It's not about the money (yeah, right)!

[Johnnytheboy]

turbojay555 said:

That's the only other course I know that's not for speeding, could be wrong though.

One of my staff got done by a British Transport Police camera van running a red light on a level crossing.

He got sent on a level crossing awareness course!

[cmaguire]

turbojay555 said:

pinchmeimdreamin said:

cmaguire said:

I once travelled from Cambridgeshire to Cheshire to do one of these kind of courses. I certainly didn't want to,

So why didn't you just take the points ?

If it's the same course I went on it was either the course or a court appearance for dwdca.

8 hour course which also involved going out driving with a instructor.

That's the only other course I know that's not for speeding, could be wrong though.

It was a red light offence in Stockport around 2012, and there was no option to take the course anywhere else. Rather like the course, I'm not inclined to bother but I will give some background to mitigate the sanctimonious crap. Stockport (and the North in general from what I've seen) loves a camera, they're everywhere and a bloody nuisance. I'm on my way back to the hotel after an Indian at 10.30pm, and as I approach some lights they change to amber. No issue, but there are some other cars doddering across like their handbrakes are stuck on. Had I continued at 30 and slammed the anchors on up the arse of the last vehicle I would have doubtless been fine. As it was I let the throttle off and coasted through at 20mph. I expect the camera just triggered.

I took the course because getting a six-pointer is too easy, and that would put me on 9 and that's just too stressful (i.e. obeying the limits religiously would probably lead to a suicide bid).
Had I not taken the course I would have briefly been on those 9 points, so that somewhat validates the inconvenience.

[pinchmeimdreamin]

So the course benefited you then ?

[cmaguire]

pinchmeimdreamin said:

So the course benefited you then ?

What do you think?
I've got zero interest in slowing down, I drive to the location and the conditions. Which means in urban areas I am probably relatively inconspicuous, whereas outside urban areas I am significantly quicker than virtually everybody. Bar the legal aspect this has yet to be an issue of any kind. and if it becomes one I will freely slow down to accommodate that.

[pinchmeimdreamin]

cmaguire said:

pinchmeimdreamin said:

So the course benefited you then ?

What do you think?
I've got zero interest in slowing down, I drive to the location and the conditions. Which means in urban areas I am probably relatively inconspicuous, whereas outside urban areas I am significantly quicker than virtually everybody. Bar the legal aspect this has yet to be an issue of any kind. and if it becomes one I will freely slow down to accommodate that.

Well despite the fact you are a driving god obviously, it saved you being on 9 points.

[turbojay555]

cmaguire said:

What do you think?
I've got zero interest in slowing down, I drive to the location and the conditions. Which means in urban areas I am probably relatively inconspicuous, whereas outside urban areas I am significantly quicker than virtually everybody. Bar the legal aspect this has yet to be an issue of any kind. and if it becomes one I will freely slow down to accommodate that.

That is pretty much exactly how I feel and drive.

[turbojay555]

Johnnytheboy said:

One of my staff got done by a British Transport Police camera van running a red light on a level crossing.

He got sent on a level crossing awareness course!

never knew there was such a thing.

[Red Devil]

turbojay555 said:

Johnnytheboy said:

One of my staff got done by a British Transport Police camera van running a red light on a level crossing.

He got sent on a level crossing awareness course!

never knew there was such a thing.

The DAS (Driver Awareness Scheme) covers a whole range of offences.
http://www.ukmotorists.com/speed%20awareness%20con...

Gambling at a level crossing is utter madness. You'll never win a contest with a train.
Personally I think it should be an automatic mandatory 12 months disqualification.
Plus the vehicle seized and sold or crushed.

Why? Because of the danger it poses and the potential for a major incident.
Google Ufton Nervet (yes I know, it was a suicide but motive is irrelevant to the outcome).

[Johnnytheboy]

In fairness to my staff member, before he got done I recall driving over the same crossing and thinking "ooh, those lights are a bit hard to see until you're almost on top of the crossing", so when he said he'd been done on a crossing, I guessed straight away which one it was.

[Engineer792]

The problem is that the legislation itself is based on a false premise.

In truth, speed is to safety as cold weather is to colds and 'flu.

Those who think otherwise might care to try to explain how it is that only around 1% of pedestrians hit by cars while crossing roads with 30mph limits are killed.

It wouldn't even be such an issue if it wasnt for the way speed limits are enforced. Leaving the false premise aside for the moment, the limit is really a line drawn in the sand, if you like, an objective measurement to allow the prosecution of dodgy driving - without which it might often boil down to a case off their word against yours. As such, the point at which the limit is set is relatively unimportant, so one has to wonder why it is that limits are usually set at around the speed which most drivers do in the course of their normal daily business. As it is, automated enforcement means that the limits are enforced rather than what the limits represent - in other words the law is enforced to the letter rather than the spirit.

If we have to have speed enforcement, give me the old style anytime.

Edited by Engineer792 on Tuesday 24th October 13:12

[anonymous-user]

Engineer792 said:

The problem is that the legislation itself is based on a false premise.

In truth, speed is to safety as cold weather is to colds and 'flu.

Those who think otherwise might care to try to explain how it is that only around 1% of pedestrians hit by cars while crossing roads with 30mph limits are killed.

It wouldn't even be such an issue if it wasnt for the way speed limits are enforced. Leaving the false premise aside for the moment, the limit is really a line drawn in the sand, if you like, an objective measurement to allow the prosecution of dodgy driving - without which it might often boil down to a case off their word against yours. As such, the point at which the limit is set is relatively unimportant, so one has to wonder why it is that limits are usually set at around the speed which most drivers do in the course of their normal daily business. As it is, automated enforcement means that the limits are enforced rather than what the limits represent - in other words the law is enforced to the letter rather than the spirit.

If we have to have speed enforcement, give me the old style anytime.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 24th October 13:12

Agreed
As I pointed out it does seemed to have started 'to the letter of the law' when Labour got into power along with their 'buy diesels' mantra, when the Tories got into power in 2010 one of the first things that was said was 'the war on the motorist is over' unfortunately my guess is that they see the money made out of enforcing limits 'to the letter of the law' and realised this money was needed after Labours gung-ho approach to spending money.

[vonhosen]

Engineer792 said:

The problem is that the legislation itself is based on a false premise.

In truth, speed is to safety as cold weather is to colds and 'flu.

Those who think otherwise might care to try to explain how it is that only around 1% of pedestrians hit by cars while crossing roads with 30mph limits are killed.

It wouldn't even be such an issue if it wasnt for the way speed limits are enforced. Leaving the false premise aside for the moment, the limit is really a line drawn in the sand, if you like, an objective measurement to allow the prosecution of dodgy driving - without which it might often boil down to a case off their word against yours. As such, the point at which the limit is set is relatively unimportant, so one has to wonder why it is that limits are usually set at around the speed which most drivers do in the course of their normal daily business. As it is, automated enforcement means that the limits are enforced rather than what the limits represent - in other words the law is enforced to the letter rather than the spirit.

If we have to have speed enforcement, give me the old style anytime.

Edited by Engineer792 on Tuesday 24th October 13:12

It's not enforced to the letter.
You don't end up prosecuted for 71 in 70 etc.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

It's not enforced to the letter.
You don't end up prosecuted for 71 in 70 etc.

The point is it is way more petty than it was.
There was no industry with a vested interest in more people speeding 25 years ago.

[Engineer792]

vonhosen said:

Engineer792 said:

The problem is that the legislation itself is based on a false premise.

In truth, speed is to safety as cold weather is to colds and 'flu.

Those who think otherwise might care to try to explain how it is that only around 1% of pedestrians hit by cars while crossing roads with 30mph limits are killed.

It wouldn't even be such an issue if it wasnt for the way speed limits are enforced. Leaving the false premise aside for the moment, the limit is really a line drawn in the sand, if you like, an objective measurement to allow the prosecution of dodgy driving - without which it might often boil down to a case off their word against yours. As such, the point at which the limit is set is relatively unimportant, so one has to wonder why it is that limits are usually set at around the speed which most drivers do in the course of their normal daily business. As it is, automated enforcement means that the limits are enforced rather than what the limits represent - in other words the law is enforced to the letter rather than the spirit.

If we have to have speed enforcement, give me the old style anytime.

Edited by Engineer792 on Tuesday 24th October 13:12

It's not enforced to the letter.
You don't end up prosecuted for 71 in 70 etc.

It doesn't matter if it's enforced at 71 or at 10% +2, or whatever, it's still enforced according to some arbitrary threshold, which doesn't exactly follow the spirit of the law, and in most cases does exactly nothing to promote safety.

[billzeebub]

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

Engineer792 said:

The problem is that the legislation itself is based on a false premise.

In truth, speed is to safety as cold weather is to colds and 'flu.

Those who think otherwise might care to try to explain how it is that only around 1% of pedestrians hit by cars while crossing roads with 30mph limits are killed.

It wouldn't even be such an issue if it wasnt for the way speed limits are enforced. Leaving the false premise aside for the moment, the limit is really a line drawn in the sand, if you like, an objective measurement to allow the prosecution of dodgy driving - without which it might often boil down to a case off their word against yours. As such, the point at which the limit is set is relatively unimportant, so one has to wonder why it is that limits are usually set at around the speed which most drivers do in the course of their normal daily business. As it is, automated enforcement means that the limits are enforced rather than what the limits represent - in other words the law is enforced to the letter rather than the spirit.

If we have to have speed enforcement, give me the old style anytime.

Edited by Engineer792 on Tuesday 24th October 13:12

It's not enforced to the letter.
You don't end up prosecuted for 71 in 70 etc.

It doesn't matter if it's enforced at 71 or at 10% +2, or whatever, it's still enforced according to some arbitrary threshold, which doesn't exactly follow the spirit of the law, and in most cases does exactly nothing to promote safety.

Much easier/cheaper to do this though than actually have Officers out there catching dangerous driving

[anonymous-user]

cmaguire said:

pinchmeimdreamin said:

So the course benefited you then ?

What do you think?
I've got zero interest in slowing down, I drive to the location and the conditions. Which means in urban areas I am probably relatively inconspicuous, whereas outside urban areas I am significantly quicker than virtually everybody. Bar the legal aspect this has yet to be an issue of any kind. and if it becomes one I will freely slow down to accommodate that.

Excellent post, couldn't agree more!

[cmaguire]

billzeebub said:

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

Engineer792 said:

The problem is that the legislation itself is based on a false premise.

In truth, speed is to safety as cold weather is to colds and 'flu.

Those who think otherwise might care to try to explain how it is that only around 1% of pedestrians hit by cars while crossing roads with 30mph limits are killed.

It wouldn't even be such an issue if it wasnt for the way speed limits are enforced. Leaving the false premise aside for the moment, the limit is really a line drawn in the sand, if you like, an objective measurement to allow the prosecution of dodgy driving - without which it might often boil down to a case off their word against yours. As such, the point at which the limit is set is relatively unimportant, so one has to wonder why it is that limits are usually set at around the speed which most drivers do in the course of their normal daily business. As it is, automated enforcement means that the limits are enforced rather than what the limits represent - in other words the law is enforced to the letter rather than the spirit.

If we have to have speed enforcement, give me the old style anytime.

Edited by Engineer792 on Tuesday 24th October 13:12

It's not enforced to the letter.
You don't end up prosecuted for 71 in 70 etc.

It doesn't matter if it's enforced at 71 or at 10% +2, or whatever, it's still enforced according to some arbitrary threshold, which doesn't exactly follow the spirit of the law, and in most cases does exactly nothing to promote safety.

Much easier/cheaper to do this though than actually have Officers out there catching dangerous driving

Unfortunately you, like many others, appear to be confusing dangerous driving with exceeding the speed limit.
I am sure the authorities are delighted by this, but it is, in fact, total bks.

[vonhosen]

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

Engineer792 said:

The problem is that the legislation itself is based on a false premise.

In truth, speed is to safety as cold weather is to colds and 'flu.

Those who think otherwise might care to try to explain how it is that only around 1% of pedestrians hit by cars while crossing roads with 30mph limits are killed.

It wouldn't even be such an issue if it wasnt for the way speed limits are enforced. Leaving the false premise aside for the moment, the limit is really a line drawn in the sand, if you like, an objective measurement to allow the prosecution of dodgy driving - without which it might often boil down to a case off their word against yours. As such, the point at which the limit is set is relatively unimportant, so one has to wonder why it is that limits are usually set at around the speed which most drivers do in the course of their normal daily business. As it is, automated enforcement means that the limits are enforced rather than what the limits represent - in other words the law is enforced to the letter rather than the spirit.

If we have to have speed enforcement, give me the old style anytime.

Edited by Engineer792 on Tuesday 24th October 13:12

It's not enforced to the letter.
You don't end up prosecuted for 71 in 70 etc.

It doesn't matter if it's enforced at 71 or at 10% +2, or whatever, it's still enforced according to some arbitrary threshold, which doesn't exactly follow the spirit of the law, and in most cases does exactly nothing to promote safety.

It follows exactly the spirit of the law as intended & written.
A simple clear unambiguous line drawn in the sand. No evidence of any danger required for the offence. Enforced without zero tolerance with disposal options graduated depending on the margin over the limit, with that enforcement starting at not insignificant margins over the limit.
Then where unacceptable danger is caused/alleged due to the speed in the circumstances the separate offence of careless/dangerous driving can be utilised for greater sentencing possibilities.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

billzeebub said:

Engineer792 said:

vonhosen said:

Engineer792 said:

The problem is that the legislation itself is based on a false premise.

In truth, speed is to safety as cold weather is to colds and 'flu.

Those who think otherwise might care to try to explain how it is that only around 1% of pedestrians hit by cars while crossing roads with 30mph limits are killed.

It wouldn't even be such an issue if it wasnt for the way speed limits are enforced. Leaving the false premise aside for the moment, the limit is really a line drawn in the sand, if you like, an objective measurement to allow the prosecution of dodgy driving - without which it might often boil down to a case off their word against yours. As such, the point at which the limit is set is relatively unimportant, so one has to wonder why it is that limits are usually set at around the speed which most drivers do in the course of their normal daily business. As it is, automated enforcement means that the limits are enforced rather than what the limits represent - in other words the law is enforced to the letter rather than the spirit.

If we have to have speed enforcement, give me the old style anytime.

Edited by Engineer792 on Tuesday 24th October 13:12

It's not enforced to the letter.
You don't end up prosecuted for 71 in 70 etc.

It doesn't matter if it's enforced at 71 or at 10% +2, or whatever, it's still enforced according to some arbitrary threshold, which doesn't exactly follow the spirit of the law, and in most cases does exactly nothing to promote safety.

Much easier/cheaper to do this though than actually have Officers out there catching dangerous driving

Unfortunately you, like many others, appear to be confusing dangerous driving with exceeding the speed limit.
I am sure the authorities are delighted by this, but it is, in fact, total bks.

The officers that are out there can deal with dangerous driving where detected. They just don't have to be tasked to stand on a fixed point doing speed enforcement because the SCP can be there doing that simple job instead.

[Engineer792]

cb1965 said:

cmaguire said:

pinchmeimdreamin said:

So the course benefited you then ?

What do you think?
I've got zero interest in slowing down, I drive to the location and the conditions. Which means in urban areas I am probably relatively inconspicuous, whereas outside urban areas I am significantly quicker than virtually everybody. Bar the legal aspect this has yet to be an issue of any kind. and if it becomes one I will freely slow down to accommodate that.

Excellent post, couldn't agree more!

Yes, I'm also in full agreement.
If you're driving according to conditions, you should have little fear of prosecution, regardless of what your numerical speed happens to be.
Of course you could have the misfortune to run across some badass cop, but I think I'm prepared to take my chances with the odd one.