79mph in a 70 limit

[vonhosen]

vsonix said:

Digby said:

vsonix said:

34 in a 30 in Norfolk (hand-held camera), did the SAC in Devon.

I would have taken the points...because screw them.

Being fined for something so pathetic would just make me go faster in areas I knew were not covered....because screw them.

Yup. I was pretty livid especially as it was very much a speed 'trap' i.e. the speed limit change was well outside the end of the built-up area and the scamera operator was basically hiding behind the NSL sign zapping people as they increased speed as they left the village. Yes I know that the law doesn't allow you to increase speed to meet the change in limit but in everyday driving it doesn't always work like that. It might have been a more serious figure had I not actually spotted the hi-viz and taken my foot off the gas again. I had done a steady 30 all the way through the village, I don't break limits in built-up residential areas on principle so it was double annoying that I got pinged.

What will you do at that (or similar) location next time though?

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

What will you do at that (or similar) location next time though?

Doesn't make any of it right though does it, even assuming he does what you think he might?

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

What will you do at that (or similar) location next time though?

Doesn't make any of it right though does it, even assuming he does what you think he might?

It achieves the objective of speed enforcement that is encouraging compliance though.
And they'll also say if they don't change their behaviour as a result they are simply asking to get caught & sanctioned again.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

It achieves the objective of speed enforcement that is encouraging compliance though.
And they'll also say if they don't change their behaviour as a result they are simply asking to get caught & sanctioned again.

I don't accept that compliance is encouraged by cynical positioning of speed traps. That might work with the oblivious A to B drivers that frequently appear to do 45 everywhere, as the cynical placement would likely pass them by in much the same way as most of their journey. For any conscientious/enthusiastic driver the result is more likely to leave a bad taste in the mouth and breed resentment and disrespect for the enforcement methods used.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

It achieves the objective of speed enforcement that is encouraging compliance though.
And they'll also say if they don't change their behaviour as a result they are simply asking to get caught & sanctioned again.

I don't accept that compliance is encouraged by cynical positioning of speed traps. That might work with the oblivious A to B drivers that frequently appear to do 45 everywhere, as the cynical placement would likely pass them by in much the same way as most of their journey. For any conscientious/enthusiastic driver the result is more likely to leave a bad taste in the mouth and breed resentment and disrespect for the enforcement methods used.

If he alters his behaviour at the (or similar) location in order to avoid further sanction the result of that enforcement is greater compliance at the (or similar) location, irrespective of what you accept.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

If he alters his behaviour at the (or similar) location in order to avoid further sanction the result of that enforcement is greater compliance at the (or similar) location, irrespective of what you accept.

And, if what you accept is true, in a location (or similar) where ultimately there is no societal gain whatsoever unless you are suggesting that compliance carries over to other dissimilar locations where a reduction might be beneficial (but where said driver may already be driving acceptably anyway).

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

If he alters his behaviour at the (or similar) location in order to avoid further sanction the result of that enforcement is greater compliance at the (or similar) location, irrespective of what you accept.

And, if what you accept is true, in a location (or similar) where ultimately there is no societal gain whatsoever unless you are suggesting that compliance carries over to other dissimilar locations where a reduction might be beneficial (but where said driver may already be driving acceptably anyway).

You or I won't know the actual societal gain.
The purpose of enforcement anytime/anywhere including covert use is to encourage wider compliance. Your assertion that that only works for 45 everywhere drivers & not conscientious or enthusiast drivers is without foundation.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

You or I won't know the actual societal gain.
The purpose of enforcement anytime/anywhere including covert use is to encourage wider compliance. Your assertion that that only works for 45 everywhere drivers & not conscientious or enthusiast drivers is without foundation.

My assertion was as regards the cynical aspects of enforcement, predominantly mobile units and fixed Motorway cameras

[JNW1]

cmaguire said:

My assertion was as regards the cynical aspects of enforcement, predominantly mobile units and fixed Motorway cameras

But for some the Holy Grail is that everyone should observe the speed limits at all times; this is based on a belief that such compliance will make the roads safer and therefore applying the limit at a place where safety isn't an issue is not to be frowned upon (infact it's actually seen as a good thing because it sends the message you can be caught anywhere and not just at places where it would be unsafe to speed). So in the eyes of people who think that way it probably does make the situation you described earlier "right" even though you and many others may think differently.

The reality is that there will always be those who think freedom of the individual needs to be restricted in a particular area in order to secure some wider benefit and that viewpoint certainly seems to be prevailing where speeding is concerned; the advent of technology is allowing the authorities to watch and control us like never before and for everyone who finds that an unnecessary intrusion there's another who thinks it's a good thing. Arguably not a right or wrong answer, just depends where you believe the line should be drawn between individual freedom and state control.

[Crackie]

JNW1 said:

But for some the Holy Grail is that everyone should observe the speed limits at all times; this is based on a belief that such compliance will make the roads safer and therefore applying the limit at a place where safety isn't an issue is not to be frowned upon (infact it's actually seen as a good thing because it sends the message you can be caught anywhere and not just at places where it would be unsafe to speed).

Its not too hard to imagine a future scenario where cars all have GPS controlled speed limiters which prevented speeding of any kind, anywhere. The safety camera partnerships and associated gravy train would be redundant and approx.100 more people would be alive at the end of every year.

Sadly approx. 1650 would still die every year because excessive speed was not a contributing factor in their accidents.

Edited by Crackie on Monday 24th April 23:51

[vsonix]

vonhosen said:

vsonix said:

Digby said:

vsonix said:

34 in a 30 in Norfolk (hand-held camera), did the SAC in Devon.

I would have taken the points...because screw them.

Being fined for something so pathetic would just make me go faster in areas I knew were not covered....because screw them.

Yup. I was pretty livid especially as it was very much a speed 'trap' i.e. the speed limit change was well outside the end of the built-up area and the scamera operator was basically hiding behind the NSL sign zapping people as they increased speed as they left the village. Yes I know that the law doesn't allow you to increase speed to meet the change in limit but in everyday driving it doesn't always work like that. It might have been a more serious figure had I not actually spotted the hi-viz and taken my foot off the gas again. I had done a steady 30 all the way through the village, I don't break limits in built-up residential areas on principle so it was double annoying that I got pinged.

What will you do at that (or similar) location next time though?

Screech to halt followed by a massive burnout? Or just a handbrake turn and tear off in the opposite direction, I'd imagine.

j/k of course

the real answer - when driving in unfamiliar territory I tend to base the speed I travel at on the actual surroundings i.e am I in a built-up area, are there pavements, has the village I am driving through come to an end etc etc. If I am a few hundred miles away from home I am maybe focussed on navigating and watching traffic and if all of a sudden the buildings come to an end, there's NSL ahead and everyone starts to gather speed then one tends to follow instinct and also speed up. And then see a hi viz pointing things at you.

Edited by vsonix on Monday 24th April 23:47

[Ilovejapcrap]

Will you get points ?

Surely driving course ?

FYI I've just had mine through today 83 in a 60 not dual carriageway 3 points 100 quid.

Absolutely my own fault in a world of my own etc not paying attention a moment of turning throttle a little bit more than I should have

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

What will you do at that (or similar) location next time though?

I stay away from many A roads now and the odd B road due to parasitic fleecing situations such as this.

Fortunately, there are still many roads where you can concentrate on driving.