RE: Six points for speeding
Discussion
Dunk76 said:
If you want to dissuade dangerous speeding (i.e. 45 in 30mph zones)..
More sweeping statements..
Dunk76 said:
After all, 45 in a 30 is generally regarded as dangerous -
Is it ? By whom ? Certainly not the courts, nor the police..And around my way there are 3 lane barriered carriageways with not a house or pavement for half a mile yet they remain 30 limits.. Is doing 45 on such a road 'dangerous' ?
Dunk76 said:
especially as it's 50% above the limit. Yet 95 in 70 is 33% over the limit.
Safe speeds (or indeed 'dangerous' speeds) cannot be determined by a percentage above some arbitrarily defined speed limit..A limit is a limit, agreed. But simply exceeding that limit by some amount does not make it inherently 'dangerous'..
Dunk76 said:
Which is exactly the same fine/points as I'd have got for doing 57 in 30mph. Which is more dangerous?
Depends upon the circumstances..There are many times where 57 in a 30 would be safer than even adhering to the speed limit on a motorway (heavy rain, fog, etc)..
And incidentally, conviction for 57 in a 30 limit would currently see 6 points OR a ban of up to 56 days handed out..
spoonoff said:
Obviously in residential areas it's a no-brainer.
Let's consider the far less common senario of, say, a deserted 10 mile stretch of duel carrigeway, that for whatever reason is under a 30 mph limit. You would be tempted to put your foot down, but you aren't going to enjoy the drive any more at 45 than at 30.
Time taken to cover the distance at 45 mph: 13 minutes 20 seconds.
Time taken to cover it at 30 mph: 20 minutes.
So the pertinent question is really, what exactly do you intend to do with the extra 6 minutes 40 seconds???
Over a working year (240 days) that's a day saved from driving that stretch of road.Let's consider the far less common senario of, say, a deserted 10 mile stretch of duel carrigeway, that for whatever reason is under a 30 mph limit. You would be tempted to put your foot down, but you aren't going to enjoy the drive any more at 45 than at 30.
Time taken to cover the distance at 45 mph: 13 minutes 20 seconds.
Time taken to cover it at 30 mph: 20 minutes.
So the pertinent question is really, what exactly do you intend to do with the extra 6 minutes 40 seconds???
I take it you are another Brake troll?
The fact is, 45 in a 30 can be safe depending on the conditions, just the same as 20 could be dangerous on the same stretch of road in different conditions.
Maybe there is a case for higher penalties for 45/30 offences, as that's 50% over the posted limit and most KSI's still occur in built up areas.
But I don't think the same logic extends automatically to Motorways, or even to dual carriageways where statistically accidents are much less likely to occur.
It will be interesting to see if an ePetition starts to oppose this proposal, and what support it gets. Somehow though I don't see it making much difference, as the consulations held by both the DfT and the Transport Select Committee are stacked with lobby/interest groups who support these measures, and with no representation from normal motorists at all. In that sense the decision is already made, and MP's will just rubber stamp it out of fear of being branded baby-killers by the Daily Mail if they don't.
As Paul Smith says (and proves statistically) this will fall disproportionately heavily on the 40% or so of motorists who exceed the motorway limits. I already have visions of Wilshire Police putting consecutive talivans on bridges over the M4 in order to gather the necessary 12-points in a single stretch...
But I don't think the same logic extends automatically to Motorways, or even to dual carriageways where statistically accidents are much less likely to occur.
It will be interesting to see if an ePetition starts to oppose this proposal, and what support it gets. Somehow though I don't see it making much difference, as the consulations held by both the DfT and the Transport Select Committee are stacked with lobby/interest groups who support these measures, and with no representation from normal motorists at all. In that sense the decision is already made, and MP's will just rubber stamp it out of fear of being branded baby-killers by the Daily Mail if they don't.
As Paul Smith says (and proves statistically) this will fall disproportionately heavily on the 40% or so of motorists who exceed the motorway limits. I already have visions of Wilshire Police putting consecutive talivans on bridges over the M4 in order to gather the necessary 12-points in a single stretch...
45 in a 30 twice will see you banned?
Near me theres a 70 that runs into a 30, it becomes 30 at the top of a sliproad off a dual carriageway, the zone change is in fact so close to the dual carriageway that one would have to brake to 30 on the dual carriageway to make sure you were travelling at 30 when passing the signs.
So failure to do that twice, no licence, no job (for most people), no income.
We have the safest roads in Europe, wouldnt it be nice if that was applauded every now and again rather than opressing the motorist further and further and further?
Near me theres a 70 that runs into a 30, it becomes 30 at the top of a sliproad off a dual carriageway, the zone change is in fact so close to the dual carriageway that one would have to brake to 30 on the dual carriageway to make sure you were travelling at 30 when passing the signs.
So failure to do that twice, no licence, no job (for most people), no income.
We have the safest roads in Europe, wouldnt it be nice if that was applauded every now and again rather than opressing the motorist further and further and further?
They should re classify all speed limts to meet current vehicle standards and scrap the 30+ year old speed limits.
Then have varied fines for the more you do, 1 point for up to 10% over the limit 2 points for 15% over or something like that.
Who ever thought of having a 12 point licence system and then only dish out 3 or 6 point fines anyway?
Then have varied fines for the more you do, 1 point for up to 10% over the limit 2 points for 15% over or something like that.
Who ever thought of having a 12 point licence system and then only dish out 3 or 6 point fines anyway?
Bing o said:
corozin said:
Maybe there is a case for higher penalties for 45/30 offences, as that's 50% over the posted limit and most KSI's still occur in built up areas.
As a result of speeding motorists? Because if it isn't, these laws are garbage.
i think the speed limit in a town is fine but on back roads and motorways the speed limit should be put up especially on motorways. 100mph is not that fast and we should not be banned for doing it. If you look at any country that has no speed limits it works fine no major accidents every 2 mins. I hate this country.
spoonoff said:
Obviously in residential areas it's a no-brainer.
Let's consider the far less common senario of, say, a deserted 10 mile stretch of duel carrigeway, that for whatever reason is under a 30 mph limit. You would be tempted to put your foot down, but you aren't going to enjoy the drive any more at 45 than at 30.
Time taken to cover the distance at 45 mph: 13 minutes 20 seconds.
Time taken to cover it at 30 mph: 20 minutes.
So the pertinent question is really, what exactly do you intend to do with the extra 6 minutes 40 seconds???
Some people value their time on earth more than others do.Let's consider the far less common senario of, say, a deserted 10 mile stretch of duel carrigeway, that for whatever reason is under a 30 mph limit. You would be tempted to put your foot down, but you aren't going to enjoy the drive any more at 45 than at 30.
Time taken to cover the distance at 45 mph: 13 minutes 20 seconds.
Time taken to cover it at 30 mph: 20 minutes.
So the pertinent question is really, what exactly do you intend to do with the extra 6 minutes 40 seconds???
If someone else puts a high value on his or her time, that is their business.
If you think your own time is worth nothing, that is your business, but please don't seek to impose your personal values on others.
spoonoff said:
Obviously in residential areas it's a no-brainer.
Let's consider the far less common senario of, say, a deserted 10 mile stretch of duel carrigeway, that for whatever reason is under a 30 mph limit. You would be tempted to put your foot down, but you aren't going to enjoy the drive any more at 45 than at 30.
Time taken to cover the distance at 45 mph: 13 minutes 20 seconds.
Time taken to cover it at 30 mph: 20 minutes.
So the pertinent question is really, what exactly do you intend to do with the extra 6 minutes 40 seconds???
Shag your wife..Let's consider the far less common senario of, say, a deserted 10 mile stretch of duel carrigeway, that for whatever reason is under a 30 mph limit. You would be tempted to put your foot down, but you aren't going to enjoy the drive any more at 45 than at 30.
Time taken to cover the distance at 45 mph: 13 minutes 20 seconds.
Time taken to cover it at 30 mph: 20 minutes.
So the pertinent question is really, what exactly do you intend to do with the extra 6 minutes 40 seconds???
Twice!
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 bridgeWhether the speed limit is appropriate is an entirely different question.
Cheers,
FT.
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.
It's acceptable to me. 105 on the m-way is not a big deal nor should it be illegal. Funny how laws that the gov find inconvenient are scrapped (age of consent for example, so mp's can get off with rent boys legally), but speeding is such a no-no. FFS there are 30 times as many dying of cancer a year. Spend the camera budget on a cure for cancer.Whether the speed limit is appropriate is an entirely different question.
Cheers,
FT.
flemke said:
spoonoff said:
Obviously in residential areas it's a no-brainer.
Let's consider the far less common senario of, say, a deserted 10 mile stretch of duel carrigeway, that for whatever reason is under a 30 mph limit. You would be tempted to put your foot down, but you aren't going to enjoy the drive any more at 45 than at 30.
Time taken to cover the distance at 45 mph: 13 minutes 20 seconds.
Time taken to cover it at 30 mph: 20 minutes.
So the pertinent question is really, what exactly do you intend to do with the extra 6 minutes 40 seconds???
Some people value their time on earth more than others do.Let's consider the far less common senario of, say, a deserted 10 mile stretch of duel carrigeway, that for whatever reason is under a 30 mph limit. You would be tempted to put your foot down, but you aren't going to enjoy the drive any more at 45 than at 30.
Time taken to cover the distance at 45 mph: 13 minutes 20 seconds.
Time taken to cover it at 30 mph: 20 minutes.
So the pertinent question is really, what exactly do you intend to do with the extra 6 minutes 40 seconds???
If someone else puts a high value on his or her time, that is their business.
If you think your own time is worth nothing, that is your business, but please don't seek to impose your personal values on others.
Personally, i love speeding, but there is a time and a place.
JimSuperSix said:
schnellbomber said:
spoonoff said:
If you are doing over 45 in a 30 zone you deserve what you get.
Great, another keyboard warrior. Welcome
If it was 65 or 70 in a 60, yes that's pretty harsh, but 45 in a 30? Tough, read your speedo and slow down. If not, accept the consequences.
Edited by JimSuperSix on Friday 9th November 10:54
It seems to me this new law has been introduced because people do speed too much in built up areas (30mph zones). I agree whole heartedly with the punishment of 6 points if you do 45 in a 30. That is quite a big difference in speed, and a person being hit at 50% greater speed than they would have been if the driver was not speeding will make a massive difference to survival chances.
I know people should not be in the road at all when cars are there, and cross the road in a much safer and more sensible fashion, (stop, look, listen, think then cross, I learnt this when I was a kid!) but people are quite often plain stupid or easily distracted when they should be concentrating, yet it would be nice to know if you make that error when crossing, there is someone doing the speed limit.
All I do in the speed debates is say 2 things.
1) People should learn how to cross the road properly.
2) Imagine a loved one was run over by a speeder in a 30mph limit and died. Those who argue against the idea would feel very different then.
I know people should not be in the road at all when cars are there, and cross the road in a much safer and more sensible fashion, (stop, look, listen, think then cross, I learnt this when I was a kid!) but people are quite often plain stupid or easily distracted when they should be concentrating, yet it would be nice to know if you make that error when crossing, there is someone doing the speed limit.
All I do in the speed debates is say 2 things.
1) People should learn how to cross the road properly.
2) Imagine a loved one was run over by a speeder in a 30mph limit and died. Those who argue against the idea would feel very different then.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff