80 in a 70 - Pointless question
Discussion
vonhosen said:
s3
People following too closely, people not paying enough attention, people not signalling appropriately, people failing to make proper observations, poor mirror work etc etc.
It's a sweeping statement but it doesn't make it any less true.
We all fall short of the standards expected at times (some more frequently & by a larger margin than others, but all at some time or other).
And yet, out of all of those things, the only one regularly targeted is speeding. All the things you list are a problem all of the time. Speeding can be done perfectly safely and thoughtfully, yet it's the thing authorities still want to focus on, seemingly at the expense of many other more important issues. And that won't change.People following too closely, people not paying enough attention, people not signalling appropriately, people failing to make proper observations, poor mirror work etc etc.
It's a sweeping statement but it doesn't make it any less true.
We all fall short of the standards expected at times (some more frequently & by a larger margin than others, but all at some time or other).
Heaveho said:
vonhosen said:
s3
People following too closely, people not paying enough attention, people not signalling appropriately, people failing to make proper observations, poor mirror work etc etc.
It's a sweeping statement but it doesn't make it any less true.
We all fall short of the standards expected at times (some more frequently & by a larger margin than others, but all at some time or other).
And yet, out of all of those things, the only one regularly targeted is speeding. All the things you list are a problem all of the time. Speeding can be done perfectly safely and thoughtfully, yet it's the thing authorities still want to focus on, seemingly at the expense of many other more important issues. And that won't change.People following too closely, people not paying enough attention, people not signalling appropriately, people failing to make proper observations, poor mirror work etc etc.
It's a sweeping statement but it doesn't make it any less true.
We all fall short of the standards expected at times (some more frequently & by a larger margin than others, but all at some time or other).
They are Roads Policing priorities.
This week Roads Policing are focusing on uninsured driving.
In the first 10 months of this year 106,000 uninsured vehicles have been seized. A third of them have been crushed.
vonhosen said:
Heaveho said:
vonhosen said:
I didn't say it did.
But you were effectively saying large number of people disobeying equals bad law.
I disagree.
Everybody commits s3 offences (careless & inconsiderate driving). I don't think it's bad law that legislates against that.
Ergo I don't agree with your earlier equivalence of widespread offending equals bad law.
" Everybody commits s3 offences (careless and inconsiderate driving)" is a pretty sweeping statement. But you were effectively saying large number of people disobeying equals bad law.
I disagree.
Everybody commits s3 offences (careless & inconsiderate driving). I don't think it's bad law that legislates against that.
Ergo I don't agree with your earlier equivalence of widespread offending equals bad law.
Not sure how that correlates to what seems to be widespread motorway speeding in percentage terms.
People following too closely, people not paying enough attention, people not signalling appropriately, people failing to make proper observations, poor mirror work, poor lane discipline etc etc.
You've only got to fall short on one of many, not all.
It's a sweeping statement but it doesn't make it any less true.
We all fall short of the standards expected at times (some more frequently & by a larger margin than others, but all at some time or other).
Heaveho said:
vonhosen said:
The majority of the public support the existence of speed limits.
Enforcement of them (by a variety of means) is a natural consequence of their existence.
The majority of the British public aren't very bright, something I believe we both already know. Therefore the system is pandering to a not very bright majority, instead of trying to educate them into being more intelligent. Backward thinking.Enforcement of them (by a variety of means) is a natural consequence of their existence.
LotsOfLaughs said:
This is exactly why I was caught. I was trying to be a bit of a smartarse and do 77 because "10%+2" is when the fines start.
Just pulling this bit out... If you were done for 80 in a 70, you werent doing anything like 77 on the display? You'll have been displaying at least 85 and thats giving you the benefit of the doubt!
Edit to actually go some way to answer the OP. I doubt you could appeal for bad printing because you can actually read it. What i would add is a 'friend of mine' was flashed by a speed camera about 8ish years ago when he was younger and stupider. He never received either of the two letters that were posted and my friend never had any issues. He was even stopped around 6 months after this and no mention made of it.
Edited by Tam_Mullen on Monday 20th November 13:18
vonhosen said:
Heaveho said:
vonhosen said:
s3
People following too closely, people not paying enough attention, people not signalling appropriately, people failing to make proper observations, poor mirror work etc etc.
It's a sweeping statement but it doesn't make it any less true.
We all fall short of the standards expected at times (some more frequently & by a larger margin than others, but all at some time or other).
And yet, out of all of those things, the only one regularly targeted is speeding. All the things you list are a problem all of the time. Speeding can be done perfectly safely and thoughtfully, yet it's the thing authorities still want to focus on, seemingly at the expense of many other more important issues. And that won't change.People following too closely, people not paying enough attention, people not signalling appropriately, people failing to make proper observations, poor mirror work etc etc.
It's a sweeping statement but it doesn't make it any less true.
We all fall short of the standards expected at times (some more frequently & by a larger margin than others, but all at some time or other).
They are Roads Policing priorities.
This week Roads Policing are focusing on uninsured driving.
In the first 10 months of this year 106,000 uninsured vehicles have been seized. A third of them have been crushed.
Crushing uninsured cars which are otherwise roadworthy makes me sick. Utter waste of a resource.
Tam_Mullen said:
Just pulling this bit out...
If you were done for 80 in a 70, you werent doing anything like 77 on the display? You'll have been displaying at least 85 and thats giving you the benefit of the doubt!
Edit to actually go some way to answer the OP. I doubt you could appeal for bad printing because you can actually read it. What i would add is a 'friend of mine' was flashed by a speed camera about 8ish years ago when he was younger and stupider. He never received either of the two letters that were posted and my friend never had any issues. He was even stopped around 6 months after this and no mention made of it.
I was using the GPS speed. And yes, lesson learnt....If you were done for 80 in a 70, you werent doing anything like 77 on the display? You'll have been displaying at least 85 and thats giving you the benefit of the doubt!
Edit to actually go some way to answer the OP. I doubt you could appeal for bad printing because you can actually read it. What i would add is a 'friend of mine' was flashed by a speed camera about 8ish years ago when he was younger and stupider. He never received either of the two letters that were posted and my friend never had any issues. He was even stopped around 6 months after this and no mention made of it.
Edited by Tam_Mullen on Monday 20th November 13:18
Ive responded to the letter, SAC booked for later this week...
Heaveho said:
Crushing uninsured cars which are otherwise roadworthy makes me sick. Utter waste of a resource.
Agreed, but theyre only crushed because the owners dont want them back, for the fee theyd have to pay.Which makes sence, because there are only 2 reasons why you wouldnt buy insurance - either because its too expensive, or because your banned from driving.
If you can afford the insurance, the chances are the car iant worth that much. If your banned from driving, but drive anyway, what difference does it make if your car is insured or not?
Heaveho said:
vonhosen said:
Heaveho said:
vonhosen said:
s3
People following too closely, people not paying enough attention, people not signalling appropriately, people failing to make proper observations, poor mirror work etc etc.
It's a sweeping statement but it doesn't make it any less true.
We all fall short of the standards expected at times (some more frequently & by a larger margin than others, but all at some time or other).
And yet, out of all of those things, the only one regularly targeted is speeding. All the things you list are a problem all of the time. Speeding can be done perfectly safely and thoughtfully, yet it's the thing authorities still want to focus on, seemingly at the expense of many other more important issues. And that won't change.People following too closely, people not paying enough attention, people not signalling appropriately, people failing to make proper observations, poor mirror work etc etc.
It's a sweeping statement but it doesn't make it any less true.
We all fall short of the standards expected at times (some more frequently & by a larger margin than others, but all at some time or other).
They are Roads Policing priorities.
This week Roads Policing are focusing on uninsured driving.
In the first 10 months of this year 106,000 uninsured vehicles have been seized. A third of them have been crushed.
Crushing uninsured cars which are otherwise roadworthy makes me sick. Utter waste of a resource.
If the limited number of Roads Policing officers have to do less speed enforcement, because cameras are picking up that strand, then they have more time available to deal with the other 4 of the fatal 5 than if the cameras weren't dealing with speeding.
The cameras are also used to provide evidence for s3, no seatbelt etc offences, where evidence is visible.
Heaveho said:
vonhosen said:
s3
People following too closely, people not paying enough attention, people not signalling appropriately, people failing to make proper observations, poor mirror work etc etc.
It's a sweeping statement but it doesn't make it any less true.
We all fall short of the standards expected at times (some more frequently & by a larger margin than others, but all at some time or other).
And yet, out of all of those things, the only one regularly targeted is speeding. All the things you list are a problem all of the time. Speeding can be done perfectly safely and thoughtfully, yet it's the thing authorities still want to focus on, seemingly at the expense of many other more important issues. And that won't change.People following too closely, people not paying enough attention, people not signalling appropriately, people failing to make proper observations, poor mirror work etc etc.
It's a sweeping statement but it doesn't make it any less true.
We all fall short of the standards expected at times (some more frequently & by a larger margin than others, but all at some time or other).
Like other 'authorities', when they can't easily measure important factors as per the list above, they try hard to make out as important what it is they can measure easily, that'll be speed. The focus on it is out of proportion and amounts to an obsession, epitomised by Brunstrom's silly statement likening drifting over the speed limit with drifting a knife into somebody.
LotsOfLaughs said:
Agreed, but theyre only crushed because the owners dont want them back, for the fee theyd have to pay.
Which makes sence, because there are only 2 reasons why you wouldnt buy insurance - either because its too expensive, or because your banned from driving.
If you can afford the insurance, the chances are the car iant worth that much. If your banned from driving, but drive anyway, what difference does it make if your car is insured or not?
Crush, often means sold to likes of motohog, sometimes for police auctions sale and gets new identity, sometimes for parts, rarely crushed into nothing and sold for pennies.Which makes sence, because there are only 2 reasons why you wouldnt buy insurance - either because its too expensive, or because your banned from driving.
If you can afford the insurance, the chances are the car iant worth that much. If your banned from driving, but drive anyway, what difference does it make if your car is insured or not?
One of my friends (while he had a month away) was left outside a house that owns the parking space by a criminal who didn't collect it in time, homeowner complained, investigated, called police who seized it, no letter from police or their contracted recovery operator. No contact what so ever, at all from any party..
Thief had changed plates, and it was old enough not to have serial number on bottom of windscreen. Shockingly despite having GPS tracker record show it went to a police yard, then motorhogs, DVLA claimed it was destroyed, and police wrote basically explaining they are not required to check identity of cars they seize, they had found reg to belong to another legitimate car on PCSO enquiring for homeowner, then seized it without any attempt to identify the car occurring by anyone, including motorhog.
P.S
Matter was left with his insurers, but believed they had either sold it on, or parted it out!
Edited by NFT on Monday 20th November 16:45
BertBert said:
That's not what the law says. The law says you have to say who was driving, not confess to the offence.
By identifying yourself as the driver, you are confessing to the offence. The subsequent conviction is based entirely on a confession you are compelled to make by law.If you don’t believe me, get yourself an NIP and let me know how you get on pleading not guilty after identifying yourself as the driver.
zarjaz1991 said:
BertBert said:
That's not what the law says. The law says you have to say who was driving, not confess to the offence.
By identifying yourself as the driver, you are confessing to the offence. The subsequent conviction is based entirely on a confession you are compelled to make by law.If you don’t believe me, get yourself an NIP and let me know how you get on pleading not guilty after identifying yourself as the driver.
I've received NIPs, been nominated as driver, admitted being the driver, but not guilty of the offence being investigated.
vonhosen said:
zarjaz1991 said:
BertBert said:
That's not what the law says. The law says you have to say who was driving, not confess to the offence.
By identifying yourself as the driver, you are confessing to the offence. The subsequent conviction is based entirely on a confession you are compelled to make by law.If you don’t believe me, get yourself an NIP and let me know how you get on pleading not guilty after identifying yourself as the driver.
I've received NIPs, been nominated as driver, admitted being the driver, but not guilty of the offence being investigated.
Also, the person keeping the vehicle may not be the registered keeper, a car can be borrowed for a week or two, in which case the keeper is the one having it with them, outside house etc... It can get complicated, but registered keeper on the v5 may not be the actual keeper at the time, and he can only seek to obtain the information in order to provide it as soon as practicable.
Ideas I have not explored before, but to which would be perfectly reasonable for a 172 recipient to find themselves in.
NFT said:
vonhosen said:
zarjaz1991 said:
BertBert said:
That's not what the law says. The law says you have to say who was driving, not confess to the offence.
By identifying yourself as the driver, you are confessing to the offence. The subsequent conviction is based entirely on a confession you are compelled to make by law.If you don’t believe me, get yourself an NIP and let me know how you get on pleading not guilty after identifying yourself as the driver.
I've received NIPs, been nominated as driver, admitted being the driver, but not guilty of the offence being investigated.
Also, the person keeping the vehicle may not be the registered keeper, a car can be borrowed for a week or two, in which case the keeper is the one having it with them, outside house etc... It can get complicated, but registered keeper on the v5 may not be the actual keeper at the time, and he can only seek to obtain the information in order to provide it as soon as practicable.
Ideas I have not explored before, but to which would be perfectly reasonable for a 172 recipient to find themselves in.
That's thousands of cases where the driver was not guilty of the offence.
vonhosen said:
NFT said:
vonhosen said:
zarjaz1991 said:
BertBert said:
That's not what the law says. The law says you have to say who was driving, not confess to the offence.
By identifying yourself as the driver, you are confessing to the offence. The subsequent conviction is based entirely on a confession you are compelled to make by law.If you don’t believe me, get yourself an NIP and let me know how you get on pleading not guilty after identifying yourself as the driver.
I've received NIPs, been nominated as driver, admitted being the driver, but not guilty of the offence being investigated.
Also, the person keeping the vehicle may not be the registered keeper, a car can be borrowed for a week or two, in which case the keeper is the one having it with them, outside house etc... It can get complicated, but registered keeper on the v5 may not be the actual keeper at the time, and he can only seek to obtain the information in order to provide it as soon as practicable.
Ideas I have not explored before, but to which would be perfectly reasonable for a 172 recipient to find themselves in.
That's thousands of cases where the driver was not guilty of the offence.
What that says to me is that all things being equal, in 90% of cases the magistrate believes the evidence presented by the prosecution.
What would be interesting to learn, is what evidence they didn't accept in the 10% of cases.
Proof that the owner was out of the country and witness stating the actual car was off the road having a new engine ? So must be a clone ?
Or something wrong with the paperwork. If I was a magistrate, I'd be very to the letter with police paperwork. One digit wrong, the address not speeled right. NIP TAKING 15 DAYS to reach the keeper. Costs awarded against the cps.
My biggest issue with speeding is the “Speed Kills” mantra.
It’s not speed that kills - it’s the sudden stop that kills.
Increasing from 70mph to 71mph doesn’t make your car burst in to flames.
In fact the top 3 causes of fatalities in the UK on the roads does not include exceeding the speed limit.
Speeding is an easy target.
If you look at countries with higher speed limits, for example Germany, Road fatalities per million population, sits at 33, the UK is 26 - so maybe speed has something to do with it, until we look at the Netherlands where the speed limit has been reduced to 100 kph on the majority of motorways during the day, and their figure is 42.
So it would seem speeding isn’t the culprit it’s poor driving. Someone speeding isn’t a de facto poor driver.
It’s not speed that kills - it’s the sudden stop that kills.
Increasing from 70mph to 71mph doesn’t make your car burst in to flames.
In fact the top 3 causes of fatalities in the UK on the roads does not include exceeding the speed limit.
Speeding is an easy target.
If you look at countries with higher speed limits, for example Germany, Road fatalities per million population, sits at 33, the UK is 26 - so maybe speed has something to do with it, until we look at the Netherlands where the speed limit has been reduced to 100 kph on the majority of motorways during the day, and their figure is 42.
So it would seem speeding isn’t the culprit it’s poor driving. Someone speeding isn’t a de facto poor driver.
zarjaz1991 said:
By identifying yourself as the driver, you are confessing to the offence. The subsequent conviction is based entirely on a confession you are compelled to make by law.
If you don’t believe me, get yourself an NIP and let me know how you get on pleading not guilty after identifying yourself as the driver.
Completely wrong. You are convicted based on the evidence just like any other crime If you don’t believe me, get yourself an NIP and let me know how you get on pleading not guilty after identifying yourself as the driver.
Suspicious_user said:
My biggest issue with speeding is the “Speed Kills” mantra.
It’s not speed that kills - it’s the sudden stop that kills.
Increasing from 70mph to 71mph doesn’t make your car burst in to flames.
In fact the top 3 causes of fatalities in the UK on the roads does not include exceeding the speed limit.
Speeding is an easy target.
If you look at countries with higher speed limits, for example Germany, Road fatalities per million population, sits at 33, the UK is 26 - so maybe speed has something to do with it, until we look at the Netherlands where the speed limit has been reduced to 100 kph on the majority of motorways during the day, and their figure is 42.
So it would seem speeding isn’t the culprit it’s poor driving. Someone speeding isn’t a de facto poor driver.
Looks like it's saying Loss of control unrelated to speeding? And not lost it due to speeding, Utter numptys to lose control within speed limit unless they had ditch finder tyres on in wet or failed to slow for a bend. But then they would be too fast for the bend, but also under posted limit.It’s not speed that kills - it’s the sudden stop that kills.
Increasing from 70mph to 71mph doesn’t make your car burst in to flames.
In fact the top 3 causes of fatalities in the UK on the roads does not include exceeding the speed limit.
Speeding is an easy target.
If you look at countries with higher speed limits, for example Germany, Road fatalities per million population, sits at 33, the UK is 26 - so maybe speed has something to do with it, until we look at the Netherlands where the speed limit has been reduced to 100 kph on the majority of motorways during the day, and their figure is 42.
So it would seem speeding isn’t the culprit it’s poor driving. Someone speeding isn’t a de facto poor driver.
In which case, Could some of those statistics also be marked as speeding related if simply excess speed for a tight bend whilst under limit in some cases? Or that way in Germany making theirs appear more related to speed?
They do set the case for AI assisted driving to take over/act before losing control or pull out for car AI seen but driver hasn't. Safer roads to come I think, unless AI decides to kill us all, in which case we shouldn't see it coming.
BertBert said:
zarjaz1991 said:
By identifying yourself as the driver, you are confessing to the offence. The subsequent conviction is based entirely on a confession you are compelled to make by law.
If you don’t believe me, get yourself an NIP and let me know how you get on pleading not guilty after identifying yourself as the driver.
Completely wrong. You are convicted based on the evidence just like any other crime If you don’t believe me, get yourself an NIP and let me know how you get on pleading not guilty after identifying yourself as the driver.
It's not even the case that the registered keepers car was speeding, just, a car displaying a reg of the same likeness.
It's not until driver responds grassing himself up that evidence against him even exists, until then no one has any idea, they're fishing for a name using a cold blooded procedure that even sees past keepers receive a panic inducing letter and stress dealing with it unaware if someone nominated them or it's just because they want any details you have.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff