Next for jail?
Discussion
From today's Bristol Evening Post. 102mph sounds like a lot, but 40mph is ridiculous on that stretch. The numpty-toned quotes are just nauseating, but I fear this chap is about to become another cause celebre....
SPEEDY RIDER CAUGHT
15:50 - 31 July 2003
A Motorcyclist has been caught racing along a country road at 102 mph by police carrying out speed checks. Officers were monitoring the speed of traffic on the 40 mph route from the A38 to the village of Frampton-on-Severn when the rider sped past.
The motorcyclist will appear in court later.
Gloucestershire police had been asked to carry out checks on The Perryway by parish councillors.
The road used to be subject to the national limit of 60mph but the 40mph restriction was introduced in early July because of concerns about the speed of vehicles using the route.
Inspector Nick Holmes said: "Our aim was to impress upon motorists that the road now had a lower speed limit and that 40mph was the maximum permitted.
"We expected to pick up one or two motorists travelling at higher speeds but we were surprised to record a motorbike apparently travelling at 102 mph." Three separate checks have so far been carried out along the Perryway this month and ten motorists have been stopped by police.
Inspector Holmes pledged there would be further checks in future.
He said: "Once drivers get into the open countryside, they often seem to forget that the same laws apply as in urban areas.
"But there are a number of other vulnerable road users about, including horse riders, cyclists and school children.
"Anyone travelling in excess of the speed limit could be placing their own lives and those of other people in serious jeopardy.
SPEEDY RIDER CAUGHT
15:50 - 31 July 2003
A Motorcyclist has been caught racing along a country road at 102 mph by police carrying out speed checks. Officers were monitoring the speed of traffic on the 40 mph route from the A38 to the village of Frampton-on-Severn when the rider sped past.
The motorcyclist will appear in court later.
Gloucestershire police had been asked to carry out checks on The Perryway by parish councillors.
The road used to be subject to the national limit of 60mph but the 40mph restriction was introduced in early July because of concerns about the speed of vehicles using the route.
Inspector Nick Holmes said: "Our aim was to impress upon motorists that the road now had a lower speed limit and that 40mph was the maximum permitted.
"We expected to pick up one or two motorists travelling at higher speeds but we were surprised to record a motorbike apparently travelling at 102 mph." Three separate checks have so far been carried out along the Perryway this month and ten motorists have been stopped by police.
Inspector Holmes pledged there would be further checks in future.
He said: "Once drivers get into the open countryside, they often seem to forget that the same laws apply as in urban areas.
"But there are a number of other vulnerable road users about, including horse riders, cyclists and school children.
"Anyone travelling in excess of the speed limit could be placing their own lives and those of other people in serious jeopardy.
I totally agree with you. I used to commute by motorcycle along there on a daily basis and 100+ at that time is astonishingly stupid. I assume they must have been filtering too, given the traffic at that time? You may well have saved them from themselves today.
However, I also know the road that this other chap was caught on. It's a dead straight Roman road in the middle of nowhere, with no side turns, good visibility and a good surface. There is no traffic on it to speak of.
The recently imposed 40 limit there raises contempt among users and as a result I would argue that it will actually lead to faster speeds than the old NSL.
I know the letter of the law won't agree, but if I was caught at 100+ here I'd be far more aggrieved than on the A40 at rush hour (not that I'd ever do 100+ there, at any time). The real crime is not being observant enough to have seen the speed trap before being nicked.
I know that the Police are merely the enforcers and are not responsible for setting the limits. What you did today was good policing. What the Gloucestershire council have done by setting the limit so artificially low is unjustified idiocy.
www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=374958&y=207779&z=5&sv=374958,207779&st=4&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
However, I also know the road that this other chap was caught on. It's a dead straight Roman road in the middle of nowhere, with no side turns, good visibility and a good surface. There is no traffic on it to speak of.
The recently imposed 40 limit there raises contempt among users and as a result I would argue that it will actually lead to faster speeds than the old NSL.
I know the letter of the law won't agree, but if I was caught at 100+ here I'd be far more aggrieved than on the A40 at rush hour (not that I'd ever do 100+ there, at any time). The real crime is not being observant enough to have seen the speed trap before being nicked.
I know that the Police are merely the enforcers and are not responsible for setting the limits. What you did today was good policing. What the Gloucestershire council have done by setting the limit so artificially low is unjustified idiocy.
www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=374958&y=207779&z=5&sv=374958,207779&st=4&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
"...I know that the Police are merely the enforcers and are not responsible for setting the limits. What you did today was good policing. What the Gloucestershire council have done by setting the limit so artificially low is unjustified idiocy..."
Yes, it's the unjustified idiocy from generally unaccountable mealy-mouths that I see so much of in my UK travels that really p1sses me off and leads me to ignore such limits. The sensible comments that I have read from the BIB here do make me feel that it's largely the councils and only one or two senior police zealots that have all the influence in spite of (probably increasing) public opinion opposing such impositions.
Yes, it's the unjustified idiocy from generally unaccountable mealy-mouths that I see so much of in my UK travels that really p1sses me off and leads me to ignore such limits. The sensible comments that I have read from the BIB here do make me feel that it's largely the councils and only one or two senior police zealots that have all the influence in spite of (probably increasing) public opinion opposing such impositions.
james_j said:
"...I know that the Police are merely the enforcers and are not responsible for setting the limits. What you did today was good policing. What the Gloucestershire council have done by setting the limit so artificially low is unjustified idiocy..."
Yes, it's the unjustified idiocy from generally unaccountable mealy-mouths that I see so much of in my UK travels that really p1sses me off and leads me to ignore such limits. The sensible comments that I have read from the BIB here do make me feel that it's largely the councils and only one or two senior police zealots that have all the influence in spite of (probably increasing) public opinion opposing such impositions.
Before you let plod off lightly consider who prioritizes where to set up the sped traps. If this road is as described earlier then there will be virtually no accidents recorded on it. So I am afraid it looks like the priority is to get ticks on a tick list and some money in, not improving safety. Note it is toward the end of month, any connection with meeting ticketing targets?
Just for the record, we don`t work on quotas, never have done, never will.
I can definately say that all speed site locations have to have 3 years of RTA data analised and provided there has been the required high number of Fatal or serious RTA`s we can then set up a mobile Gatso.
For a fixed Gatso site it`s even stricter.
We just don`t work on ticket quotas...there is no point.
I can definately say that all speed site locations have to have 3 years of RTA data analised and provided there has been the required high number of Fatal or serious RTA`s we can then set up a mobile Gatso.
For a fixed Gatso site it`s even stricter.
We just don`t work on ticket quotas...there is no point.
Will Crash said:
Just for the record, we don`t work on quotas, never have done, never will.
I can definately say that all speed site locations have to have 3 years of RTA data analised and provided there has been the required high number of Fatal or serious RTA`s we can then set up a mobile Gatso.
For a fixed Gatso site it`s even stricter.
We just don`t work on ticket quotas...there is no point.
Is this in your patch Will? What is going on on that road if the earlier descrption was correct i.e straight, no side turnings, low traffic etc. And it still had lots of RTAs? Something odd here.
Will Crash said:
Just for the record, we don`t work on quotas, never have done, never will.
I can definately say that all speed site locations have to have 3 years of RTA data analised and provided there has been the required high number of Fatal or serious RTA`s we can then set up a mobile Gatso.
For a fixed Gatso site it`s even stricter.
We just don`t work on ticket quotas...there is no point.
So explain all the ones on the NEW i will repeat the NEW road past silverstone
Unfortunately I don`t work on ths patch but this demonstrates exactly why Cameras get a very bad press.
I can only imagine as it is small force that covers this area that they are unable to provide sufficient cover to enforce the speed limit...that does not mean that I agree with the speed limit set, but prehaps an explanation as to the limit would have been a good plan
Mobile speed enforcement (camera vans)would have been my choice.....a highly visible deterrent or good old fashioned laser speed traps, but I personally would be looking for the real p*ss takers........
I can only imagine as it is small force that covers this area that they are unable to provide sufficient cover to enforce the speed limit...that does not mean that I agree with the speed limit set, but prehaps an explanation as to the limit would have been a good plan
Mobile speed enforcement (camera vans)would have been my choice.....a highly visible deterrent or good old fashioned laser speed traps, but I personally would be looking for the real p*ss takers........
I don`t know the answer to this, I will find out a definate answer on Tuesday when I return to the fun factory I work in!!
I am pretty sure that if the Council have put the cameras here they will rake in the money earned and will not use it to reduce your council tax bill...
Still worse things happen at sea..
I am pretty sure that if the Council have put the cameras here they will rake in the money earned and will not use it to reduce your council tax bill...
Still worse things happen at sea..
will crash said:
Unfortunately I don`t work on ths patch but this demonstrates exactly why Cameras get a very bad press.
I can only imagine as it is small force that covers this area that they are unable to provide sufficient cover to enforce the speed limit...that does not mean that I agree with the speed limit set, but prehaps an explanation as to the limit would have been a good plan
Mobile speed enforcement (camera vans)would have been my choice.....a highly visible deterrent or good old fashioned laser speed traps, but I personally would be looking for the real p*ss takers........
Scamera vans - a highly visible deterrent? Not around here they aren't. They hide them away so drivers cannot see them and provide no warnings at all.
the article said:
The road used to be subject to the national limit of 60mph but the 40mph restriction was introduced in early July because of concerns about the speed of vehicles using the route.
...
He said: "Once drivers get into the open countryside, they often seem to forget that the same laws apply as in urban areas.
"But there are a number of other vulnerable road users about, including horse riders, cyclists and school children.
Sorry, but doesn't that sound the least bit contradictory? They're concerned about the speed of vehicles using the road, which is in the open countryside, because there might be horse riders, cyclists and school children about?
FFS!
(a) What would school kids be doing playing on a road in the open countryside?
(b) There are potentially horse riders and cyclists on every road (barring motorways) in the damn country! Are we going to get a blanket NSL of 15mph just in case we should ever (oh the horror of it!) meet another road user?
Mon Ami Mate said:
The road used to be subject to the national limit of 60mph but the 40mph restriction was introduced in early July because of concerns about the speed of vehicles using the route.
Inspector Nick Holmes said: "Our aim was to impress upon motorists that the road now had a lower speed limit and that 40mph was the maximum permitted.
He said: "Once drivers get into the open countryside, they often seem to forget that the same laws apply as in urban areas.
"But there are a number of other vulnerable road users about, including horse riders, cyclists and school children.
"Anyone travelling in excess of the speed limit could be placing their own lives and those of other people in serious jeopardy.
"Concerned about the speed or cars" so no checking of any RTA information. Just some parish counsellors got a bit nervy that soemthing might happen and decided to reduce the limit!!!
No wonder the limits are so stupid in places if the justification is that "perhaps" a speeding car "might" have an accident, even though they haven't yet.
Mon Ami Mate said:
"We expected to pick up one or two motorists travelling at higher speeds but we were surprised to record a motorbike apparently travelling at 102 mph."
:shrugs:
I was out on a 60 limit today on the bike and I had 110 on the clocks.
No big deal. Of course I'm in Scotland. I'm begginning to think I'm mad to move to England with a motorbike. Think I might need some countermeasures.
Andy
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff