you not been too hot into a hazard on occasion ?
Please tell me, you are & you haven't.
I know I am & I have.
Please tell me, you are & you haven't.
I know I am & I have.
If I may ask, what were the circumstances Von? Did it happen above or below the limit, and would the same thing have happened if you had glanced at your speedo?
Do those "hot" moments still happen, and if so do you believe it's because you don't use the speedo enough?
The mistakes I've made tended to be where I had attained speeds in excess of the limits & failed to lose enough on the approach to hazards to be "perfectly safe", so the speedo was not of a concern to me there. As I've said the speedo is for ensuring compliance with the limit at safe times between hazards more than anything.
I don't tend to get it wrong as much anymore, but that doesn't mean that I assume that I won't either. I do however witness experienced & responsible drivers doing so regularly.
The points from that are
1)We do make mistakes where judgement of speed are concerned however responsible & experienced we are.
2)We can't guarantee that we won't in future.
3)The more progress we try to make, the more likely those mistakes are & the worse the consequences are likely to be if it results in a collision.
We all have to attempt to drive safely to the circumstances at all times & that is going to mean traveling at speeds below the limit a lot of the time.
The limit therefore is inconsequential in adverse conditions if you are driving responsibly & as it is, so are speedo checks in the main at those times.
The limit is there to limit the progress that we can try to make between hazards at favourable times, so that the risks of 1), 2) & 3) are reduced. This is when the speedo is most used (at favourable safe times) to ensure compliance with the limit.
Good answer von, I don't agree with it all but thanks for being human.
Just one point, when you say "The limit is there to limit the progress that we can try to make between hazards at favourable times, so that the risks of 1), 2) & 3) are reduced" why then do the limits not apply to all drivers however responsible and experienced they are? Reading 1) 2) and 3) suggests they should, in your experience.
Do you believe emergency service drivers on a shout are more likely to be involved in a collision over any given journey than a competent ordinary driver/MOP?
The risks from 1), 2) & 3) are there for emergency service drivers as well, they are human & also make mistakes. The increased risks are decreed acceptable by society because of the benefits in emergency service drivers being able to exceed limits. In other words the increased gains are judged to outweigh the increased risks overall.
To try to limit the increase in risks to an absolute minimum, they are only allowed to use these exemptions at certain times & also only certain personnel. These personnel will have had to have had enhanced training, were subjected to a test (& retests) & are also subject to further monitoring. Of course a lot of the time where they wish to make further progress to aid them in that & further reduce risks, they will have the benefit of blue lights & two tones, which the member of the public will not. Although of course the police are less tied than nthe other emergency services (because of the nature of their work), to always having to use blue lights & two tones when exceeding limits.
It is riskier making the kind of progress that emergency service drivers do (even on blues & twos) than it is to just go with the traffic flow as a competent ordinary drver.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 4th February 10:19
Richard C said:
herewego said:
deeps said:
herewego said:
Some bends have maximum advised speeds. A speedometer comes in pretty handy then.
There's one around here that is advised at 30 max, the handy speedo confirms what a nonsense that is when I take it comfortably at 60!
Exactly. And if you didn't have your speedometer, how would you know if you were approaching at a reasonable speed or what you know to be a safe speed?
Edited by herewego on Saturday 3rd February 18:00
Not really h-w-g. It is useful to use the speedo to read the much higher speed that is safe for the max advised speed bends. I drive in competition on loose surfaced roads. In competition one drives to within 3 or 4 mile/h of the optimum/maximum speed. The concentration required makes it absolutely impossible to read the speedo and it does not feaure in competition driving process. On the public road at lower speeds and greater margins there is more time to look at the speedo but it is no more necessary for sage progress than in the forest. I mostly look at the speedo in the vicinity of cameras and enforcement blackspots; because exact numerical speed matters only at these places
Edited by Richard C on Sunday 4th February 02:04
I think you are right. Down our local and as you know .. large family and we are all motoring enthusiasts ..most say they fixate on speedo when they know there to be a speed trap.
This more or less renders the "cams slow people down/reduces incidents" to the nonsense it really is. :wink:
I think we drive according to how comfortable or how we or a passenger "feels".
My father-in-law does not look at a speedo.. but if he's a passenger with me (or anyone in the family) - he is astonishingly accurate in judging the speed at which he's travelling. IG (Hendon trained cop with several years of service behind him - and a good pal to me) who posts to Paul's site is the same. He notices everything - and to his credit .. tells you in a very inoffensive and fun way .. how you might tweak up an improvement.
- the guy is always right and to his credit too .. he manages to tame those who post in anger at a ping to Paulie's site too. Cut him half though.. like von and the former poster called "Streetcop" .. 
is etched right the way through him. But a good driver "reads" a road. You know if it's urban (30 mph or less), semi-urban (40 mph) or not built up .. 50 -70 mph
If I am in track day.. or even the odd amateur rally drive .. I do not look at the speedo .. but I have an idea of my speed as I can feel it and I sure know if I can stop safely on the correct side of the road in the distance I can see to be clear.
So far on track days .. I have either been one metre short of the line we drew.. or dead on it. On one occasion the wheels did go over by one metre.
I suppose practice does make some inroad towards the "elusive perfect".. but we do not encourage or motivate the frame of mind to continue a learning curve .. and this is where we are failing those already road victims and failing to prevent further trauma as a result of blinkered road safety policy.
Richard C said:
deeps said:
herewego said:
Some bends have maximum advised speeds. A speedometer comes in pretty handy then.
There's one around here that is advised at 30 max, the handy speedo confirms what a nonsense that is when I take it comfortably at 60!
I came to the conclusion that maximum advised speeds are about half the speed that a competent driver in a reasonable road car could take it at without any drama
This is yet another problem caused by blanket speed limits.
The sign posters cannot mark the atypical tightening radius bend in a sequence of flowing 80mph curves "Tightening Bend 60mph" when the arbitrary limit for the whole road is 60mph.
So, not only do blanket limits serve no good purpose they also preclude the use of sensibly informative limits to protect non-obvious hazards...
safespeed said:
My choice of words in 'perfectly safe' wasn't good, so let me try that again.
- I think speedos and speed limits are both useful and beneficial.
- What we're talking about is relative importance of speedo and speed limit compared with responsible behaviour and judgement - as used and displayed by real drivers in the real world.
- I think speedos and speed limits are both useful and beneficial.
- What we're talking about is relative importance of speedo and speed limit compared with responsible behaviour and judgement - as used and displayed by real drivers in the real world.
If that is really the case why are there hundreds of pages arguing this subject?
Is this really just about the relative importance of speed limits? I thought Safespeed was about drivers choosing their own safe speed regardless of a posted limit? And the abolishment of automated speed limit enforcement? And from some of the posts here the abolishment of limits altogether?
I don't agree because (1) speed limits aren't just there for safety and (2) I don't think drivers are anywhere near skilled enough to choose their own speed.
But driver responsibility and judgement still come way higher priority than speed ever will, I thought this was taken for granted.
s2art said:
spnracing said:
Its safe for drivers to select their own speed up to the posted limit in force.
What? No matter what the conditions or circumstances? So in poor conditions with kids running around its safe for drivers to select any speed up to the limit? You are off your trolley.
What I meant to say is "Drivers should select their own safe speed up to the posted limit in force".
But either way - as it stands now, in poor conditions with kids running around its safe for drivers to select any speed up to the limit.
Thats the way it is? Why am I off my trolley?
If this argument is about arbitrary limits and whether 31mph is dangerous when 30mph isn't, its the way laws work.
There are plenty of examples of limits in law like what defines someone to be a paedophile, what defines a drunk driver, etc.
The fact is that you have draw the line somewhere. And of course speed limits aren't just there for safety reasons.
spnracing said:
s2art said:
spnracing said:
Its safe for drivers to select their own speed up to the posted limit in force.
What? No matter what the conditions or circumstances? So in poor conditions with kids running around its safe for drivers to select any speed up to the limit? You are off your trolley.
What I meant to say is "Drivers should select their own safe speed up to the posted limit in force".
But either way - as it stands now, in poor conditions with kids running around its safe for drivers to select any speed up to the limit.
Thats the way it is? Why am I off my trolley?
If this argument is about arbitrary limits and whether 31mph is dangerous when 30mph isn't, its the way laws work.
There are plenty of examples of limits in law like what defines someone to be a paedophile, what defines a drunk driver, etc.
The fact is that you have draw the line somewhere. And of course speed limits aren't just there for safety reasons.
fluffnik said:
spnracing said:
The fact is that you have draw the line somewhere.
No you don't.
...not unless you want too much bad law.
Like we've got.
True, but the UK Gov has to be seen to be doing something.
Speed limits have nothing to do with road safety and
everything to do with politics. LJK Setright said
that many years ago and it is still true today.
spnracing said:
safespeed said:
My choice of words in 'perfectly safe' wasn't good, so let me try that again.
- I think speedos and speed limits are both useful and beneficial.
- What we're talking about is relative importance of speedo and speed limit compared with responsible behaviour and judgement - as used and displayed by real drivers in the real world.
- I think speedos and speed limits are both useful and beneficial.
- What we're talking about is relative importance of speedo and speed limit compared with responsible behaviour and judgement - as used and displayed by real drivers in the real world.
If that is really the case why are there hundreds of pages arguing this subject?
Is this really just about the relative importance of speed limits? I thought Safespeed was about drivers choosing their own safe speed regardless of a posted limit? And the abolishment of automated speed limit enforcement? And from some of the posts here the abolishment of limits altogether?
I don't agree because (1) speed limits aren't just there for safety and (2) I don't think drivers are anywhere near skilled enough to choose their own speed.
But driver responsibility and judgement still come way higher priority than speed ever will, I thought this was taken for granted.
A safe speed .. ist defined as the speed which suit the road condition at the time. This can be BELOW the lolly .. or blipping just over on occasion. It ist ALWAYS the distance wthin which you can see to be clear und can stop comfortably on your own side of the road .. without a skid or trail of rubber on tarmac
or a collision or near miss Since I do not see that much tyre marks on the roads (apart from near Gatsos
) ... it would seem that most can und do stop in that safe manner. dcb said:
fluffnik said:
spnracing said:
The fact is that you have draw the line somewhere.
No you don't.
...not unless you want too much bad law.
Like we've got.
True, but the UK Gov has to be seen to be doing something.
No it does not.
We already have too much knee-jerk law, we need less.
dcb said:
Speed limits have nothing to do with road safety and
everything to do with politics. LJK Setright said
that many years ago and it is still true today.
A sadly missed voice of sanity.
If politicians and scamerati want to save lives they should go clean hospitals.
spnracing said:
s2art said:
spnracing said:
Its safe for drivers to select their own speed up to the posted limit in force.
What? No matter what the conditions or circumstances? So in poor conditions with kids running around its safe for drivers to select any speed up to the limit? You are off your trolley.
What I meant to say is "Drivers should select their own safe speed up to the posted limit in force".
But either way - as it stands now, in poor conditions with kids running around its safe for drivers to select any speed up to the limit.
Cousin's school ist on a 40 mph road. They have not one problem.
We know of another on a 50 mph dual carriageway. No kids run over there either.
Perhaps these children are taught the Green Cross Code. Und taught to be responsible as part of life long skills
But then.. there ist the chav aged 12 who play chicken on M61
.. und two drivers are still receiving counselling over it two years later.. Und the one aged 15 who staggered into the roadway late at night.. having downed two bottles of neat vodka.. und the little girl who stepped in front of a bus in North Wales.. und had traces of booze in her system. Not illegal quantity but perhaps enough to make a slim 9 year old a bit "squiffy"
The answer to "children running around" ist quite simple: It ist called "repsonsible parenting" which mean you trained them to have road sense, the sense not to get bladdered .. und you impose set rules as to when you require them in after seeing their mates...und keeping to whatever sanction you mutually agreed with them for bending or breaking the household family "rules of thumb"
spnracing said:
Thats the way it is? Why am I off my trolley?
Because of the nonsense you sometimes write Liebchen
spnracing said:
If this argument is about arbitrary limits and whether 31mph is dangerous when 30mph isn't, its the way laws work.
If you are telling us you never blip over by 1 mph .. then you are either fibbling or you have the cruiser on permanent control.. und that ist "not controlling car".
I dislike the "feel" of cruise control by the way. I feel the car ist as if on "runaway" und I prefer feeling the car under my control completely.
I also find it take the "concentration" .. so I see the problem the Belgians highlighted some time ago as result.
spnracing said:
There are plenty of examples of limits in law like what defines someone to be a paedophile,
Nein.. there can be a perception .. und there ist a difference between a paedophile who does some seriously nasty offences to the very vulnerable .. und the type who get kick out of porn - per the argument on radio last week over the guy let off for downloading dodgy photos because prisons are full..
.. but both labelled the same .. by the public perception - because the photo fantasising "can lead to the other more serious crimes" But here we have no tangible proof or even any research to really support that theory. Both sordid und nasty in essence .. but law does establish the different level of severity within the sentences imposed.. und you could argue that the one who gets his perverted little thrills from a photo ist just as twisted as the other... but whilst public at large shudder in horrors .. law define differently. und
spnracing said:
what defines a drunk driver, etc.
Ja.. ist about the amount of booze in system. However.. ist also possible that some people who drink regularly - their bio-chemistry will always register marginally above limit.. but they are perfectly sober in mind und manner as their system has accommodated und exists with this level as permanent und normal to them. Ist not to say one approve.. but to point out that these people do exist.. und these high tolerance drinkers will be safe but also illegal per the letter of the law.
But this type of people .. would not get pulled unless copped in a random stratified stop as their standard of driving would appear "normal"
So .. perhaps this "line" ist not so straight afer all
It still boil down to professional judgement und discretion.
spnracing said:
The fact is that you have draw the line somewhere. And of course speed limits aren't just there for safety reasons.
We know.. we know of several which are there to raise some cash on a pretext of "safety"
Ings und one or two other sub-marianted "haunts" come to mind.. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff