On 19/12/2014 15:58, Jethro_uk wrote:

It is a result of a DfT guideline that speed limits should not reduce by
more than 20mph in one step, so you get 60mph / 40mph / 30mph / 40mph /
60 mph and 70mph / 50mph / 30mph / 50mph / 70mph wherever that guideline
has been implemented.

Guideline, but not law clearly. Theres an NSL to 30mph transition a
couple of miles from me.


There are lots of them around here.
I can probably find a few hundred without much effort.

A. N. Other wrote
Rod Speed wrote

However, if you take the trouble to check the URL I gave, you'll find
that mobile and variable speed cameras are included in the database.

Not even possible.

Oh, do you mean you can't check the URL? other people find it possible!

On the point of mobile cameras, databases are available and sat navs will
warn of the mobile site - it doesn't mean there will be a camera there.

Not even possible with the mobile speed cameras in cars and small vans.

The sat nav warns of variable speed camera
sites even when the national limit applies.

Not even possible with the mobile speed cameras in cars and small vans.

Newspapers regularly publish the locations of
speed checking areas for the coming month or so.

Nothing like what is being discussed.

It is in everyone's interest to reduce the
number of serious and fatal traffic accidents

There is **** all evidence that those are due to speeding.

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:19:03 +0000, damduck-egg wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:29:25 +0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:


Banning all traffic would also reduce accidents. So his point was
*what*
precisely?

That we're going to see an awful load more A roads where you _could_
safely do 70, but the limit is actually 50 or 40.

It was quite an illuminating debate. The attendee who raised the point
became almost physically aggressive in his rant at the instructor. red
face and all. It was clear that he had every intention of doing what
speed he wanted, and sod the consequences.

Would you know if he "passed" the course? ISTR that if the instructors
feel that if an attendee has not showed any sign of giving the course
contents sufficient consideration with at least some indication that
driving habits may change then the procedure for prosecution for any
offence may still be invoked.
Ranting at the instructor in the way you describe by the bloke sounds
like he would be the sort of person that could happen to.

G.Harman

No, he passed, in that he did engage in all the activities, and provided
the appropriate level of feedback.

However, the instructors left us all under no illusion that the course is
the latter-day equivalent of a stern ticking off by a copper (since they
never happen anymore) and that *any* motoring offence in the next 3 years
would be dealt with by the courts - no second chance.

I was cynical about being invited by the government to spend £85 with a
3rd party to avoid a criminal (points) record. However, having actually
been, it wasn't a complete waste of time, and the body running it are
actually a non-profit organisation (whatever that means ).

As I said, I would actually support a proposal to require drivers to
attend one every 10 years. It might pull up a few nasty habits.

But doesnt get even close to warranting the waste
of time involved in forcing everyone to do that.

Makes a lot more sense to only force those caught
speeding to do that.

On 19/12/2014 22:37, Rod Speed wrote:
A. N. Other wrote
....
On the point of mobile cameras, databases are available and sat navs will
warn of the mobile site - it doesn't mean there will be a camera there.

Not even possible with the mobile speed cameras in cars and small vans...

Trivial in those areas where the Police publish maps of the locations at
which they use mobile speed cameras:

http://www.sussexsaferroads.gov.uk/camera-map.html


--
Colin Bignell

On 19/12/2014 13:57, A. N. Other wrote:
... It is in everyone's interest to reduce the number of
serious and fatal traffic accidents

The problem with that is that only 5% of RTCs have exceeding the speed
limit as a contributory factor, while 42% have driver failed to look
properly as a contributory factor. For fatal accidents, loss of control
was the most common factor, at 34%. Speed is easy to measure, which
makes it an easy target, but a serious attempt to cut accidents should
target bad driving.

--
Colin Bignell

Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
A. N. Other wrote

On the point of mobile cameras, databases are available and sat navs
will
warn of the mobile site - it doesn't mean there will be a camera there.

Not even possible with the mobile speed cameras in cars and small vans...

Trivial in those areas where the Police publish maps of the locations at
which they use mobile speed cameras:

http://www.sussexsaferroads.gov.uk/camera-map.html

That doesn’t tell you where the van actually is tho,
just where it MIGHT BE.

And that is a tiny subset of jurisdictions anyway.

Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
A. N. Other wrote

It is in everyone's interest to reduce the
number of serious and fatal traffic accidents

The problem with that is that only 5% of RTCs have exceeding
the speed limit as a contributory factor, while 42% have driver
failed to look properly as a contributory factor. For fatal accidents,
loss of control was the most common factor, at 34%. Speed is
easy to measure, which makes it an easy target, but a serious
attempt to cut accidents should target bad driving.

Easier said than done.

What makes most sense it to make accidents more
survivable and to redesign the road system so that
accidents are minimised and that is what has been done.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:03:19 +0000
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2014-12-19, Jethro_uk wrote:

TBH, it's hard not to get the impression that these 40/30/40 roads
are designed to rack up fines,

Spot on.

In the States, that's far more explicit. And it's driven by the fact
that revenue generated is kept locally. This must be resisted at all
costs in the UK.

If the local administration needs some dosh, the Mayor phones up his
mate the Chief of Police, who instructs the boys not to return from
patrol without two movers and three sitters (for example). So two get
done for some "moving violation", e.g. speeding, not stopping at a
Stop sign [1], broken light, or similar. And three get done for
parking, wheels not turned the right way on a hill, parking the wrong
way on a street, etc. [2]

The aim of traffic signs over there is to assist you to become an
administrative criminal between leaving home and arriving at
destination. [3] Nominally, over here the signs are to assist the
driver and help them drive safely, although all this is getting a bit
eroded.

[1] And by "stop", I mean cease all motion. None of this rolling
through a stop sign. Of which there are billyuns of unnecessary ones
in the US. See above as to why.

[2] Source? An off-duty San Francisco cop who was running the traffic
school I attended after a speeding ticket. He was queried on this very
point by a little old lady.

[3] That I only got two speeding tix in 12 years there is more by luck
than judgement.


Agreed.
In many places in the US, parking facing the 'wrong' way is illegal,
which really confuses us Brits.
And when parking in San Francisco, even on level ground, it is indeed
obligatory to turn the car's wheels into the kerb. There is no room for
any sense or judgement, that's the law.
Apart from a couple of speeding tickets, including one for 82mph in a 55
mph zone, at 5 am on a country road int he summer, with only an 'energy
speed' fine for exceeding the old 55 mph limit (paid with a credit card
in the police car), I also got a ticket for ignoring a direction of
travel sign when leaving a car park, as the proper route out was
blocked. My lawyer got me a plea to 'obstructing traffic', a non-moving
violation, instead of the 'proper' moving violation. I got no points on
my license for that, which was the point.
Weird, the lot of them.

--
Davey.

On 20/12/2014 00:43, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:03:19 +0000
....
In many places in the US, parking facing the 'wrong' way is illegal,
which really confuses us Brits....

Why? It is illegal in Britain at night.


--
Colin Bignell

On 19/12/2014 23:32, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
A. N. Other wrote

On the point of mobile cameras, databases are available and sat navs
will
warn of the mobile site - it doesn't mean there will be a camera there.

Not even possible with the mobile speed cameras in cars and small
vans...

Trivial in those areas where the Police publish maps of the locations
at which they use mobile speed cameras:

http://www.sussexsaferroads.gov.uk/camera-map.html

That doesn’t tell you where the van actually is tho,
just where it MIGHT BE.

Which point has already been made above. It just means you need to be
careful when approaching those spots. If you see a large yellow van,
plastered with camera logos there, make sure your speed is legal.

And that is a tiny subset of jurisdictions anyway.

That was just the first hit on Google. SFAIK, only the Scottish Police
don't think it is a good idea to tell drivers where they might encounter
speed cameras.


--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
news
On 19/12/2014 23:32, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
A. N. Other wrote

On the point of mobile cameras, databases are available and sat navs
will
warn of the mobile site - it doesn't mean there will be a camera
there.

Not even possible with the mobile speed cameras in cars and small
vans...

Trivial in those areas where the Police publish maps of the locations
at which they use mobile speed cameras:

http://www.sussexsaferroads.gov.uk/camera-map.html

That doesn’t tell you where the van actually is tho,
just where it MIGHT BE.

Which point has already been made above. It just means you need to be
careful when approaching those spots. If you see a large yellow van,
plastered with camera logos there, make sure your speed is legal.

And that is a tiny subset of jurisdictions anyway.

That was just the first hit on Google. SFAIK, only the Scottish Police
don't think it is a good idea to tell drivers where they might encounter
speed cameras.

Different matter entirely to speed vans and cops in cop cars.

On 19/12/2014 23:25, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 19/12/2014 13:57, A. N. Other wrote:
... It is in everyone's interest to reduce the number of
serious and fatal traffic accidents

The problem with that is that only 5% of RTCs have exceeding the speed
limit as a contributory factor, while 42% have driver failed to look
properly as a contributory factor. For fatal accidents, loss of control
was the most common factor, at 34%. Speed is easy to measure, which
makes it an easy target, but a serious attempt to cut accidents should
target bad driving.


You don't think that driving too fast was probably the main cause of
total loss of control then?

Failing to look is probably caused by driving too fast to, there is
plenty of evidence to back that up, just look at how many get snapped by
speed cameras they didn't see because they were driving too fast.

So from your post driving too fast is the main cause even if they list
it under a different heading.

This is why they have speed limits as there are so many idiots that
think they can drive fast and cant even work out that if they miss
seeing speed cameras that they are driving too fast for their abilities.

The same idiots will now take to abuse rather than accept they cant
drive very well.

On 20/12/2014 06:55, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 20/12/2014 00:43, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2014 17:03:19 +0000
...
In many places in the US, parking facing the 'wrong' way is illegal,
which really confuses us Brits....

Why? It is illegal in Britain at night.



Not if you use parking lights.

On 20/12/2014 07:00, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 19/12/2014 23:32, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
A. N. Other wrote

On the point of mobile cameras, databases are available and sat navs
will
warn of the mobile site - it doesn't mean there will be a camera
there.

Not even possible with the mobile speed cameras in cars and small
vans...

Trivial in those areas where the Police publish maps of the locations
at which they use mobile speed cameras:

http://www.sussexsaferroads.gov.uk/camera-map.html

That doesn’t tell you where the van actually is tho,
just where it MIGHT BE.

Which point has already been made above. It just means you need to be
careful when approaching those spots. If you see a large yellow van,
plastered with camera logos there, make sure your speed is legal.

And that is a tiny subset of jurisdictions anyway.

That was just the first hit on Google. SFAIK, only the Scottish Police
don't think it is a good idea to tell drivers where they might encounter
speed cameras.



The police issue maps so that people slow down.
If they see a road where people are speeding they will put a trap there
even if it isn't on the map.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 19/12/2014 23:25, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 19/12/2014 13:57, A. N. Other wrote:
... It is in everyone's interest to reduce the number of
serious and fatal traffic accidents

The problem with that is that only 5% of RTCs have exceeding the speed
limit as a contributory factor, while 42% have driver failed to look
properly as a contributory factor. For fatal accidents, loss of control
was the most common factor, at 34%. Speed is easy to measure, which
makes it an easy target, but a serious attempt to cut accidents should
target bad driving.


You don't think that driving too fast was probably the main cause of total
loss of control then?

Not when its JUST exceeding the speed limit.

Failing to look is probably caused by driving too fast to,

Even sillier than you usually manage.

there is plenty of evidence to back that up,

Like hell there is.

just look at how many get snapped by speed cameras they didn't see because
they were driving too fast.

Or they concentrate on the traffic and wouldn’t have
seen the camera even if they were below the speed limit.

So from your post driving too fast is the main cause even if they list it
under a different heading.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

This is why they have speed limits

Wrong, as always.

as there are so many idiots that think they can drive fast

There are plenty who have enough of a clue to
realise that the speed limit is by definition for
the worst situation which normally isnt present.

and cant even work out that if they miss seeing speed cameras that they
are driving too fast for their abilities.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

The same idiots will now take to abuse rather than accept they cant drive
very well.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

I was cynical about being invited by the government to spend £85 with a
3rd party to avoid a criminal (points) record. However, having actually
been, it wasn't a complete waste of time, and the body running it are
actually a non-profit organisation (whatever that means ).

As I said, I would actually support a proposal to require drivers to
attend one every 10 years. It might pull up a few nasty habits.

But doesnt get even close to warranting the waste
of time involved in forcing everyone to do that.

Makes a lot more sense to only force those caught
speeding to do that.

Extend it to cover more than speeding (Middle lane hogging, not checking
your lights before you go out at night, tailgating - add your pet hate
here) and a compulsory "refresher" every 10 years might improve the
general standard of "carsmanship".

Compare it to private flying where periodic checks with qualified
instructors are mandatory to prevent to many bad habits being formed.

"CB" wrote in message ...

I was cynical about being invited by the government to spend £85 with a
3rd party to avoid a criminal (points) record. However, having actually
been, it wasn't a complete waste of time, and the body running it are
actually a non-profit organisation (whatever that means ).

As I said, I would actually support a proposal to require drivers to
attend one every 10 years. It might pull up a few nasty habits.

But doesnt get even close to warranting the waste
of time involved in forcing everyone to do that.

Makes a lot more sense to only force those caught
speeding to do that.

Extend it to cover more than speeding (Middle lane hogging, not checking
your lights before you go out at night, tailgating - add your pet hate
here)

Sure.

and a compulsory "refresher" every 10 years might improve the general
standard of "carsmanship".

Unlikely.

Compare it to private flying where periodic checks with qualified
instructors are mandatory to prevent to many bad habits being formed.

Not in most jurisdictions.

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 09:30:56 +0000, CB wrote:

I was cynical about being invited by the government to spend £85 with
a 3rd party to avoid a criminal (points) record. However, having
actually been, it wasn't a complete waste of time, and the body
running it are actually a non-profit organisation (whatever that means
).

As I said, I would actually support a proposal to require drivers to
attend one every 10 years. It might pull up a few nasty habits.

But doesnt get even close to warranting the waste of time involved in
forcing everyone to do that.

Makes a lot more sense to only force those caught speeding to do that.

Extend it to cover more than speeding (Middle lane hogging, not checking
your lights before you go out at night, tailgating - add your pet hate
here) and a compulsory "refresher" every 10 years might improve the
general standard of "carsmanship".

Cutting in across three lanes 100 metres from an exit.

Compare it to private flying where periodic checks with qualified
instructors are mandatory to prevent to many bad habits being formed.

Indeed. I only wish I was in a position to need those checks..something I
always wanted to do was get a PPL.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 11:28:19 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

I got done in Arizona, 'en route' back from the Grand Canyon. He cited
me for 90-odd in a 55, although I was actually doing ~115. Cost me $100,
IIRC. It was almost worth it for the 'Terminator'-esque cop, sunglasses,
gun and all.

Ha! I bet you made his day. Not just from out of town, not even just
from out of state - but a furriner to boot.

He's probably not entirely clear on the difference.

In message , Huge
writes

Some small towns sole source of revenue is traffic violations.

I got done in Arizona, 'en route' back from the Grand Canyon. He cited
me for 90-odd in a 55, although I was actually doing ~115. Cost me $100,
IIRC. It was almost worth it for the 'Terminator'-esque cop, sunglasses,
gun and all.

(And before the anti-speeding arseholes get all bent out of shape, it
was a dead-straight, dead-flat, dual carriageway across a desert in the
middle of nowhere. 200mph would have been safe, never mind 55mph.)

How come you didn't see him?

Fully agree about the tedious speed limits on empty American roads.



--
Tim Lamb

In message , CB writes

I was cynical about being invited by the government to spend £85 with a
3rd party to avoid a criminal (points) record. However, having actually
been, it wasn't a complete waste of time, and the body running it are
actually a non-profit organisation (whatever that means ).

As I said, I would actually support a proposal to require drivers to
attend one every 10 years. It might pull up a few nasty habits.

But doesnt get even close to warranting the waste
of time involved in forcing everyone to do that.

Makes a lot more sense to only force those caught
speeding to do that.

Extend it to cover more than speeding (Middle lane hogging, not
checking your lights before you go out at night, tailgating - add your
pet hate here) and a compulsory "refresher" every 10 years might
improve the general standard of "carsmanship".

Compare it to private flying where periodic checks with qualified
instructors are mandatory to prevent to many bad habits being formed.

In the early days of the national sprayer regulations (agriculture)
points could be gained by undergoing an *on line* test.

Something similar might work for geriatrics like me who last consciously
studied the highway code in 1960!


--
Tim Lamb

On 20/12/2014 11:18, Huge wrote:

I got done in Arizona, 'en route' back from the Grand Canyon.

Where they check your speed from a light aircraft and then radio down to
the cop-car.

Spotted the aircraft coming the other way, then the parked cop-car with
a 'customer', realised what was happening and slowed down (considerably).

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - keep the last remaining Vulcan flying

On 20/12/2014 09:14, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 19/12/2014 23:25, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 19/12/2014 13:57, A. N. Other wrote:
... It is in everyone's interest to reduce the number of
serious and fatal traffic accidents

The problem with that is that only 5% of RTCs have exceeding the speed
limit as a contributory factor, while 42% have driver failed to look
properly as a contributory factor. For fatal accidents, loss of control
was the most common factor, at 34%. Speed is easy to measure, which
makes it an easy target, but a serious attempt to cut accidents should
target bad driving.


You don't think that driving too fast was probably the main cause of
total loss of control then?

Not when its JUST exceeding the speed limit.

Failing to look is probably caused by driving too fast to,

Even sillier than you usually manage.

there is plenty of evidence to back that up,

Like hell there is.

just look at how many get snapped by speed cameras they didn't see
because they were driving too fast.

Or they concentrate on the traffic and wouldn’t have
seen the camera even if they were below the speed limit.

So they were driving too fast then!
A speed limit isn't a target, if you can't see the camera what else have
you missed, one way signs, stop signs, pedestrians, etc.?


So from your post driving too fast is the main cause even if they list
it under a different heading.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

This is why they have speed limits

Wrong, as always.

as there are so many idiots that think they can drive fast

There are plenty who have enough of a clue to
realise that the speed limit is by definition for
the worst situation which normally isnt present.

No it isn't they can be there for many reasons like noise reduction,
pollution reduction, to annoy huge, etc. You don't know why they are there.


and cant even work out that if they miss seeing speed cameras that
they are driving too fast for their abilities.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

The same idiots will now take to abuse rather than accept they cant
drive very well.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

On 19/12/2014 15:29, Jethro_uk wrote:

I'm in my forties, and was clearly the youngest of the other 23
attendees, as was clear by the fact that I had only been driving 30
years. One guy had been driving for 70 !


My mother was caught by a mobile camera doing 35 in a 30 zone. She said
(and this no word of a lie):

I have been driving for over 50 yrs, driving almost every day, living in
seven different countries and five different capital cities and I have
never had even a single accident, my fault or not. How dare they say I
am a dangerous driver who needs to take a safety course?

Tim W

On Sat, 20 Dec 2014 14:03:46 +0000, Tim w wrote:

I'm in my forties, and was clearly the youngest of the other 23
attendees, as was clear by the fact that I had only been driving 30
years. One guy had been driving for 70 !

My mother was caught by a mobile camera doing 35 in a 30 zone. She said
(and this no word of a lie):

I have been driving for over 50 yrs, driving almost every day, living in
seven different countries and five different capital cities and I have
never had even a single accident, my fault or not. How dare they say I
am a dangerous driver who needs to take a safety course?

To which the simple answer is, of course, that it's a "speed awareness"
course, and she was caught in excess of the speed limit...

"Huge" wrote in message
...


Here's another goody that gets enforced so rarely that I don't imagine
anyone knows about it;

"All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a
lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph (48 km/h).
Law RVLR reg 24"


****ing hell, den will be out tonight checking for that infringement of the
Highway code. Top tip den - if they flash their interior light then DON'T go
for a closer look.

BTW Any idea if that highway code applies to lay-bys that have some sort of
physical divider between the lay-by and the main carriageway instead of one
with a dashed painted line to separate it from the main carriageway?

--
Adam

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2014-12-19, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2014-12-19, Jethro_uk wrote:

TBH, it's hard not to get the impression that these 40/30/40 roads are
designed to rack up fines,

Spot on.

In the States, that's far more explicit.

Yep, I know.

And it's driven by the fact
that revenue generated is kept locally. This must be resisted at all
costs in the UK.

Agreed.

If the local administration needs some dosh, the Mayor phones up his
mate the Chief of Police, who instructs the boys not to return from
patrol without two movers and three sitters (for example).

Some small towns sole source of revenue is traffic violations.

Bull****. They also have property taxes.

I got done in Arizona, 'en route' back from the Grand Canyon. He cited
me for 90-odd in a 55, although I was actually doing ~115. Cost me $100,
IIRC. It was almost worth it for the 'Terminator'-esque cop, sunglasses,
gun and all.

(And before the anti-speeding arseholes get all bent out of shape, it
was a dead-straight, dead-flat, dual carriageway across a desert in the
middle of nowhere. 200mph would have been safe, never mind 55mph.)

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , Huge
writes

Some small towns sole source of revenue is traffic violations.

I got done in Arizona, 'en route' back from the Grand Canyon. He cited
me for 90-odd in a 55, although I was actually doing ~115. Cost me $100,
IIRC. It was almost worth it for the 'Terminator'-esque cop, sunglasses,
gun and all.

(And before the anti-speeding arseholes get all bent out of shape, it
was a dead-straight, dead-flat, dual carriageway across a desert in the
middle of nowhere. 200mph would have been safe, never mind 55mph.)

I had the same thing with all except the desert.

How come you didn't see him?

In my case by the time it was visibly a cop car, I was booked.

Its just not feasible to slow down to the speed
limit every time you can ever see another car.

Fully agree about the tedious speed limits on empty American roads.

"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 20/12/2014 09:14, Rod Speed wrote:


"Dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 19/12/2014 23:25, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 19/12/2014 13:57, A. N. Other wrote:
... It is in everyone's interest to reduce the number of
serious and fatal traffic accidents

The problem with that is that only 5% of RTCs have exceeding the speed
limit as a contributory factor, while 42% have driver failed to look
properly as a contributory factor. For fatal accidents, loss of control
was the most common factor, at 34%. Speed is easy to measure, which
makes it an easy target, but a serious attempt to cut accidents should
target bad driving.


You don't think that driving too fast was probably the main cause of
total loss of control then?

Not when its JUST exceeding the speed limit.

Failing to look is probably caused by driving too fast to,

Even sillier than you usually manage.

there is plenty of evidence to back that up,

Like hell there is.

just look at how many get snapped by speed cameras they didn't see
because they were driving too fast.

Or they concentrate on the traffic and wouldn’t have
seen the camera even if they were below the speed limit.

So they were driving too fast then!

Even sillier than you usually manage.

A speed limit isn't a target, if you can't see the camera what else have
you missed, one way signs, stop signs, pedestrians, etc.?

Even sillier than you usually manage.

All of those are a lot more visible than speed cameras.

So from your post driving too fast is the main cause even if they list
it under a different heading.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

This is why they have speed limits

Wrong, as always.

as there are so many idiots that think they can drive fast

There are plenty who have enough of a clue to
realise that the speed limit is by definition for
the worst situation which normally isnt present.

No it isn't

Corse they are.

they can be there for many reasons like noise reduction,

Hardly ever.

pollution reduction,

Hardly ever.

to annoy huge, etc. You don't know why they are there.

Bull****.

and cant even work out that if they miss seeing speed cameras that
they are driving too fast for their abilities.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

The same idiots will now take to abuse rather than accept they cant
drive very well.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

On 20/12/2014 14:03, Tim w wrote:

My mother was caught by a mobile camera doing 35 in a 30 zone.

I thought the ACPO 'rule' was that there would be no prosecution within
speed limit + 10% + 2, ie 35mph or less in this instance.

Management took a course after being flashed at 36mph...

--
F

www.vulcantothesky.org - keep the last remaining Vulcan flying

"F" news@nowhere wrote in message
o.uk...
On 20/12/2014 14:03, Tim w wrote:

My mother was caught by a mobile camera doing 35 in a 30 zone.

I thought the ACPO 'rule' was that there would be no prosecution within
speed limit + 10% + 2, ie 35mph or less in this instance.


That's the speed at which they issue fixed penalties or speed awarness
courses.


--
Adam

On 21/12/2014 12:13, F wrote:
On 20/12/2014 14:03, Tim w wrote:

My mother was caught by a mobile camera doing 35 in a 30 zone.

I thought the ACPO 'rule' was that there would be no prosecution within
speed limit + 10% + 2, ie 35mph or less in this instance.

Management took a course after being flashed at 36mph...

I got a course for 46 in a 40, which is exactly 10% + 2.

Actually, the course was quite informative, if a little too long.

Cheers
--
Syd

On 20/12/2014 11:18, Huge wrote:

snip

I got done in Arizona, 'en route' back from the Grand Canyon. He cited
me for 90-odd in a 55, although I was actually doing ~115. Cost me $100,
IIRC. It was almost worth it for the 'Terminator'-esque cop, sunglasses,
gun and all.

(And before the anti-speeding arseholes get all bent out of shape, it
was a dead-straight, dead-flat, dual carriageway across a desert in the
middle of nowhere. 200mph would have been safe, never mind 55mph.)

It sounds just like my experience in Utah. When I went to pay, I
expressed the opinion that 80mph (IIRC in a 70?) was pretty safe on a
dead straight dual carriageway across the desert in the middle of
nowhere. The clerk said, "Yes, but it could have been snowing".

That's me told then.

Cheers
--
Syd

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 17:11:10 +0000, Syd Rumpo wrote:

I thought the ACPO 'rule' was that there would be no prosecution within
speed limit + 10% + 2, ie 35mph or less in this instance.

I got a course for 46 in a 40, which is exactly 10% + 2.

The ACPO guideline is a guideline.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 17:11:10 +0000, Syd Rumpo wrote:

I thought the ACPO 'rule' was that there would be no prosecution within
speed limit + 10% + 2, ie 35mph or less in this instance.

I got a course for 46 in a 40, which is exactly 10% + 2.

The ACPO guideline is a guideline.


When did the guidelines start? According to the guidelines doing =66 in a
40 zone is summons and I got away with a fixed penatly for doing that 10
years ago.

--
Adam

On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 17:45:59 +0000, ARW wrote:

I thought the ACPO 'rule' was that there would be no prosecution
within speed limit + 10% + 2, ie 35mph or less in this instance.

I got a course for 46 in a 40, which is exactly 10% + 2.

The ACPO guideline is a guideline.

When did the guidelines start? According to the guidelines doing =66 in
a 40 zone is summons and I got away with a fixed penatly for doing that
10 years ago.

Many, many moons ago - and probably just semi-formalised what most forces
would have been doing anyway. But they'll have been tickled-about over
the years, and have always been just guidelines.

The only thing that ISN'T a guideline is that 41mph in a 40mph is
illegal, and there's a range of penalties on prosecution, with 3pt/fixed
penalty being the only non-court option. A course is an alternative to
prosecution, as is a bollocking from a real-live plod.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 17:45:59 +0000, ARW wrote:

I thought the ACPO 'rule' was that there would be no prosecution
within speed limit + 10% + 2, ie 35mph or less in this instance.

I got a course for 46 in a 40, which is exactly 10% + 2.

The ACPO guideline is a guideline.

When did the guidelines start? According to the guidelines doing =66 in
a 40 zone is summons and I got away with a fixed penatly for doing that
10 years ago.

Many, many moons ago - and probably just semi-formalised what most forces
would have been doing anyway. But they'll have been tickled-about over
the years, and have always been just guidelines.

The only thing that ISN'T a guideline is that 41mph in a 40mph is
illegal, and there's a range of penalties on prosecution, with 3pt/fixed
penalty being the only non-court option.


A course is an alternative to
prosecution, as is a bollocking from a real-live plod.

They can be good fun those real-life plods. I got stopped for using my
mobile phone whilst driving. The officer asked me why I had been stopped and
I said it was because I was using my phone. For answering correctly I was
told that I would not get a ticket (and the usual lecture where I nodded at
the appropiate times) and I could spent the £60 saved on the fixed penaly on
a hands free kit for my phone . He also told me that he had already issued
30 tickets that day to people who denied using a phone whilst driving and
that all of them had the same opportunity as me to admit what they had done.

--
Adam

In message , Tim Lamb
writes
In message , CB writes

I was cynical about being invited by the government to spend £85 with a
3rd party to avoid a criminal (points) record. However, having actually
been, it wasn't a complete waste of time, and the body running it are
actually a non-profit organisation (whatever that means ).

As I said, I would actually support a proposal to require drivers to
attend one every 10 years. It might pull up a few nasty habits.

But doesnt get even close to warranting the waste
of time involved in forcing everyone to do that.

Makes a lot more sense to only force those caught
speeding to do that.

Extend it to cover more than speeding (Middle lane hogging, not
checking your lights before you go out at night, tailgating - add your
pet hate here) and a compulsory "refresher" every 10 years might
improve the general standard of "carsmanship".

Compare it to private flying where periodic checks with qualified
instructors are mandatory to prevent to many bad habits being formed.

In the early days of the national sprayer regulations (agriculture)
points could be gained by undergoing an *on line* test.

Something similar might work for geriatrics like me who last
consciously studied the highway code in 1960!


I did an online test recently and surprised myself a bit by scoring
87/88 - the one I got wrong? Where do you find amber cats eyes on a
motorway
--
bert

In message , ARW
writes
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2014 17:45:59 +0000, ARW wrote:

I thought the ACPO 'rule' was that there would be no prosecution
within speed limit + 10% + 2, ie 35mph or less in this instance.

I got a course for 46 in a 40, which is exactly 10% + 2.

The ACPO guideline is a guideline.

When did the guidelines start? According to the guidelines doing =66 in
a 40 zone is summons and I got away with a fixed penatly for doing that
10 years ago.

Many, many moons ago - and probably just semi-formalised what most forces
would have been doing anyway. But they'll have been tickled-about over
the years, and have always been just guidelines.

The only thing that ISN'T a guideline is that 41mph in a 40mph is
illegal, and there's a range of penalties on prosecution, with 3pt/fixed
penalty being the only non-court option.


A course is an alternative to
prosecution, as is a bollocking from a real-live plod.

They can be good fun those real-life plods. I got stopped for using my
mobile phone whilst driving. The officer asked me why I had been
stopped and I said it was because I was using my phone. For answering
correctly I was told that I would not get a ticket (and the usual
lecture where I nodded at the appropiate times) and I could spent the
£60 saved on the fixed penaly on a hands free kit for my phone . He
also told me that he had already issued 30 tickets that day to people
who denied using a phone whilst driving and that all of them had the
same opportunity as me to admit what they had done.

So has it persuaded you not to use your phone whilst driving in future?
--
bert

On 21/12/2014 22:03, Huge wrote:
On 2014-12-21, Syd Rumpo wrote:
On 20/12/2014 11:18, Huge wrote:

snip

I got done in Arizona, 'en route' back from the Grand Canyon. He cited
me for 90-odd in a 55, although I was actually doing ~115. Cost me $100,
IIRC. It was almost worth it for the 'Terminator'-esque cop, sunglasses,
gun and all.

(And before the anti-speeding arseholes get all bent out of shape, it
was a dead-straight, dead-flat, dual carriageway across a desert in the
middle of nowhere. 200mph would have been safe, never mind 55mph.)

It sounds just like my experience in Utah. When I went to pay,

Went to pay? I just pleaded guilty by post and sent the money. I could
have chosen to appear in traffic court in Kingman, AZ, but the court date
was after we went home. And I didn't want to ignore it in case they wouldn't
let me in next time I came to visit.

I just drove to the next town with my ticket and paid in the courthouse.
It was about 16 years ago and I think USD 50 or so. Likewise, I paid
up to avoid future problems.

If pulled by the cops here, I'd get out of the car and walk towards them
while reaching round to my back pocket for my licence. There, I stayed
in the car with my hands on the wheel.

Cheers
--
Syd