RE: Six points for speeding

[W2S]

What are you going to do when the speed camera gives a wrong reading?

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=...

one more Con for this government to raise extra revenue

Like cutting bin collection to fortnightly and now wanting to charge for the privilege

This government are like the rats that are invading our cities and the quicker we kick them out the better

Edited by W2S on Friday 9th November 15:01

[Tomasz]

Anyone heard what the top limit for six points will be? Currently 95+ will see you in court, wonder what they'll now "allow". If you go up in court for 95+ you're looking at more than three points anyway. I assume it's an effort to de-clog the court system.

[flemke]

Plotloss said:

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

If everyone did that the court system would collapse.

Except that if you do that and lose, you may get extra points, a bigger fine, and have to pay costs.

[Snooglefinder]

Aaaarrrggghhh!

Don’t post often but this is just getting ridiculous.

The erosion of personal responsibility has just gone one step further. Surely a well trained and responsible driver can make a decision based on the prevailing road and other conditions in order to gauge the correct safe speed on that particular occasion?

The government etc obviously think not……

I am not advocating that we have no speed limits at all but that they are enforced in a reasonable and intelligent way. Variable speed limits also seem like a bloody good idea, 3am on the M1 is very different to 3pm – likewise for built up areas, schools etc.

I cannot believe that anyone really believes that by making the punishment for speeding more and more draconian that this will actually save lives?

We really need someone to inject to some common sense into this bloody government and have the strength of character to speak out against the ‘Speed Kill’ brigade.

Anyway – just my 2p and flame at will should you so desire.

[Bing o]

Snooglefinder said:

Aaaarrrggghhh!

Don’t post often but this is just getting ridiculous.

The erosion of personal responsibility has just gone one step further. Surely a well trained and responsible driver can make a decision based on the prevailing road and other conditions in order to gauge the correct safe speed on that particular occasion?

The government etc obviously think not……

I am not advocating that we have no speed limits at all but that they are enforced in a reasonable and intelligent way. Variable speed limits also seem like a bloody good idea, 3am on the M1 is very different to 3pm – likewise for built up areas, schools etc.

I cannot believe that anyone really believes that by making the punishment for speeding more and more draconian that this will actually save lives?

We really need someone to inject to some common sense into this bloody government and have the strength of character to speak out against the ‘Speed Kill’ brigade.

Anyway – just my 2p and flame at will should you so desire.

Quite right, we need....

[rhinochopig]

I wish someone would do a proper study (PhD anyone) on the affects of closely monitoring your speed within 10% of the legal limit on situational awareness. It cannot be "safe" to have to glance down at your speedo extremely frequently.

For f*cks sake every military study on SA this shown that for threat detection the pilot / driver should be spend their time heads-up not heads down. I'd be interested to hear what viewpoint the law would take if you killed someone because you were looking at your speedo to keep within the speed limit.

And before I get flamed, I am in favour of speed limits, just not in the way they;re enforced.

Surely the risk associated with said speed needs to be considered - 25 in a 20 at 8.30 bad, 60 in a 50 on a motorway with road works at 1.00am, can't see a problem.

[Lostusernamedamn]

It's tempting to think the government really are a bit thick, simply not understanding that blanket speed limits, which are often too low to be respected by good drivers (as opposed to robots who can't think for themselves) are not the answer. However, they can't fail to have noticed study after study over the years which shows that excess "speed" is responsible for only a very small number of accidents - 2 ish percent. No, it's more sinister than that, their supposed desire to stop accidents is a cloak, maximising revenue and creating an excuse for monitoring your every move is the ultimate goal. Maybe slowing you down thus bunching up traffic more and creating congestion is another goal, so that they speed up the situation whereby they feel their mad idea for "congestion" charhing is justified. It sounds crazy, but how else do you rationilise their pathetic obsession with "speed"?

[flemke]

We should contemplate this scenario, because it will happen many times:

New law enacted; 50% over posted limit = automatic six points.

Pathetic little Nimbytown lowers all limits from 30 to 20.

Person drives through Nimbytown twice in one day. At border of Nimbytown, driver is going 31 mph, which a week before was totally safe, well within ACPO guidelines, and would never, ever have resulted in prosecution.

New result: person is banned.

[Hooli]

Bing o said:

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!!

got to say i agree with FT to a point. if the limit is 70 you dont really expect people doing 105 so it makes it dangerous due to their lack of aticipation. so we need sensible limits, 30s where needed, 40s where needed, maybe the odd 60 WHERE NEEDED & the rest unlimited.

[derestrictor]

This is nothing less than a class war against the middle ranks and their aspirant brethren in the lower fields.

Brown is a communist, Labour are a communist party and socialism in the back of their minds is a communist utopia.

I genuinely despair, there is no room for individuality or flair in this sunken realm.

Utter, utter, sorrow.

[Plotloss]

flemke said:

Plotloss said:

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

If everyone did that the court system would collapse.

Except that if you do that and lose, you may get extra points, a bigger fine, and have to pay costs.

True but if everyone did it, it would be a moot point, admitedly until parliamentary process was ignored once more and a law rushed through to change the basic tenets of our legal system.

[derestrictor]

Just rereading the moron gimp from the ninth circle of Comrade Brown's Trotsky hell, he talks about the consensus that 'speed is dangerous.'

The same consensus that punitive tax is good? That H&S are really men with reproductive organs? That prosecuting 2 hopeless conflicts against undefeatable opponents is what everyone really believes in? That the police are not burdened with red tape? That school teachers are able to properly discipline errants sh1ts? That the nation isn't full to the brim? That they preside over an unsustainable mountain of social security waste?

Tossology on a scale only last visited in religious texts.

[Plotloss]

derestrictor said:

Tossology on a scale only last visited in religious texts.

[Bing o]

Hooli said:

got to say i agree with FT to a point. if the limit is 70 you dont really expect people doing 105 so it makes it dangerous due to their lack of aticipation. so we need sensible limits, 30s where needed, 40s where needed, maybe the odd 60 WHERE NEEDED & the rest unlimited.

So you never expect to find people doing 105 on the motorway?

[TVRleigh_BBWR]

Looks like most people who go though the lime house link are going to get band.
goes from 40 to 30 downhill, with a camera at the bottom. and its a duel carriage way.

[Plotloss]

And just how more left could it be and the answer is none, none more left.

http://cars.uk.msn.com/news/car_news_article.aspx?...

Jesus.

[Peter Ward]

Context is everything.

45 in a 30? Not a good idea -- if it's a valid 30 in the first place. If it's an out-of-town political limit then this law would be wrong. Those who are positive about this (read HYS on BBC) are thinking about the valid limits. In this case I do tend to agree that 45 should be treated more harshly than 34 -- though we do know that the most dangerous places for speeding in towns are NOT the arterial routes but the residential areas where there's never a camera.

But what about the same margin in a 50, 60, 70? Well it all depends. And that's the problem. As we know so well, but the government seems ignorant of, context is everything.

So what's necessary? My 2p:

1. Assess the impact of too-low limits, cameras and other speed enforcement on safety. Consider the real effects on real-life safety, not rubbishy 5%-per-1mph idiocy
2. In view of this study, review all limits
3. Establish sensible limits by knowledgeable engineers/drivers, not political limits by councillors and ignoramuses
4. Enforce new limits with appropriate levels of discretion, understanding that context is everything.

[SS2.]

flemke said:

Pathetic little Nimbytown lowers all limits from 30 to 20.

Person drives through Nimbytown twice in one day. At border of Nimbytown, driver is going 31 mph, which a week before was totally safe, well within ACPO guidelines, and would never, ever have resulted in prosecution.

Absolutely..

Its already happened around here.. The limits on some roads been dropped (from 50mph to 30mph or 60mph to 40mph) for little apparent reason (other than the influence of the local WI) and, surprise surprise, these roads have since become very actively enforced..

Whilst I appreciate limits are limits, the fact remains that a driver would previously have been regarded as completely 'safe' when tootling along at 50mph in the (then) 50mph limit..

But today, travelling at the same speed on the same road, the govt's spin machine would have said driver branded a 'dangerous' or 'child killing' maniac (as would a handful of posters on here, it would seem)..

[seanmaccann]

Some of these Orwellian anti-speed Nazis should read: http://www.abd.org.uk/unsafe_at_any_speed.htm

[Bing o]

What is the difference in stopping distance of a modern car with ABS and disc brakes from 30mph and 45mph?