rav4640

little bit off topic, but why do people bother to reply to psl, most topic,s are a good read till psl pop,s up, he might just not bother posting and go away if he were not replied to, just my thinking

pslewis

So what do YOU do - Oh, Wise one?? REPLY!!

What a wally!!

Pete

Bubba po

His first one was 35 in a 30, his second one was 45 in a 40.

GC8

I see that most Camera Partnerships have now disregarded the ACPO's 10% + 2MPH recommendation then?

Simon

CTR

Only replied to see if I could get a rise out of him He will be back with more name calling shortly

Cue pslewis....

dpb

Mr Lewis is thoughtfully warning us of the consequences of being minimally the wrong side of the law- having either been booked before or, been v.close to it -(must have been before our labour government saw fit to prosecute every time).......if he gets a rise out of any reaction on here so be it .....

dpb

however not responding to difficult questions essentially invalidates any argument he might put forward..

Bubba po

High horses are difficult to get on for the aged. And you can't expect him to change horses in mid-stream....

Lum

"Speed Detector" a device that detects speed.

Yes, I have one of them it's attached to my gearbox and reports via a dial on my dashboard between the rev counter and the engine temperature gague.

Yes I have to look at it instead of the road in the current law enforcement climate, it's safer.

Lum

TaviaRS

Thought I ought to Geoff as I was having a pop at a pedant

Normal service will be resumed, do'nt you worry

theotherphil

When I was "done" for 32 in a 30, it was by a copper with a laser gun. He politely told me how far away he was from me, how far away he was from the nsl sign and that I was roughly 3 feet away from said sign when he clocked me.

I asked him about the 10% +2mph rule but he said that the Police in Teesside operate a zero tolerance policy. You speed and you get done and there was nothing he could do about it.

Daryl

Presumably because he was a complete arsehole

Abdabz

Wow - Im reading this and agreeing with Tiggs and psl which is happening more and more (except for the tory basing threads ).
The speed limit is obviously a limit and not a target and everyone knows if you go over that limit you risk being fined and pointyfied .
I speed regularly 35 in 30's, 30 in 20's etc I know its naughty but hey - although usually cruise at 65 on motorways coz its sooo much more chilling and I know my cars fast as **** so what have I got to prove? As and when I do get caught (which hasn't happened in 13 years and a quarter of a million miles) I'll take it on the chin and smile at the one in ten thousand strike rate the plod have on my misdemeanours.
P

And the speeding home being OK if you have kids wondering where daddy is - ROFLMAO - pure comical mastery..."Hi Kids daddy's here to read you a bedtime story "Once upon a time there was this kiddy called Emily, Daddy snapped her spine on the way home to make sure he could give you 5 minutes of extra cuggles - Isnt daddy nice??". Oh please!

Lum

This post seems to exemplify every point that I disagree with in the whole speeding debate.
So you admit to speeding in urban areas where there may well be children playing or about to run out from between parked cars and where the maximum safe speed is often well below the posted limit, yet at the same time you go too slow on the motorway, causing congestion and slowing everyone else down. I bet you sit in the middle lane too.
Well we shall see, lots of people say this but still get pissed off when it happens. You may not do, but no way of knowing until you've been done.
The Daily Mail just called, they want tomorrows article back.
I find it highly unlikely "Emily" was playing on the motorway or NSL A-road where I prefer to speed, it is far more likely that she was playing on a 30mph urban road, a place where you have just admited that YOU speed regularly, yet you accuse my driving habbits of being likely to cause this.

The fact that you claim a total gain of just 5 minutes shows your lack of understanding of the reasons for speeding. My return drive home from, say, Glasgow to Aylsbury consists of a 300 mile run of NSL, nearly all of this is Motorway except for one short near-motorway-standard stretch called the A74 (which turns into the M74 at one end and the A74(M) and then the M6 at the other end)

At 60MPH (which is what you are likely doing if your speedo reads 65) this run will take 5 hours assuming you don't stop at services.

At 90MPH this run will take 3 1/2 hours given the same assumptions.

At 120MPH this run will take 2 1/2 hours.

That's a saving of 2 1/2 hours without speeding on the twisties of the A701 (where it would be dangerous) and without speeding on the M5/M42/M40 leg of the run not to mention the A41 and the local roads which I dont intend to speed on anyway.

Sticking to legal speeds, this run takes 8 hours. I can knock it down to 5 by driving at an illegal but safe speed on M-class roads while driving at legal and safe speeds on the roads where pedestrians are likely to be around.

Generally I wouldn't go above a ton on the motorways because other drivers dont expect it and you risk getting banned, but such speeds used to be commonplace and the accident figures for motorways do not show that the lower speeds are helping, if anything they are gettng worse, probably due to the mind numbing boredom of an unchallenging drive and lengthened journey times.

Currently I am sticking to legal speed limits everywhere and my reaction time and observation skills are faling through the floor. I am going to try to find time to do the IAM course to fix this, however I don't have problems when on a fun twisty road that still has it's NSL such as the B4009

Daryl

That's because none of you seem to grasp the point of the original post - which is that otherwise law-abiding citizens are being made to feel disenfranchised by the very people that rely on their co-operation and understanding in a fair and democratic society.

Abdabz

I admit to speeding on occasion in urban areas indeed - and wont try and justify it by prattling on about the time it saves me to get somewhere, or like others giving it the "I know whats safe for me" routine which is simply comical and so arrogant - when I speed it just happens and yes when yes Lum, I will take it on the chin if (or when) it happens...I just have an occasional flagrant disregard for the law coz I'm nails me

As for the middle lane hogging jibe and the "holding up others" crack - well thats just soft talk... No- I dont hog the miggil lane and when the speed LIMIT is 70 I would imagine at 65 that very very little SHOULD be catching me up??

My grasp of the thread is pretty good - you speed you risk getting done - author of threads brother sped - he got done - **** happens and it did to him - he's been unlucky - but the police got it right as he was speeding...

As for Emily - well Emily represents all others on the road except for you in your bubble - it could be a family out cycling on your NSR twisty, or pedestrians hit when you skid on oil at speed - accident risks are reduced if you dont speed - justifying speeding to get home to kids was just so flawed as a point it had me laughing out loud in the office

Having got two parents who recently passed their IAM tests I know you wont be encouraged to drive on public roads at speeds above the speed limit that 'you' deem safe - but hopefully your observation skills (like reading speed limit signs) will improve ten fold...

P

P

darts_aint_sport

Breaking the speed limit (thus the law) is not law-abiding.

Lum

In the interests of being law abiding while saving time I stick to the limit even on the motorway, however I am a pedantic sod so I use GPS to measure my speed and the speedo needle is closer to the 78 mark when I am doing 70. I know I am not unique in this. Unless you also have a GPS device which is unlikely as you don't come across as someone who does the kind of mileage that justifies a satnav, and you obviously don't need a Road Angel. then you are probably doing 60 when you think you are doing 65. Lots of things will be catching you up and many of them will be behaving legally.

I have already stated that I don't speed on the NSL twisties, it is the motorway that I am most interested in, the point being that you do not get cyclists, or pedestrians on the motorway unless they want to kill yourself.
The getting home was somewhat tongue in cheek, you imply that it is ludicrous when all I was doing was turning around the "OMG! Think of the children!!!!!111111!!oneoneone!!" argument around on it's head. Using that argument to justify speed restrictions on motorways is equally ludicrous. The same argument was used when they tried to change the censorship laws so that an 18 rated film had to be censored based on the likelihood of a child watching it, thankfully that one was shot down in flames.
It is a shame that one of those parents didn't pass the IAM test 20 years ago so that they could compare notes

I am aware of the law and aware of speed limit signs, very occasionally they may get lost in all the other road junk and earn me a ban but for the most part I know what I'm doing. I beleive that the law is wrong, unjust and detrimental to road safety and that the lot that are enforcing a bad law are just making it worse.

You can correctly say that I am braking the law, it doesn't mean the law is right. However I accept that it is illegal, so was the democracy demonstration in China but I doubt you'll find many people outside the Chinese government saying that it was wrong.

Jerome

Hence the use of the word "otherwise"

I assume you missed/chose to ignore my previous post, which was a reply to an earlier post of yours...

darts_aint_sport

"Otherwise" is irrelevant. I might be a perfectly law-obiding citizen, except that I'm a theiving git that steals every time I go into my local ASDA. I'm a law-abiding citizen every other time though so it's okay!

I'm afraid I didn't read it. I am not saying that everyone should drive like a saint and be under the speed limit, what I am saying is that you can't complain if you are caught doing it when you know the limit! If you were doing 31 in a 30 and get caught speeding, that's life, yes it's harsh, but you can't complain! As for causing more accidents, if one can't drive AND keep to a speed without looking at the spedo every 2 seconds then he/she must be a very crap driver and shouldn't be on the road.

Daryl

Are you hard of thinking?

Jerome

Unless your name is Richard Madely, stealing is a very deliberate act. Speeding may well not be. In Teeside, 30.001 mph will get you done. To absolutely ensure you never speed, you either spend far too much time concentrating on your speed, which it is worse than speeding slightly, or you have to drive well below the speed limit. Whilst the later isn't illegal etc, you are likely to cause frustration/road rage in the cars you are holding up.

I drove with 9 points for nearly 3 years. I was horrified at how dangerous it is to drive everywhere at the speed limit.

And all the people who say you must be a bad driver if you can't judge your speed without looking at the speedo too much, have probably never tried it for very long, if at all. Try doing it for 3 years and then come back to me and I'll give you a large piece of humble pie to chew on.

I also don't see what the problem with complaining about getting done for speeding, when it is blatently for revenue generation rather than road safety.

darts_aint_sport

But surely the point for zero tolerance is a good one. Without zero tolerance we have a 'grey area' of what we think we can get away with and what we can't. If everyone got done for going over 30, then atleast we wouldn't have these arguments of "I got done for doing 52 in a 50" or whatever, you're either speeding or you're not. The problem comes because we are NOT treating it the same in all regions of the country, hence the greyness. If everyone was penalised when caught breaking the limit, no-one could claim they are being treated unfairly.

Lum

The whole issue of speeding is a grey area. I can, without looking at my speedo work out which speeds are safe, based on my experience of the vehicles stopping distances in the current conditions vs how far I can gurantee to be clear and remain clear (which is often as far as the next gap between parked cars in a busy town centre) I cannot tell you what the numerical speed is to the degree of accuracy required for compliance with a zero-tolerance approach.

This is exactly like trying to catch a ball. A cricket player is likely pretty good at catching a ball, far far better than someone who graduated from Oxford with a Maths or Physics degree, though they could probably sit down and work out the exact trajectory of the ball and calculate it's flight path to tell the cricketer the exact location to place his hand. By the time they have done that though the ball will have landed and England will have lost another match. The cricketer just goes on what seems about right and continually adjusts.

I know which one I would prefer out there if my life depended on it.

If you changed the rules of cricket so that fielders had to move to an absolute position and then stick to it, the standard of the game would get pretty crap and that's pretty much what is happening to driving now.

ajm

1) Not when you are trying to quantify subjective issues like dangerous/careless driving.

Speed is not a measure of dangerous driving, and neither is using a mobile phone. They both *could* be factors, but then so could singing, picking your nose and fellatio, none of which are banned. It makes it farcical.

2) Not when zero tolerance is used cynically. The police tend to go where they know they are more likely to catch people, not where they are more likely to make a difference to road safety. When was the last speed trap you saw near a school at home time? When was the last speed trap you saw on a nice straight part of the motorway?

Personally I think speeding should be treated with much MORE tolerance and consideration. They should be catching dangerous drivers, not Mrs Miggings driving 10mph too fast, but otherwise perfectly safely.

The mobile phone ban is laughable. It needs an officer to see you on the phone, so why can that same officer not make a judgement about your driving too? People driving badly on the phone deserve fine. People driving perfectly safely do not.

Lum

So that's why so many repmobiles now have blacked out windows

The mobile phone ban is a case in point, my driving whilst on the phone is significantly worse now as I have been unable to obtain a handsfree kit that doesn't sound like complete ****. I used to just put the Nokia 9210 on my lap in speakerphone mode but as I had to steady it occasionally that counts as holding and is therefore illegal.

darts_aint_sport

Speeding (i.e. going over the legal limit) is not a subjective issue, so zero tolerance can be applied.

As to whether speeding and dangerous driving are synonymous, I have no idea. I know I'd rather be hit by a car doing 20 mph than 30 mph though. (Though given the choice, neither)

Lum

I would rather be hit by a car that was originally doing 30 but the driver was paying attention to the road and thus had time to brake than by a car doing 20 being driven by a driver who was watching his speedo and feeling safe and smug for complying with the limit right up to the moment he crumples my rear bumper.

The person who hit me at the end of November was doing 20mph under the speed limit and made no attempt to stop, nearly two months later I am still in pain. This isn't a call for the limit to be lowered, it's a call to get people to keep both eyes on the bloody road!

Zero Tolderance just further encourages this form of dangerous driving, one that is very hard to detect and will never get punished.

darts_aint_sport

What about being hit by a driver doing 20 who was also paying attention as the driver does not require all of his skill to look at a speedo. These drivers also exist.