Somewhat peeved - done for 82 on motorway????
Discussion
CrutyRammers said:
vonhosen said:
Most don't care sufficient enough for it to be of concern to political leaders.
And why's that? Because there's a general acceptance that you can break the law, up to a point, and that point (80-85 I would say) is fast enough for most. I'm willing to bet that if there was sudden, zero tolerance enforcement of 70mph on motorways, there would be a great deal of public outcry. What we have now is a uneasy unwritten understanding which works well enough for most people, most of the time.Which brings us back around to why the OP is reasonable, IMO, to feel a bit aggrieved when the state breaks its side of that understanding.
I do understand and accept all the arguments for competent drivers in fast cars 4 in the morning etc etc etc being safe, and can't argue about that.
Sadly we are an easy target for revenue. How many pedestrians do you know being fined for litter....... None.
CrutyRammers said:
And why's that? Because there's a general acceptance that you can break the law, up to a point, and that point (80-85 I would say) is fast enough for most. I'm willing to bet that if there was sudden, zero tolerance enforcement of 70mph on motorways, there would be a great deal of public outcry. What we have now is a uneasy unwritten understanding which works well enough for most people, most of the time.
Which brings us back around to why the OP is reasonable, IMO, to feel a bit aggrieved when the state breaks its side of that understanding.
How has the state broken any understanding ?Which brings us back around to why the OP is reasonable, IMO, to feel a bit aggrieved when the state breaks its side of that understanding.
The limit is 70, there is a generally accepted tolerance of 10% (7mph) + 3mph which is 80, he was clocked at 82.
He should be pissed off at himself if anyone.
Vipers said:
CrutyRammers said:
vonhosen said:
Most don't care sufficient enough for it to be of concern to political leaders.
And why's that? Because there's a general acceptance that you can break the law, up to a point, and that point (80-85 I would say) is fast enough for most. I'm willing to bet that if there was sudden, zero tolerance enforcement of 70mph on motorways, there would be a great deal of public outcry. What we have now is a uneasy unwritten understanding which works well enough for most people, most of the time.Which brings us back around to why the OP is reasonable, IMO, to feel a bit aggrieved when the state breaks its side of that understanding.
I do understand and accept all the arguments for competent drivers in fast cars 4 in the morning etc etc etc being safe, and can't argue about that.
Sadly we are an easy target for revenue. How many pedestrians do you know being fined for litter....... None.
Many in this nation have become slobs .. Big time. Millions based on what I see. I've finished with my glass bottle so I now drop it so that it breaks into a million shards of glass. I've finished with my fish and chip polythene box so will push it in this garden hedge or drop it in the street. Same win my can of pop drink. I cannot be arsed to dispose of it responsibly. Nobody is looking so pooch you can have a nice carp on this man's lawn. No way am I clearing that shiit it up. Finished with my chewing gum so I'll spit it out just here alongside the millons of other such gobs of spent gum on the pavements. It only costs the local taxpayers twelve grand annually to clear it up. Not a penny from me.
Back on topic.
Have seen those Police, Camera, Action TV programmes from both Aus and NZ which show they are rather hot on such things. Not simply for speeding, they also catch bad drivers by using Patrol Cars to monitor road behaviour. Something the thousands of so called "Safety Cameras" will never do. Nice little revenue earners though. Correction.. BIG earners.
Those who are caught speeding are not necessarily bad drivers. Bad drivers caught speeding by the cameras are punished only for speeding. I'd be delighted to see more patrol cars and less static cameras.
It did not used to be like that. I do not need to deploy my rose tinted lenses to see that.
Vipers said:
Dibble said:
Ah, the A90. Delightful road... Driven it a few times as I've friends and family in and around Aberdeen. I seem to remember a few of the 50 limits between Aberdeen and Dundee, which make sense as they're dealing with specific hazards. For the whole road to be 50 would, IMHO, be madness.
Unless it's changed, only one bit is 50, it's a busy junctions and was an accident black spot. I recall a video taken in broad daylight, a car waiting to cross the southbound carriageway and join the northbound. Truck coming down the southbound, almost at the junction and the car driver pulled out into the path of the truck.
Loads of cameras, I always drive Aberdeen to Dundee with cc spot on 70. The bit coming out of Aberdeen heading south after 4 ish it's like a race track. Couple of years ago at the junction at Portlethen, a bus was waiting to cross the southbound carriageway into Portlethen during the rush hour. He misjudged it, was T boned by a car travelling southbound, it's NSL at this point.
Interestingly enough, we have a fly over just a bit further up the road, so I thought this junction to allow vehicles to cross the southbound carriageway would be blocked off, but it's still open.
Anyone trying to cross it during the rush hour is mental.
:
CrutyRammers said:
Indeed, it has to be considered along with harm done, or the increase in risk it may cause.
So, thousands every day do 80-90 on the motorway. They cause no harm to others. Virtually none of them not get punished. They do not harm society.
Ergo, the law has little public support, achieves no good for society as a whole, and hence should be changed.
I'd be happy to hear a good reason why the limit should be 70, so far all arguments have been "because it is", or "there have to be limits".
Problem is how many of these people do 80-90 because this is where they feel they are at their limits, or that they feel that it's around about the threshold they'd expect to avoid prosecution due to pub law/ACPO guidelines etc? I'd wager it's the latter (see OP). So, thousands every day do 80-90 on the motorway. They cause no harm to others. Virtually none of them not get punished. They do not harm society.
Ergo, the law has little public support, achieves no good for society as a whole, and hence should be changed.
I'd be happy to hear a good reason why the limit should be 70, so far all arguments have been "because it is", or "there have to be limits".
The argument about raising limits on motorways presupposes the former, that people would continue to do 80-90 when the limit is 80.
As a rule, and backing up what vonhosen said, I don't think it's unusual or even contradictory to think speed limits (and obvious posting thereof) are a good thing for society as a whole, whilst disregarding them personally when one sees fit. I happen to think that speed limits are useful to regulate - to some extent at least - the behaviour of drivers that are incapable of driving faster safely.
If you assumed overnight that there was no speed limits, no signs to suggest how fast is appropriate for a given road, there would be carnage. Probably not from who you might think either, the petrolheads, the people who enjoy driving and keep a well maintained car capable of fast speeds; there would be some big accidents from those people sure, but it would be the people who see driving as nothing more than getting from A-B causing the accidents, the people who need this oversight to stop them being careless on the road.
It probably sounds a bit arrogant to say this but that's why I'm in support of speed limits, so that other people who've failed their test 5 times but nevertheless have the same license and entitlement to drive can co-exist on the same road as me. For me the limits (residential notwithstanding - people tearing past houses are dicks) are mostly guidance, and I moderate my driving based on likelihood of being caught rather than believing I've reached my/my car's limitations.
Problem is very few people take personal responsibility nowadays. It's always someone else's fault.
I don't advocate the removal of all speed limits, but I think the suggestion that doing so would cause 'carnage' is an exaggeration. When this was tried between 1930 and 1935 it didn't make a massive difference. After all, there is no law telling us which side of the road we have to drive on but even numpties tend to stick to the left most of the time. Some junctions don't have traffic lights, drivers have to judge for themselves when it's safe to go, yet very often these junctions work better than light controlled junctions.
In any case it's irrelevant to the argument to raise certain existing limits. The important point is that only way to justify prosecuting someone for doing 75MPH is to show that travelling at that speed does harm.
Saying
'but if there wasn't a 70 limit someone, possibly not the same person, might be driving at 130 and this hypothetical situation would doubtless be dangerous'
isn't sufficient. The mere fact that opponents of an increase have to resort to piling hypothetical upon hypothetical shows that they can't explain why 75MPH or even 79MPH is a problem.
In any case it's irrelevant to the argument to raise certain existing limits. The important point is that only way to justify prosecuting someone for doing 75MPH is to show that travelling at that speed does harm.
Saying
'but if there wasn't a 70 limit someone, possibly not the same person, might be driving at 130 and this hypothetical situation would doubtless be dangerous'
isn't sufficient. The mere fact that opponents of an increase have to resort to piling hypothetical upon hypothetical shows that they can't explain why 75MPH or even 79MPH is a problem.
Dr Jekyll said:
I don't advocate the removal of all speed limits, but I think the suggestion that doing so would cause 'carnage' is an exaggeration. When this was tried between 1930 and 1935 it didn't make a massive difference. After all, there is no law telling us which side of the road we have to drive on but even numpties tend to stick to the left most of the time. Some junctions don't have traffic lights, drivers have to judge for themselves when it's safe to go, yet very often these junctions work better than light controlled junctions.
In any case it's irrelevant to the argument to raise certain existing limits. The important point is that only way to justify prosecuting someone for doing 75MPH is to show that travelling at that speed does harm.
Saying
'but if there wasn't a 70 limit someone, possibly not the same person, might be driving at 130 and this hypothetical situation would doubtless be dangerous'
isn't sufficient. The mere fact that opponents of an increase have to resort to piling hypothetical upon hypothetical shows that they can't explain why 75MPH or even 79MPH is a problem.
I don't personally care if they've set the limit at 80, I don't care if it's 70.In any case it's irrelevant to the argument to raise certain existing limits. The important point is that only way to justify prosecuting someone for doing 75MPH is to show that travelling at that speed does harm.
Saying
'but if there wasn't a 70 limit someone, possibly not the same person, might be driving at 130 and this hypothetical situation would doubtless be dangerous'
isn't sufficient. The mere fact that opponents of an increase have to resort to piling hypothetical upon hypothetical shows that they can't explain why 75MPH or even 79MPH is a problem.
There is more to consider than just if danger is caused & they've settled on a compromise of 70.
I also don't care if people get reported when they get caught doing 79 (safe for the conditions or not).
vonhosen said:
I don't personally care if they've set the limit at 80, I don't care if it's 70.
There is more to consider than just if danger is caused & they've settled on a compromise of 70.
I also don't care if people get reported when they get caught doing 79 (safe for the conditions or not).
I think you may attract criticism for accepting that you should be a compliant driver. There is more to consider than just if danger is caused & they've settled on a compromise of 70.
I also don't care if people get reported when they get caught doing 79 (safe for the conditions or not).
Dibble said:
It's a while since I drove it - at least a couple of years, so maybe I'm thinking of bits south of Dundee, or just getting it wrong altogether.
Definitely 50 on approach to the junction to Laurencekirk, as you enter Dundee, NSL drops to 40, then I think up to 50 until you clear Dundee, then NSL till you join the M90. Does that sound about right.Having said that, I haven't been down the road for about a year now.
Edited by Vipers on Sunday 17th May 19:32
Vipers said:
Dibble said:
It's a while since I drove it - at least a couple of years, so maybe I'm thinking of bits south of Dundee, or just getting it wrong altogether.
Definitely 50 on approach to the junction to Laurencekirk, as you enter Dundee, NSL drops to 40, then I think up to 50 until you clear Dundee, then NSL till you join the M90. Does that sound about right.Having said that, I haven't been down the road for about a year now.
Edited by Vipers on Sunday 17th May 19:32
SS2. said:
Was chatting with a traffic cop I know a while back. Apparently, the CC for his area was of the opinion that motorways were the safest roads in his jurisdiction and should be as 'self-policing' as possible.
For this reason, he didn't want cameras perched on bridges enforcing the limit, nor was he overly fussed about drivers getting up to maybe 90mph. Over 90mph (and especially if the drivers were unaware they were being tracked by a marked / unmarked vehicle), then he expected to see his officers taking suitable action as they saw fit.
In excess of 100mph, and court was pretty much nailed on.
Quite refreshing to know that someone driving like a dick at 65mph was more likely to get a pull than someone driving safely and courteously at 85mph.
re:90mph. There's a speed camera down in SE London / Kent by the Bexley slip road, Black Swan IIRC. The road used to be full on NSL D/C so the camera was set at 90mph when it first went in ( if it was ever enabled ). A few years later along comes the blanket 50mph across London's connecting roads which dragged that camera down from 90mph to nigh-on half.For this reason, he didn't want cameras perched on bridges enforcing the limit, nor was he overly fussed about drivers getting up to maybe 90mph. Over 90mph (and especially if the drivers were unaware they were being tracked by a marked / unmarked vehicle), then he expected to see his officers taking suitable action as they saw fit.
In excess of 100mph, and court was pretty much nailed on.
Quite refreshing to know that someone driving like a dick at 65mph was more likely to get a pull than someone driving safely and courteously at 85mph.
Dibble said:
Vaguely, but I wouldn't bet my pension on it! I think as you come off the roundabout near the McD's in Dundee it drops to 40 past the Tesco, then stats 40 as you turn left, over the river and up the hill out of Dundee where it eventually gets back to NSL. I'm up to a family wedding in June, so if I'm in the car rather than on the bike I'll be going up via the A90 so I'll have a refresh and let you know... Assuming I remember!
Could be right there, but heading south, as you enter Dundee it drops from NSL to 40, and as you get to the lights and turn right towards Perth, it goes up to 50.Turning left, never done it.
IIRC when the increase to 80mph was proposed a few years ago a survey said 56% were in favour of the increase. One reason given for not increasing the limit was that women drivers did not want an increase. However last year a survey showed that the majority of women drivers exceed the speed limit.
The 70 limit was made permanent by Barbars Castle. A transport minister who didn't even have a driving licence!! When it was introduced in the 60's it may have been a good idea, today it is totally unrealistic.
The 70 limit was made permanent by Barbars Castle. A transport minister who didn't even have a driving licence!! When it was introduced in the 60's it may have been a good idea, today it is totally unrealistic.
Jagmanv12 said:
IIRC when the increase to 80mph was proposed a few years ago a survey said 56% were in favour of the increase. One reason given for not increasing the limit was that women drivers did not want an increase. However last year a survey showed that the majority of women drivers exceed the speed limit.
The 70 limit was made permanent by Barbars Castle. A transport minister who didn't even have a driving licence!! When it was introduced in the 60's it may have been a good idea, today it is totally unrealistic.
Inconvenient occasionally, unnecessary frequently, but unrealistic ? Perhaps in as much as very often the flow of traffic is below 70 so it is unrealistic to even go that speed.The 70 limit was made permanent by Barbars Castle. A transport minister who didn't even have a driving licence!! When it was introduced in the 60's it may have been a good idea, today it is totally unrealistic.
Would I like the limit to be higher ? Yes.
Does it really bother me that it is 70 ? No.
Irritates the F***K out of me. I'm capable, when the conditions are ok, to drive faster, SAFELY, so why the bloody hell can't I?
PS. Just been reliable informed that all the 70mph is the "law and ok" people, that you can now present yourself to the Robot Compliance Clinic, whereby a chip will be surgically implanted into your brain so that you can be safety monitored and controlled by a the newly installed Peoples Compliance Unit run by GCHQ.
PS. Just been reliable informed that all the 70mph is the "law and ok" people, that you can now present yourself to the Robot Compliance Clinic, whereby a chip will be surgically implanted into your brain so that you can be safety monitored and controlled by a the newly installed Peoples Compliance Unit run by GCHQ.
robinessex said:
Irritates the F***K out of me. I'm capable, when the conditions are ok, to drive faster, SAFELY, so why the bloody hell can't I?
PS. Just been reliable informed that all the 70mph is the "law and ok" people, that you can now present yourself to the Robot Compliance Clinic, whereby a chip will be surgically implanted into your brain so that you can be safety monitored and controlled by a the newly installed Peoples Compliance Unit run by GCHQ.
(Un)fortunately there isn't a 'reference to the Stasi' equivalent to Godwin's law ... as if there were you'd have just lost this discussion .PS. Just been reliable informed that all the 70mph is the "law and ok" people, that you can now present yourself to the Robot Compliance Clinic, whereby a chip will be surgically implanted into your brain so that you can be safety monitored and controlled by a the newly installed Peoples Compliance Unit run by GCHQ.
robinessex said:
Irritates the F***K out of me. I'm capable, when the conditions are ok, to drive faster, SAFELY, so why the bloody hell can't I?
The argument may well be that not everyone is a driving god like yourself and the law has to account for lesser beings and their lack of driving talent.Seriously though, when and how does the 70 limit actual cause you a problem, given that you can in most circumstances increase that to 80mph without fear of prosecution.
Couple of years ago I was prosecuted for doing 79 on the inside lane of a near deserted M6 in Cumbria at 10am on a sunny Sunday morning.
I too know that the limit is 70. That doesn't stop me wondering about the fact that even as I'm typing this hundreds if not thousands of people are driving faster than that in complete safety, or that thousands more are breaking the limit (or being on the roads at all, at any speed) with bald tyres, defective brakes etc, and possibly in shocking weather conditions.
For me the worst thing about the 'automatic' fine is the one-size-fits-all nature of it, without any consideration of other factors.
I too know that the limit is 70. That doesn't stop me wondering about the fact that even as I'm typing this hundreds if not thousands of people are driving faster than that in complete safety, or that thousands more are breaking the limit (or being on the roads at all, at any speed) with bald tyres, defective brakes etc, and possibly in shocking weather conditions.
For me the worst thing about the 'automatic' fine is the one-size-fits-all nature of it, without any consideration of other factors.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff