speeding

[mew]

got done by the coppers with a mobile gun. was doin 35mph in a 30.now i have to go to a 3 hour speed reduction course to repent and be shown the error of my ways. does anyone have any advice on grovelling?

[scotty]

got done by the coppers with a mobile gun. was doin 35mph in a 30.now i have to go to a 3 hour speed reduction course to repent and be shown the error of my ways. does anyone have any advice on grovelling?

First time I got done,I was doing 36 in a 30 Bastards.

[ruffers]

I got done in France a few weeks ago. My advice - speed there, your license stays clean.

Fact of life isn't it, the only solution is drive slower and we all know that.

[MadameButterfly]

Yes indeed speeding does kill.

[boudicca]

I thought this would be about something else entirely...

[canon docre]

I thought this would be about something else entirely...

Me too.

Anyway doing 35 in a 30 doesnt fall under "speeding", does it?

[Planet Dave]

It sure does. We aren't as 'bad' as the americans in this respect, but we're working on it.

Simply keeping to the speed limit cuts out a ton of unnecessary fuss, though it takes you longer to get anywhere.

[Ozpat]

Take as an example. He's taking it easy....

[Dark]

Young Offender, Young Offender
Pigs are coming after you..

[RicheyJames]

firstly, the suffix used to form the present participle of a verb is ing not in. remembering little things like this makes it less likely that you'll be mistaken for an illiterate twelve year old.

secondly, try not breaking the law. speed limits tend to be there for a reason, especially thirty mile an hour zones. this time it's a speed reduction course, next time it might be fourteen years inside for causing death by dangerous driving...

[markfiend]

speed limits tend to be there for a reason,

Such as raising revenue from the speed cameras?

I'm Kidding. Mostly.

[RicheyJames]

speed limits tend to be there for a reason,

Such as raising revenue from the speed cameras?

well exactly. in 2001/02* speed cameras generated income in excess of their operating costs of a massive £4.3 million. without this it's obvious that the government's £370 billion spending plans for the same year would have lain in tatters. assuming that the revenue is ploughed back into the law and order budget, police forces up and down the land would have been forced to slash their budgets by over 0.02%!

thank god for speed cameras and the deep pockets of the nation's motorists!

*i know 2001/02 seems awfully out-of-date but they were the most recent figures i could find. here if anyone's really bothered.

[markfiend]

I did say I was kidding.

On a related subject, speed bumps are being installed in the back streets around our house at the moment; I have heard (admittedly a biased source) Quentin Wilson claim that

• Speed bumps don't actually make an appreciable difference to road deaths
• They increase pollution because cars slow down just before the bump and speed up after it, which is a less efficient way of using the car engine than travelling at constant speed

The pollution argument may be sound, but I would have thought it self-evident that generally slower traffic correlates quite strongly with safer roads.

In the general case though, there is also the question of emergency vehicles and the fact that they need to be able to get places in a hurry.

But that argument isn't really relevant in our area because the main roads (Burley Road and Kirkstall Road) either side of the traffic-calming area are not speed-bumped, and there are ways through for emergency vehicles that avoid most of the bumps. It's the "rat-running" along Argie Avenue that (I think) they're trying to discourage. Which is fair enough.

[ruffers]

The pollution argument may be sound, but I would have thought it self-evident that generally slower traffic correlates quite strongly with safer roads.

Fair enough, but cameras don't. A bit rushed now but will rejoin this debate later.

[RicheyJames]

I did say I was kidding.

you said you were mostly kidding. i chose to address the part that was not.

[markfiend]

Cameras is a different matter.

IMO it's more dangerous for the driver to be constantly monitoring his/her speed (especially when there's no other traffic from which to judge speed) and so be constantly checking the speedometer rather than keeping his/her eyes on the road.

[markfiend]

you said you were mostly kidding. i chose to address the part that was not.

No worries I agree with you actually. The word "mostly" was pretty much a personal gripe about the fact I was done for speeding last year and begrudge paying a fine. Even though yes, I broke the law; don't do the crime etc... It still rankles.

[RicheyJames]

Even though yes, I broke the law; don't do the crime etc... It still rankles.

i believe ronnie biggs feels similarly about his current incarceration.

[markfiend]

Even though yes, I broke the law; don't do the crime etc... It still rankles.

i believe ronnie biggs feels similarly about his current incarceration.

Fairy nuff.

[andymackem]

Near where I live we have speed bumps which are designed to be narrow enough for a car to drive over without 'bumping'.

It sounds pointless, but you can't clear them cleanly at much more than 20 (which is the speed limit) and get a smooth ride and less risk of damaging your suspension. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

I've been driving over them every day for almost a year, and the gap is tight enough to mean you can't go roaring up the road even when you're used to it.

I'm not convinced that drivers monitoring their speed is necessarily a bad thing. Are you seriously telling me you have no idea how fast you're going when you're driving? Flicking a glance at the speedo is no more dangerous than glancing in your mirrors, or changing stations on the stereo. Probably less dangerous than winding down a window as you go along. Sounds like a lack of care and attention to me.

My objection to speed cameras is simply that I know where they are (locally at least) and thus they simply have me slowing down to avoid a fine. This isn't actually road safety, merely the illusion thereof.

On a related note: coming back through some roadworks on the M1 the other week there were signs warning of a check on average speeds through the coned area. That should actually prevent speeding if you extended it over a wider area. If it became impossible to break limits without being caught, would you still do it? In a civil liberties 'rights of man' kind of way?

[markfiend]

...Flicking a glance at the speedo is no more dangerous than glancing in your mirrors, or changing stations on the stereo...

There's a difference between flicking a glance at the speedo and staring at it while you go over the lines marking the camera's field of view. I don't do that personally, but I'm sure that some drivers are at least subconsciously tempted, to be sure they don't get caught.

If it became impossible to break limits without being caught, would you still do it? In a civil liberties 'rights of man' kind of way?

There's a suggestion that this may come to be the case when (if) satellite tracking of all cars for road-toll purposes comes in. If they know where you are all the time, then they'll know what speed you're doing or have done.

Personally, I do try to keep within the speed limits unless a) I'm on the motorway or b) I'm on a main road in an area where I'm used to the road and I know where the cameras are.

A thought occurs to me; on the stretch of the A65 between Kirkstall and Guiseley, about 6 miles long, there are more than 20 speed cameras, 10 on each side. It is at least possible to get "flashed" by all 10 in that stretch; would that count as ten separate speeding offences (whereby you'd be fooked for driving) or could you argue that one extended bout of speeding along the whole stretch was just one offence?

[Clucking Belle]

speed limits tend to be there for a reason, especially thirty mile an hour zones. this time it's a speed reduction course, next time it might be fourteen years inside for causing death by dangerous driving...

Hmm. Speed limits on UK motorways haven't changed for a long time (RJ, you like looking these things up, have a check). In that time cars have got safer, roads better, drink driving laws stricter. You can argue any speed is dangerous, and so it is always a balance of the benefit of being able to get from a to b vs safe speed.

I think that (RJ, I'm sure you can google it) there is enough research to done to mean that % increase in serious injury / death at 30 vs 40 mph makes it worth keeping 30 in built up areas. But on dual carriageways and motorways, I can't see why we don't have 60mph and 90mph respectively.

Those are the limits which I adhere to when I gun the porker down the A40 / M40.

[Quiff Boy]

"In that time...roads (have got) better"

you've never been to leeds have you?

[RicheyJames]

i happily accept that there is a seperate argument over whether limits should be changed on motorways but since both posters were complaining about being caught speeding in built-up areas i was primarily aiming by argument at those situations. i can only apologise for not making this clear enough.

and, clucking belle, whilst i'm sorry that my bothering to backup my arguments with facts and sources bothers you so much, if you wish to do the same you're just going to have to do your own research.

[ruffers]

duped - oops