RE: Six points for speeding

[Darth Paul]

TheCarpetCleaner said:

but then I like to take responsibility for my own actions

That's the problem. You, I and many others do take responsibility for our actions, however personal responsibility is being continually eroded in the name of safety and "Where there's blame" culture.

[Johnny]

FFS

Stupid bint ITV 'Political Correspondent' just stated that 'with a sharp rise in child deaths on our roads last year, it's clear evidence that speeding kills'.

Er, how exactly? How does she know the circumstances to all those deaths?

More sensationalist boocks, yet again...

[Bing o]

JagLover said:

You have to question which roads drivers will be doing 45 or over in a 30 limit.

I doubt any but the most dangerous do these speeds in genuine residential areas, but there are many 30 limits that are simply inappropriate.

Wide main roads with no parked cars to obscure visibility. Close to me dual carriageways which cross open heath land. Other dual carriageways that run through a residential area and so forth.

These are the type of roads which will be targeted by Cameras and Vans.

Precisely - my main road - 3 lines wide (bus lane, eastbound lane, westbound lane) perfectly safe to do 45 as its double yellows both sides, and the driveways are open.

[motormania]

Interesting...

We have an independent report released at the beginning of the week that clearly states that only 4% of all road accidents are caused through Speed.

In otherwords 96% of all road accidents are due to the errors of the driver/cyclist/rider/pedestrian.

So what does this government want to do?

Impose even more penalties on those who 'speed' to help save more lives each year. Why are they not tackling the other 96%? I will tell you why - MONEY.

It would cost far too much to educate road users, sticking up a speed camera is cheap and cost effective in the short term, even though after all these years they have shown to have zero impact on road casualties across the UK.

We all do a lot of driving and I'm sure I'm not the only one who see's idoits every day performing dangerous overtaking, cutting people up, pedestrians walking into the road without even looking! Cyclists riding in the evening with no lights!! In fact I had someone last night, approx 6pm (so it was dark) cycling towards me on my side of the road with no bloody lights on - she must have been crazy and what would have happened if I'd hit her, I wonder who would get the blame??? She looked like a bloody migrant - maybe she should learn english and then read up on the highway code - or better still -FECK off back to her own country where they drive on the wrong side of the road

[Packman]

I've read all the comments above and I don't think that any of them have hit on the real reason why this is happening.

My view is that as it is considered that there are too many cars on our inadequate road network, speeding was targeted as a means of totting up points that would lead to an eventual ban.

Cameras were introduced to "speed" up the rate at which motorists totted them up, however, it has proved that the the process has been too slow so if the government change the rate at which a motorist tots up points they change the rate at which an individual motorist gets banned.

The more motorists that are banned at any one time the less congested the roads become.

My view is just don't get caught speeding then there will be more road for the clever ones among us to enjoy.

Just bring it on.

Packman

[sideways11]

Of course if this was France then the motorways would have been blockaded in protest by now and the lamb would already be cooked through.

Not in Britain. Drivers will just get reamed as usual after a bit of whinging on forums like this. We only have ourselves to blame.

[havoc]

This is nothing new, in terms of punishment.

- Over 95/96 on an M-way would get you a summons which would usually result in 4-6 points on your license.
- Similar excesses for the lower-limits would get you the same thing.

All this is is the extension of the FPN to previously summonsable 'crimes', in order to relieve the workload on the courts and remove the ability for off-message judges to take a sensible view...

[Tinohead]

Everyone seems to be missing the point the most obvious reason the arsehole government want to do this. At the moment, if you exceed the speed limit by a lot, you don't get a fix penalty, you get taken to court and the judge decides what punishment you deserve based on the circumstances. Sometimes just a bigger fine, sometimes 5 points, sometimes more.

By bringing in these new 'secondary limits' they are just taking work away from the courts and presuming every situation is the same. Which makes their lives a lot easier, because a computer can tell if you've been doing 43 or 47 in a 30, and dish out the fine based on just that.

It's the speed camera mentality's next step.

Utter shite it is too, they still can't prove that 'Speed Kills' as opposed to 'shit driving above or below the limit kills', yet they roll out law after scheme after proposal that is based soley on this nonsense assumption.

Hysterical idiots.

[mechsympathy]

spoonoff said:

Obviously in residential areas it's a no-brainer.
Let's consider the far less common senario of, say, a deserted 10 mile stretch of duel carrigeway, that for whatever reason is under a 30 mph limit. You would be tempted to put your foot down, but you aren't going to enjoy the drive any more at 45 than at 30.
Time taken to cover the distance at 45 mph: 13 minutes 20 seconds.
Time taken to cover it at 30 mph: 20 minutes.

So the pertinent question is really, what exactly do you intend to do with the extra 6 minutes 40 seconds???

If that's on your commute, it'll add up to an extra hour a week spent unnecessarily in your car. That's two days a year wasted. Suddenly seems a bit more worthwhile, doesn't it?

[Bing o]

mechsympathy said:

spoonoff said:

Obviously in residential areas it's a no-brainer.
Let's consider the far less common senario of, say, a deserted 10 mile stretch of duel carrigeway, that for whatever reason is under a 30 mph limit. You would be tempted to put your foot down, but you aren't going to enjoy the drive any more at 45 than at 30.
Time taken to cover the distance at 45 mph: 13 minutes 20 seconds.
Time taken to cover it at 30 mph: 20 minutes.

So the pertinent question is really, what exactly do you intend to do with the extra 6 minutes 40 seconds???

If that's on your commute, it'll add up to an extra hour a week spent unnecessarily in your car. That's two days a year wasted. Suddenly seems a bit more worthwhile, doesn't it?

Does he seem like the kind of guy that has a life?

[Fume Troll]

Bing o said:

Fume Troll said:

Bing o said:

Fume Troll said:

You can argue the toss over what's dangerous or not, the point is that doing 150% of the speed limit is not acceptable.

Whether the speed limit is appropriate is an entirely different question.

Cheers,

FT.

Why not? 105 on a quiet motorway is unacceptable? Bollox is it, now go back under your bridge

Did I say 105 on a motorway is unnacceptable? No. I said 150% of the speed limit is unacceptable. It might help you to try and read this a few times.

Cheers,

FT.

A troll who can't do simple mathematics, and completely contradicts himself. Watch the door doesn't smack you up the arse on your way out.

LOL, once more?

Cheers,

FT.

[turbobungle]

spoonoff said:

Obviously in residential areas it's a no-brainer.
Let's consider the far less common senario of, say, a deserted 10 mile stretch of duel carrigeway, that for whatever reason is under a 30 mph limit. You would be tempted to put your foot down, but you aren't going to enjoy the drive any more at 45 than at 30.
Time taken to cover the distance at 45 mph: 13 minutes 20 seconds.
Time taken to cover it at 30 mph: 20 minutes.

So the pertinent question is really, what exactly do you intend to do with the extra 6 minutes 40 seconds???

Well you might have f*ck all to do but my time is precious to me and besides if I was on a deserted 10 mile long dual carriageway at 30 I'd fall asleep and crash probably leading to some idiot deciding that I was going too fast!

Bungle
www.turbobungle.com

[Fume Troll]

sstein said:

Fume Troll said:

Bing o said:

Fume Troll said:

You can argue the toss over what's dangerous or not, the point is that doing 150% of the speed limit is not acceptable.

Whether the speed limit is appropriate is an entirely different question.

Cheers,

FT.

Why not? 105 on a quiet motorway is unacceptable? Bollox is it, now go back under your bridge

Did I say 105 on a motorway is unnacceptable? No. I said 150% of the speed limit is unacceptable. It might help you to try and read this a few times.

Cheers,

FT.

erm..... my maths may be a bit off but 150% of 70mph (motorway speed limit) is 105mph????

You are saying 150% of the speed limit is unacceptable, in turn that means that in your view 105mph on a motorway is unacceptable???

-

Stuart

No mate, what I'm saying (as MSTRBKR explained above) is that if a law states a certain limit is applicable, (for example lets say mph on a motorway, or mg/l on a blood alcohol test, or mm of tread on tyres) then breaking that limit by 50% is not acceptable.

What I am NOT saying is what the limit should be.

Cheers,

FT.

[stephen300o]

Driving properly is safer than sticking to speed limits, it keeps you awake and you look where your going and judge your speed to road conditions rather than staring at your speedo making sure it matches random limit signs.

[Bing o]

Fume Troll said:

sstein said:

Fume Troll said:

Bing o said:

Fume Troll said:

You can argue the toss over what's dangerous or not, the point is that doing 150% of the speed limit is not acceptable.

Whether the speed limit is appropriate is an entirely different question.

Cheers,

FT.

Why not? 105 on a quiet motorway is unacceptable? Bollox is it, now go back under your bridge

Did I say 105 on a motorway is unnacceptable? No. I said 150% of the speed limit is unacceptable. It might help you to try and read this a few times.

Cheers,

FT.

erm..... my maths may be a bit off but 150% of 70mph (motorway speed limit) is 105mph????

You are saying 150% of the speed limit is unacceptable, in turn that means that in your view 105mph on a motorway is unacceptable???

-

Stuart

No mate, what I'm saying (as MSTRBKR explained above) is that if a law states a certain limit is applicable, (for example lets say mph on a motorway, or mg/l on a blood alcohol test, or mm of tread on tyres) then breaking that limit by 50% is not acceptable.

What I am NOT saying is what the limit should be.

Cheers,

FT.

I did get it at the 6th time of reading - you have to use small words and big letters for me on a friday due to me invariably suffering from a hangover!!

[Accelebrate]

I know a 30mph ring road where it's often necessary to exceed 45mph in order to get into the correct lane. Or slow down to 20 and cause congestion.

IMHO there's no reason why motorway speed limits shouldn't be increased to 80mph. Making the speed at which you can get nicked at 90mph (10% +2). At least then you could happily travel along at what seems like an appropriate speed for the majority of motorways.

The fact of the matter is that if everyone chose to travel at 70 congestion on motorways would increase. How often do you end up in a jam because a police car has joined the motorway and everyones slowed down. The highway patrol vehicles never seem to exceed 50 or 60, presumably this is so that everyone can overtake them at a legal speed and then speed back up to whatever they were doing before they mistook them for police.

[guydw]

C_U_N_T_S (the government...)

[flemke]

havoc said:

This is nothing new, in terms of punishment.

- Over 95/96 on an M-way would get you a summons which would usually result in 4-6 points on your license.
- Similar excesses for the lower-limits would get you the same thing.

All this is is the extension of the FPN to previously summonsable 'crimes', in order to relieve the workload on the courts and remove the ability for off-message judges to take a sensible view...

Tinohead said:

Everyone seems to be missing the point the most obvious reason the arsehole government want to do this. At the moment, if you exceed the speed limit by a lot, you don't get a fix penalty, you get taken to court and the judge decides what punishment you deserve based on the circumstances. Sometimes just a bigger fine, sometimes 5 points, sometimes more.

By bringing in these new 'secondary limits' they are just taking work away from the courts and presuming every situation is the same. Which makes their lives a lot easier, because a computer can tell if you've been doing 43 or 47 in a 30, and dish out the fine based on just that.

It's the speed camera mentality's next step.

[Plotloss]

Everyone has the right to elect for their case to be heard though.

If everyone did that the court system would collapse.

[Andy_L]

Tinohead said:

Everyone seems to be missing the point the most obvious reason the arsehole government want to do this. At the moment, if you exceed the speed limit by a lot, you don't get a fix penalty, you get taken to court and the judge decides what punishment you deserve based on the circumstances. Sometimes just a bigger fine, sometimes 5 points, sometimes more.

By bringing in these new 'secondary limits' they are just taking work away from the courts and presuming every situation is the same. Which makes their lives a lot easier, because a computer can tell if you've been doing 43 or 47 in a 30, and dish out the fine based on just that.

It's the speed camera mentality's next step.

This is the next step part a) part b) is the blanket lowering of all 30 mph residential limits to 20 mph - keeerching ££££££.
Everyone take their case to court and the system would soon seize up - but I suspect this will require mass protests in order to get this government to listen.

Andy