Amazing. There aren't even any houses along it. Maybe it's so people can meander along and gaze out their windows at the river? Mind you at rush hour it's probably easier to get out and walk anyway. I haven't been down there for a while but at least I know what the speed limit is now!!
New speeding trap idea.
- Thread starter masona
- Start date
There's one of those annoying, automatic, 'SLOW DOWN' signs in a village near me. The village itself is only on one side of this road, which is straight and wide, with 50m open grass verges on the side where the houses are and nothing but open fields opposite. The speed limit is 40 (although, curiously, not in the next village along which is narrow, more densely populated and has several bends), a speed limit that used to be more or less respected by traffic. This fricking sign, however, appears to be calibrated to flash anybody travelling above 35 mph. Result? Drivers get p*sh*d off being flashed when driving perfectly legally and immediately speed up to well over 50. Nice own goal, speed fascists.
Dingbat, why don't you write to the local authority and parish council and get the sign sorted.
People justifying why they don't need to bother with speed limits is the cause of quite a few deaths. Yeah, yeah I know "speed itself is not dangerous", try telling someone that when they've just been run over.
If people don't want to pay speeding fines stick to the f *** ing limits!
People justifying why they don't need to bother with speed limits is the cause of quite a few deaths. Yeah, yeah I know "speed itself is not dangerous", try telling someone that when they've just been run over.
If people don't want to pay speeding fines stick to the f *** ing limits!
Blimey Oily, calm down. In my rattly old van I happily potter along at or just under the limit and I always obey all speed limits in town. I even happen to be more than happy to do 35-40 through this particular village, but I still get flashed - everybody does - and it is annoying. (I've had one speeding conviction in my 28 years motoring, by the way... doing 40 on a stretch of open country road, with no limit signposted and the camera so well hidden it took me three passes through the same spot after getting my ticket just to find the thing!)
It's not a question of not obeying the limits, it was just an example of how over-zealous 'policing' often has the opposite effect. Just like how posting an overly serious message on an otherwise fairly light-hearted thread can kill it stone dead.
It's not a question of not obeying the limits, it was just an example of how over-zealous 'policing' often has the opposite effect. Just like how posting an overly serious message on an otherwise fairly light-hearted thread can kill it stone dead.
In my local & national newspaper I'm forever reading people writing in moaning about amount of speed cameras. Why? What give the driver the right to break speed limit, doesn't matter where they are located. If you're not happy with the speed limit then do as Oilman said "write to the local authority and parish council and get the sign sorted". If a sign say 40 mph and you're doing above that speed limit, what the point having a 40 mph sign ? For the last 4 years I now stick to speed limit at all time, it's not easy at first but try it for a week without breaking the speed limit, since then I'm a much better driver with more time to think ahead and feel less stressful with no road rage anymore compare to 4 years ago. Driver who drive fast are the most stressful type plus road rage. Don't get involves or make eye contact, if you feel uptight when someone cut you up, just count to 10 and relax.
We stick to more speed limits (or most of them) 'cos we're old gits and we do maintenance type jobs which means generally not panicking as that just makes things worse. It rubs off on the driving too.
Another good reason now is all the ways there are of being caught. I looked at the various detectors available to avoid it, £300 + and £45 + annual update subscription. At these costs you may as well pay an occasional fine and learn to drive to the limits. If the road is empty and its national limit then there is a bit of leeway and you are unlikely to get caught at 80, but if it's a 30 then expect to get caught anytime.
It takes me too long to earn enough for a fine to justify getting there the 5 seconds quicker.
Another good reason now is all the ways there are of being caught. I looked at the various detectors available to avoid it, £300 + and £45 + annual update subscription. At these costs you may as well pay an occasional fine and learn to drive to the limits. If the road is empty and its national limit then there is a bit of leeway and you are unlikely to get caught at 80, but if it's a 30 then expect to get caught anytime.
It takes me too long to earn enough for a fine to justify getting there the 5 seconds quicker.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,322
- Reaction score
- 2,758
- Country
In the old days, money was the only fine and we were happy to accept "oh sh*t been pulled by the fuzz", we knew it was only money. But now you can get a licence busting 12 points on the same journey in theory.
Don't poopoo it because in Staffordshire theres a little village that has 7 gatsos on one two mile stretch of frog.
Don't poopoo it because in Staffordshire theres a little village that has 7 gatsos on one two mile stretch of frog.
I am sh*t scared of getting points, so I drive at the speed limit the whole time, other than a few times a year when I might find myself on a familiar, empty piece of motorway and I give it some welly for a mile or so, for fun.
Does anyone know of a case where someone has tripped 4 cameras in one journey and lost their licence? I would appeal that, because if a policeman stops you then any sane person slows down after that. One ticket is enough to change someone's driving habits for good. A mate of mine got 3 points when he was 17. Drove like a bat out of hell before that, very sensibly after it. The points have long since cleared, but the sensible driving has stuck.
I think people complain about speed cameras because they are a blatant misuse of our money. Every time a government spokesperson tells us what a good job they do, someone else produces statistics that show deaths have gone up since cameras... I dunno, perhaps they emit death rays or something. Anyway, I doubt anyone would complain if more money was spent on important things such as Police, schools, NHS etc. etc. It's not about saving lives, it's about raising funds. That is why they are proposing the 2-points for even more minor infringements. You get more fines before losing your licence that way.
The government tells us to work to boost the economy. So people work long hours, oversleep, and have to drive fast to get to work. To drive fast, they buy a fast car with a more expensive road tax, and more insurance thus more insurance tax. It uses more petrol thus they get more duty. Then they fine you for driving it quickly. Don't forget they charged you income tax on all that money first! Private money is a myth, the government has it all!!!
Anyway, I learned to drive after Gatsos were introduced, so it isn't my fault we have them, it's all the bu**ers who were driving around having speedy accidents before then!
Does anyone know of a case where someone has tripped 4 cameras in one journey and lost their licence? I would appeal that, because if a policeman stops you then any sane person slows down after that. One ticket is enough to change someone's driving habits for good. A mate of mine got 3 points when he was 17. Drove like a bat out of hell before that, very sensibly after it. The points have long since cleared, but the sensible driving has stuck.
I think people complain about speed cameras because they are a blatant misuse of our money. Every time a government spokesperson tells us what a good job they do, someone else produces statistics that show deaths have gone up since cameras... I dunno, perhaps they emit death rays or something. Anyway, I doubt anyone would complain if more money was spent on important things such as Police, schools, NHS etc. etc. It's not about saving lives, it's about raising funds. That is why they are proposing the 2-points for even more minor infringements. You get more fines before losing your licence that way.
The government tells us to work to boost the economy. So people work long hours, oversleep, and have to drive fast to get to work. To drive fast, they buy a fast car with a more expensive road tax, and more insurance thus more insurance tax. It uses more petrol thus they get more duty. Then they fine you for driving it quickly. Don't forget they charged you income tax on all that money first! Private money is a myth, the government has it all!!!
Anyway, I learned to drive after Gatsos were introduced, so it isn't my fault we have them, it's all the bu**ers who were driving around having speedy accidents before then!
Some years ago we had a long drawn out debate in the local Newspaper. It all started when residents complained about all the speed humps popping up in their area.
The following week, there was a big spread by the local council, citing how effective the campain had been. 20% fewer deaths from road accidents.
The following week, another 2 page spread from the local ambulance authority. The conceded the 20% drop in deaths from road accidents but pointed out a 12% increase in deaths from other emergencies. Since road accidents account for only 8% of their emergency activity, that's actually an increased death rate of just under 10% on emergencies overall.
We've still got the humps though. I wouldn't mind if you could go over them at a sensible speed. If they were designed for, say 20mph, you could just drive down that road at 20 and accept the humps. Trouble is, you have to crawl over them. You can't be expected to traverse the whole section at 5mph so you end up with this stop start business. This means you are paying more attention to where the next hump is than to other hazards. it is also costing extra fuel, and wear and tear on the vehicle.
I would suggest that instead of fitting speed humps, they should just stop resurfacing the road in question. It would be a lot less expensive. It seems an absolute abomination that one crew goes down the road to make a lovely surface, then another goes down to b*gger it all up again. Waste of money or what?
The following week, there was a big spread by the local council, citing how effective the campain had been. 20% fewer deaths from road accidents.
The following week, another 2 page spread from the local ambulance authority. The conceded the 20% drop in deaths from road accidents but pointed out a 12% increase in deaths from other emergencies. Since road accidents account for only 8% of their emergency activity, that's actually an increased death rate of just under 10% on emergencies overall.
We've still got the humps though. I wouldn't mind if you could go over them at a sensible speed. If they were designed for, say 20mph, you could just drive down that road at 20 and accept the humps. Trouble is, you have to crawl over them. You can't be expected to traverse the whole section at 5mph so you end up with this stop start business. This means you are paying more attention to where the next hump is than to other hazards. it is also costing extra fuel, and wear and tear on the vehicle.
I would suggest that instead of fitting speed humps, they should just stop resurfacing the road in question. It would be a lot less expensive. It seems an absolute abomination that one crew goes down the road to make a lovely surface, then another goes down to b*gger it all up again. Waste of money or what?
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,322
- Reaction score
- 2,758
- Country
Adam
There was a cAse a while back where someone got 12 pts from Gatso's on the same journey - was not aware of being caught on film: if you are unlucky, you don't actually have to speed excessively to trigger them.
New sub-topic- what about zero tolerance? Some forces have talked about zero tolerance on speeding.
But what about an allowance for speedo's reading differently?
In the 70's, police used to allow 10%. ie, 33mph @ 30 limit. Do they still do this?
There was a cAse a while back where someone got 12 pts from Gatso's on the same journey - was not aware of being caught on film: if you are unlucky, you don't actually have to speed excessively to trigger them.
New sub-topic- what about zero tolerance? Some forces have talked about zero tolerance on speeding.
But what about an allowance for speedo's reading differently?
In the 70's, police used to allow 10%. ie, 33mph @ 30 limit. Do they still do this?
securespark said:
As far as I know, yes. They have to allow you 10% on account of possible speedo error. But it would be unwise to think you can drive up to that limit because what if your speedo really was under-reading 10%? Then, say you thought you were doing 77, you'd actually be doing almost 85.
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 43,322
- Reaction score
- 2,758
- Country
Like it! So next time I'm on the M60, I'll set the cruise to 85 and claim I was doing 70.....
Another little loop hole I've experimented with is in the area of overtaking. I have quite frequently overtaken people in front of speed camera's. (and got flashed). My argument would be that exceding the speed limit during an overtaking manouver is accepted by the highway code.
I've never, yet, been prosecuted for it. It's got to the stage now where I welcome a speed camera if stuck behind a crawler. They even break obligingly as I pass
I've never, yet, been prosecuted for it. It's got to the stage now where I welcome a speed camera if stuck behind a crawler. They even break obligingly as I pass
B
breezer
securespark said:
i heard of some one who had a similar prob , speedo was officaily tested and it was found to be wrong, so he got off.