On 08/05/16 07:59, Chris French wrote:
John Rumm Wrote in message:
On 06/05/2016 19:44, F wrote:
On 05/05/2016 22:21, Tim Watts wrote:

Does he know there are an arse load of speed cameras on the southern
section that are now activated even when the variable limit is at 70?

The variables on the M62 will also flash at 70+ (79? - 70 +10% +2) even
when they're not displaying a limit and, apparently, turned off.

Given most cars speedos will over read 10%, that would be getting on fo
an indicated 90 ish...

The bits of variable speed road I have been on seem to have had
average speed cameras anyway. So you wouldn't see them flash as
they don't.



Several of the new ones are HADECS 3 and they don't flash either.

John Rumm Wrote in message:
On 06/05/2016 19:44, F wrote:
On 05/05/2016 22:21, Tim Watts wrote:

Does he know there are an arse load of speed cameras on the southern
section that are now activated even when the variable limit is at 70?

The variables on the M62 will also flash at 70+ (79? - 70 +10% +2) even
when they're not displaying a limit and, apparently, turned off.

Given most cars speedos will over read 10%, that would be getting on fo
an indicated 90 ish...

The bits of variable speed road I have been on seem to have had
average speed cameras anyway. So you wouldn't see them flash as
they don't.


--
--
Chris French

"Steve Walker" wrote in message ...

On 07/05/2016 18:55, polygonum wrote:
On 07/05/2016 17:21, Steve Walker wrote:
A pensioner who drives 3000 miles a year to the shops and back, on roads
that they know like the back of their hand is a lot less likely to
collect points or a ban than say a sales rep who might be doing 60,000+
business miles per year, often on roads they have never been on before,
held up by delays and against deadlines.

Perhaps companies that expect their sales staff (or any other staff!) to
drive 60,000+ business miles in the circumstances you describe should be
another party that gets banged to rights?

Perhaps if every driving offence done under business miles were in some
way allocated against the employer? If the number gets too high, the
company gets banned from operating vehicles.

And any company that imposes "drive at 100 mph or get the sack" rules
should most definitely have the book thrown at them. Even if that means
a new book has to be written to cover that.

I am not saying that employers impose such rules, although there have been
many cases in the past of companies setting extremely tight schedules, so
any delay causes problems.

Even where schedules are not too tight, sales people's jobs live or die by
their results and if they've been held up by a motorway crash and the
person they are going to see has only a particular slot to see them in,
what are they going to do? Try to still get there in time or possibly lose
a major contract?

I personally have had an ocassion (nothing to do with work), where I set
out on a 4-1/2 drive, with 6 hours to do it. I did not want to allow more
spare than that, as I was travelling with 3 young children and arriving too
early would not be good - as anyone who's sat waiting at a port in the
early hours of the morning with bored and tired kids in the car will
attest! We also did not want to miss the ferry, as it was a 1-1/2 hour
crossing and if we missed it, we'd have to wait 6 hours for the next one or
see if they could fit us on a 3-1/2 hour crossing 3 hours or so after
ours - again with 3 young kids, not fun and also no guarantee that there
would be space on any subsequent crossings anyway. We then got held up for
just over 1-1/2 hours as someone was threatening to jump from a bridge and
we were trapped on the motorway. I was then left with the choice of speed
or miss the ferry. Obviously, legally, I should have missed the ferry, but
with the thoughts of getting there too late and having to negotiate a place
on another ferry, with no idea how long we'd have to wait and how long the
crossing would be, we made it with minutes to spare.

On another ocassion we were at another ferry terminal (Birkenhead) in
plenty of time for our 07:30 Seacat crossing, only for them to tell us an
hour after we should have departed, that they had an engine problem (it
turned out that the ferry had had an ongoing problem and hadn't run for 3
months!) and the ferry was cancelled. They arranged for everyone to be
accomodated on a slow 16:30 crossing from Hollyhead, but that was no use to
us, as we had to be on the far side of Ireland by 20:00 as we were
attending a wedding the next day and my wife needed to be part of the
practice in the church. We managed to negotiate an earlier crossing with
another company (Seacat agreed under the circumstances), but again, to make
it we had to break a few speed limits.

Now you can argue that I was wrong to speed, but in both cases, I had
allowed enough time for the journey, with a stop and with sopme spare time,
but outside events sabotaged our plans. In both cases, there were good
reasons not to miss the deadline. Real life is like that and we can't all
take an extra day off work and travel a day early, just in case there is a
delay.

Why should it be wrong to speed? Sure, if there is loads of traffic and one
is weaving in and out of lanes it is wrong. If the road is almost empty and
the driver is competent it should not really be considered 'wrong'.

Of course the only time speed is always wrong is when it's preceded by
'Rod'.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Taxi drivers are generally self employed.

Yes.

So no unemployment benefit.

So they just get to starve if they lose their licence, eh ?

No reason for anyone to starve in a civilised country, much as the likes
of you would wish it. They will be entitled to *means tested* benifits
same as everyone else. But not unemployment benefit which is a *right* to
those who pay the appropriate NI contributions.

--
*And the cardiologist' s diet: - If it tastes good spit it out.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 07 May 2016 23:42:08 +0100, T i m wrote:


Now, on a good day my total commute took about 2 minutes so I would
leave at 5 to 9 to be there 'on time'. However, if we got caught up
behind the dustcart that 2 minutes could lengthen to maybe 10 minutes
and if there was some other issue (fire engine in the road) then it
could be even longer (making me 'late').


Years ago I noticed that those who lived closest to work were
invariably the last to arrive at shift changeover, which meant those
being relived were rarely relieved early, whereas those who lived
closest often were.

In article ,
Peter Johnson wrote:
On Sat, 07 May 2016 23:42:08 +0100, T i m wrote:


Now, on a good day my total commute took about 2 minutes so I would
leave at 5 to 9 to be there 'on time'. However, if we got caught up
behind the dustcart that 2 minutes could lengthen to maybe 10 minutes
and if there was some other issue (fire engine in the road) then it
could be even longer (making me 'late').


Years ago I noticed that those who lived closest to work were
invariably the last to arrive at shift changeover, which meant those
being relived were rarely relieved early, whereas those who lived
closest often were.

+1

A colleague who often was supposed to relieve me at 1pm was frequently 30
or more minutes late. His excuse was always interesting - "had to take the
cat to the vet" was probably the most believable - "Overslept" was not.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 08/05/2016 10:32, Richard wrote:
Why should it be wrong to speed? Sure, if there is loads of traffic and
one is weaving in and out of lanes it is wrong. If the road is almost
empty and the driver is competent it should not really be considered
'wrong'.

The argument should be whether the law needs to be changed to allow a
higher speed. You might not like it, you might have sound arguments
against it, but if the law says there is a 70 mph limit on a motorway,
then that should be adhered to. (Yes - loads of hypocrisy there.)

--
Rod

On Sunday, 8 May 2016 12:28:32 UTC+1, polygonum wrote:
On 08/05/2016 10:32, Richard wrote:

Why should it be wrong to speed? Sure, if there is loads of traffic and
one is weaving in and out of lanes it is wrong. If the road is almost
empty and the driver is competent it should not really be considered
'wrong'.

The argument should be whether the law needs to be changed to allow a
higher speed. You might not like it, you might have sound arguments
against it, but if the law says there is a 70 mph limit on a motorway,
then that should be adhered to. (Yes - loads of hypocrisy there.)

I used to do a journey where on one road there were countless speed limit changes. Trying to keep up with them consistently was a mare. I appreciate why lots of limit changes are problematic.

The law is a blunt instrument at the end of the day.


NT

In article ,
wrote:
The argument should be whether the law needs to be changed to allow a
higher speed. You might not like it, you might have sound arguments
against it, but if the law says there is a 70 mph limit on a motorway,
then that should be adhered to. (Yes - loads of hypocrisy there.)

I used to do a journey where on one road there were countless speed
limit changes. Trying to keep up with them consistently was a mare. I
appreciate why lots of limit changes are problematic.

A decent satnav should have up to date speed limits.

--
*Whatever kind of look you were going for, you missed.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

In article , Richard
wrote:

Why should it be wrong to speed? Sure, if there is loads of traffic and
one is weaving in and out of lanes it is wrong. If the road is almost
empty and the driver is competent it should not really be considered
'wrong'.

It's all about expectations. If I want to change lane on the motorway,
and I look in the mirror, and it's clear to do so, I don't want to find
I'm sideswiping some **** coming past at 120 who was out of sight when
I looked in the mirror.

*That* is why. My expectation, doing 70, is that people I see in the
mirror when I take the look will still be roughly where they were five
seconds after I took the look.

If speedster ****heads can't deal with this, then I'm happy to nudge
them over the barrier into the path of the artic coming the other way.

Didn't really understand much of what I wrote, did you.
Maybe you need to slow down a bit with your knee-jerk reactions because you
seem to have left the knee part out.

"polygonum" wrote in message ...

On 08/05/2016 10:32, Richard wrote:
Why should it be wrong to speed? Sure, if there is loads of traffic and
one is weaving in and out of lanes it is wrong. If the road is almost
empty and the driver is competent it should not really be considered
'wrong'.

The argument should be whether the law needs to be changed to allow a
higher speed. You might not like it, you might have sound arguments against
it, but if the law says there is a 70 mph limit on a motorway, then that
should be adhered to. (Yes - loads of hypocrisy there.)

Well, I do speed on occasions but have no feeling that I am doing something
wrong in the 'that's a bad thing to do' way.

On 08/05/2016 14:19, wrote:
On Sunday, 8 May 2016 12:28:32 UTC+1, polygonum wrote:
On 08/05/2016 10:32, Richard wrote:

Why should it be wrong to speed? Sure, if there is loads of traffic and
one is weaving in and out of lanes it is wrong. If the road is almost
empty and the driver is competent it should not really be considered
'wrong'.

The argument should be whether the law needs to be changed to allow a
higher speed. You might not like it, you might have sound arguments
against it, but if the law says there is a 70 mph limit on a motorway,
then that should be adhered to. (Yes - loads of hypocrisy there.)

I used to do a journey where on one road there were countless speed limit changes. Trying to keep up with them consistently was a mare. I appreciate why lots of limit changes are problematic.

The law is a blunt instrument at the end of the day.


NT

Many years ago I used to drive more or less the length of the A34 - call
it Winchester to Preston - on a regular basis. OK - M6 for a bit! Wasn't
too bad. After a gap of years, I tried it again. Horrible with loads and
loads of reduced speed limits - many seemingly for reasons other than
safety, like "go another way, you idiot".

--
Rod

In message , polygonum
writes
On 08/05/2016 10:32, Richard wrote:
Why should it be wrong to speed? Sure, if there is loads of traffic and
one is weaving in and out of lanes it is wrong. If the road is almost
empty and the driver is competent it should not really be considered
'wrong'.

The argument should be whether the law needs to be changed to allow a
higher speed. You might not like it, you might have sound arguments
against it, but if the law says there is a 70 mph limit on a motorway,
then that should be adhered to. (Yes - loads of hypocrisy there.)

I think variable speed limits over 70mph would be OK now the technology
exists. At least it would get the BMWs and MERCs off my rear end.
Otherwise it should not be left to the driver to decide what is safe.


--
Tim Lamb

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Taxi drivers are generally self employed.

Yes.

So no unemployment benefit.

So they just get to starve if they lose their licence, eh ?

No reason for anyone to starve in a civilised country,
much as the likes of you would wish it.

More of your bare faced lies on that last.

They will be entitled to *means tested* benifits same as
everyone else. But not unemployment benefit which is a
*right* to those who pay the appropriate NI contributions.

So you were in fact just mindlessly nit picking about the name
of the benefit they get and its name is completely irrelevant to
whether they should get any different treatment with regard to
repeated traffic violations.

In article , Steve Walker
writes
On 06/05/2016 23:03, bert wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
writes
On 06/05/2016 18:39, Nick wrote:
In message l.net,
Dave Liquorice writes
On Thu, 5 May 2016 22:36:00 +0100, ARW wrote:

Does he know there are an arse load of speed cameras on the
southern
section that are now activated even when the variable limit is at
70?

****

That will be me: then-(

I drove from a job in Dartford to Heathrow before OUR race began.

I set the cruse control at 95mph

And presumably each camera is a seperate offence at 3 points/camera
so after 4 cameras, 12 points, bye bye licence, thats assuming it's
not bye by licence at the first one at 25 mph above the limit...
IIRC the North Wales police tried that on with someone - the judge said
it was a single offence. I last got caught at 96 by a car rather than
camera around 8 years ago on the M5 south. It was the standard 3 points
and £60. I suspect they were being kind as I'd just got the thing and
was wondering how fast it would comfortably go. Over 100 is a ban, I
believe.

A friend of mine was caught after coming off the motorway and the
officers told him that on the motorway they'd been doing 120 and he
had been pulling away!

They were actually quite understanding when they heard that he'd had a
phonecall from his mother and she thought that someone had broken in
and was still in the house. They still did him, but only for 96, so no
ban.

General rule 30 over the speed limit = ban
However they seem to have gone soft on it these days Just plead you will
lose your job and your house and your ids will be taken into care and
your wife will have to work the streets and you will get off.

It has always struck me that there is an inherent unfairness in that
for some people a ban is a minor inconvenience and for others it is a
catastrophe
Then those people should be more careful, They did try a while back
linking fines to income in the name of fairness. Bit of a disaster
- as you say leading to job loss, repossession of house, etc. so it
probably does make sense to take that into account ... but also to take
into account repeat offences.


--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Taxi drivers are generally self employed.

Yes.

So no unemployment benefit.

So they just get to starve if they lose their licence, eh ?

No reason for anyone to starve in a civilised country, much as the likes
of you would wish it. They will be entitled to *means tested* benifits
same as everyone else. But not unemployment benefit which is a *right* to
those who pay the appropriate NI contributions.

Job Seekers Allowance please.
--
bert

In article , Steve Walker
writes
On 07/05/2016 08:06, polygonum wrote:
On 06/05/2016 23:35, Steve Walker wrote:
It has always struck me that there is an inherent unfairness in that for
some people a ban is a minor inconvenience and for others it is a
catastrophe - as you say leading to job loss, repossession of house,
etc. so it probably does make sense to take that into account ... but
also to take into account repeat offences.

Looking at it another way, someone who depends heavily on their driving
licence knows that they need that licence. It behoves them to take that
into account in their behaviour on the road.

Instead of taxi drivers being among the most frequent breakers of the
driving laws, they should be among the best behaved.

Everyone makes mistakes, misses a speed limit sign that's partially
hidden, etc. at some point. A pensioner who drives 3000 miles a year to
the shops and back, on roads that they know like the back of their hand
is a lot less likely to collect points or a ban than say a sales rep
who might be doing 60,000+ business miles per year, often on roads they
have never been on before, held up by delays and against deadlines.

Which makes them a greater danger to other road users and so a ban is
quite appropriate.
There is also a difference between the sales rep and a taxi driver -
who is mainly driving in a built-up area that he knows well, with
fairly unanambiguous limits and who's livlihood does not depend on
fixed time meetings at the end of journeys hours long.


--
bert

In article , Bob Eager
writes
On Sat, 07 May 2016 17:21:43 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

Everyone makes mistakes, misses a speed limit sign that's partially
hidden, etc. at some point. A pensioner who drives 3000 miles a year to
the shops and back, on roads that they know like the back of their hand
is a lot less likely to collect points or a ban than say a sales rep who
might be doing 60,000+ business miles per year, often on roads they have
never been on before, held up by delays and against deadlines.

I was on an unfamiliar mixed-urban trip recently and I was very careful.
But I did also turn on the car's speed limiter, linked to its recognition
of speed limit signs (it's not perfect, but belt and braces).
There are now so many changes in speed limits on most A roads in
Cheshire that its almost impossible to remember what speed limit you're
under.
--
bert

In article , Richard
writes
"Steve Walker" wrote in message ...

On 07/05/2016 18:55, polygonum wrote:
On 07/05/2016 17:21, Steve Walker wrote:
A pensioner who drives 3000 miles a year to the shops and back, on roads
that they know like the back of their hand is a lot less likely to
collect points or a ban than say a sales rep who might be doing 60,000+
business miles per year, often on roads they have never been on before,
held up by delays and against deadlines.

Perhaps companies that expect their sales staff (or any other staff!) to
drive 60,000+ business miles in the circumstances you describe should be
another party that gets banged to rights?

Perhaps if every driving offence done under business miles were in some
way allocated against the employer? If the number gets too high, the
company gets banned from operating vehicles.

And any company that imposes "drive at 100 mph or get the sack" rules
should most definitely have the book thrown at them. Even if that means
a new book has to be written to cover that.

I am not saying that employers impose such rules, although there have
been many cases in the past of companies setting extremely tight
schedules, so any delay causes problems.

Even where schedules are not too tight, sales people's jobs live or
die by their results and if they've been held up by a motorway crash
and the person they are going to see has only a particular slot to see
them in, what are they going to do? Try to still get there in time or
possibly lose a major contract?

I personally have had an ocassion (nothing to do with work), where I
set out on a 4-1/2 drive, with 6 hours to do it. I did not want to
allow more spare than that, as I was travelling with 3 young children
and arriving too early would not be good - as anyone who's sat waiting
at a port in the early hours of the morning with bored and tired kids
in the car will attest! We also did not want to miss the ferry, as it
was a 1-1/2 hour crossing and if we missed it, we'd have to wait 6
hours for the next one or see if they could fit us on a 3-1/2 hour
crossing 3 hours or so after ours - again with 3 young kids, not fun
and also no guarantee that there would be space on any subsequent
crossings anyway. We then got held up for just over 1-1/2 hours as
someone was threatening to jump from a bridge and we were trapped on
the motorway. I was then left with the choice of speed or miss the
ferry. Obviously, legally, I should have missed the ferry, but with
the thoughts of getting there too late and having to negotiate a place
on another ferry, with no idea how long we'd have to wait and how long
the crossing would be, we made it with minutes to spare.

On another ocassion we were at another ferry terminal (Birkenhead) in
plenty of time for our 07:30 Seacat crossing, only for them to tell us
an hour after we should have departed, that they had an engine problem
(it turned out that the ferry had had an ongoing problem and hadn't
run for 3 months!) and the ferry was cancelled. They arranged for
everyone to be accomodated on a slow 16:30 crossing from Hollyhead,
but that was no use to us, as we had to be on the far side of Ireland
by 20:00 as we were attending a wedding the next day and my wife
needed to be part of the practice in the church. We managed to
negotiate an earlier crossing with another company (Seacat agreed
under the circumstances), but again, to make it we had to break a few speed limits.

Now you can argue that I was wrong to speed, but in both cases, I had
allowed enough time for the journey, with a stop and with sopme spare
time, but outside events sabotaged our plans. In both cases, there
were good reasons not to miss the deadline. Real life is like that and
we can't all take an extra day off work and travel a day early, just
in case there is a delay.

Why should it be wrong to speed? Sure, if there is loads of traffic and
one is weaving in and out of lanes it is wrong. If the road is almost
empty and the driver is competent it should not really be considered
'wrong'.

Well it's that little bit about "competent". So many are not.
Of course the only time speed is always wrong is when it's preceded by
'Rod'.

--
bert

bert wrote:

There are now so many changes in speed limits on most A roads in
Cheshire that its almost impossible to remember what speed limit you're
under.

Round here they've downgraded the dual-carriageway bypass from 70 (for
cars) to 50, but left the adjoining single carriageway at as 60. So
you're stuck behind a lorry, reach a dual carriageway stretch and then
(theoretically) still can't overtake. Still not as bad as
Nottinghamshire where they've reduced dual carriageway bypasses to 50
(or 40) with average cameras.

"bert" wrote in message
...

Then those people should be more careful, They did try a while back
linking fines to income in the name of fairness. Bit of a disaster



Wonder why

"What's your income?"
"Zero as I am banned from driving"

--
Adam

On Sunday, 8 May 2016 18:15:24 UTC+1, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , polygonum
writes
On 08/05/2016 10:32, Richard wrote:
Why should it be wrong to speed? Sure, if there is loads of traffic and
one is weaving in and out of lanes it is wrong. If the road is almost
empty and the driver is competent it should not really be considered
'wrong'.

The argument should be whether the law needs to be changed to allow a
higher speed. You might not like it, you might have sound arguments
against it, but if the law says there is a 70 mph limit on a motorway,
then that should be adhered to. (Yes - loads of hypocrisy there.)

I think variable speed limits over 70mph would be OK now the technology
exists. At least it would get the BMWs and MERCs off my rear end.
Otherwise it should not be left to the driver to decide what is safe.

The variable speed limit system on the M25 is a great idea. But cutting corners on running costs make it mostly worse than useless.


NT

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Steve Walker
writes
On 06/05/2016 23:03, bert wrote:
In article , Steve Walker
writes
On 06/05/2016 18:39, Nick wrote:
In message l.net,
Dave Liquorice writes
On Thu, 5 May 2016 22:36:00 +0100, ARW wrote:

Does he know there are an arse load of speed cameras on the
southern
section that are now activated even when the variable limit is at
70?

****

That will be me: then-(

I drove from a job in Dartford to Heathrow before OUR race began.

I set the cruse control at 95mph

And presumably each camera is a seperate offence at 3 points/camera
so after 4 cameras, 12 points, bye bye licence, thats assuming it's
not bye by licence at the first one at 25 mph above the limit...
IIRC the North Wales police tried that on with someone - the judge
said
it was a single offence. I last got caught at 96 by a car rather than
camera around 8 years ago on the M5 south. It was the standard 3
points
and £60. I suspect they were being kind as I'd just got the thing and
was wondering how fast it would comfortably go. Over 100 is a ban, I
believe.

A friend of mine was caught after coming off the motorway and the
officers told him that on the motorway they'd been doing 120 and he
had been pulling away!

They were actually quite understanding when they heard that he'd had a
phonecall from his mother and she thought that someone had broken in
and was still in the house. They still did him, but only for 96, so no
ban.

General rule 30 over the speed limit = ban
However they seem to have gone soft on it these days Just plead you will
lose your job and your house and your ids will be taken into care and
your wife will have to work the streets and you will get off.

It has always struck me that there is an inherent unfairness in that for
some people a ban is a minor inconvenience and for others it is a
catastrophe

Then those people should be more careful,

Makes no sense that they should need to just because they drive a lot more
than most do.

They did try a while back linking fines to income in the name of fairness.
Bit of a disaster

Sure and the other intractable problem is that some just
choose to flout the law and consider the fines to be just
another cost of doing business. The only thing that stops
those from doing that is a loss of license etc

If there was a nice tidy answer we would have found it by now.

- as you say leading to job loss, repossession of house, etc. so it
probably does make sense to take that into account ... but also to take
into account repeat offences.

On 08/05/2016 17:08, polygonum wrote:

Many years ago I used to drive more or less the length of the A34 - call
it Winchester to Preston - on a regular basis. OK - M6 for a bit! Wasn't
too bad. After a gap of years, I tried it again. Horrible with loads and
loads of reduced speed limits - many seemingly for reasons other than
safety, like "go another way, you idiot".

I do a journey like that regularly - motorway from Preston to Oxford,
dual carriageway to Winchester, I think the only permanent 50 limit is
Oxford for a couple of miles, the rest is standard 70 unless you hit the
variable limits on the busier sections of motorways. One roundabout at
Oxford, slip roads for the rest - I think that counts as a pretty easy
drive :-)

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
They will be entitled to *means tested* benifits same as
everyone else. But not unemployment benefit which is a
*right* to those who pay the appropriate NI contributions.

So you were in fact just mindlessly nit picking about the name
of the benefit

I don't do anything 'mindlessly', pet.

they get and its name is completely irrelevant to
whether they should get any different treatment with regard to
repeated traffic violations.

There is a very big difference. Not that I'd expect you to understand.

--
*Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

They will be entitled to *means tested* benifits same as
everyone else. But not unemployment benefit which is a
*right* to those who pay the appropriate NI contributions.

So you were in fact just mindlessly nit picking
about the name of the benefit they get

I don't do anything 'mindlessly'

You never could bull**** and lie your way out of a wet paper bag.

and its name is completely irrelevant to whether they should get
any different treatment with regard to repeated traffic violations.

There is a very big difference.

Even more pathetic than you usually manage.

reams of your signature desperate attempt at insults any
2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

On 09/05/2016 00:04, Clive George wrote:

I do a journey like that regularly - motorway from Preston to Oxford,
dual carriageway to Winchester, I think the only permanent 50 limit is
Oxford for a couple of miles, the rest is standard 70 unless you hit the
variable limits on the busier sections of motorways. One roundabout at
Oxford, slip roads for the rest - I think that counts as a pretty easy
drive :-)

I was doing it when most of the A34 wasn't dualled - there were a few
little bits between Winchester and Oxford, yes round Oxford, then little
all the way to Birmingham.

--
Rod

On 08/05/2016 23:28, wrote:
The variable speed limit system on the M25 is a great idea. But cutting corners on running costs make it mostly worse than useless.

Variable speed limits do have their limits!

The other week I was approaching the Severn bridge with variable speed
limit of 50 or 40. Passed the "end of variable speed limit" signs, very
obvious national speed limit applies, straight into queues of stationary
traffic just a few yards after them. The non-variable speed limit
informational signs were not showing any issues.

--
Rod

On Sun, 8 May 2016 20:54:57 +0100, bert wrote:

There are now so many changes in speed limits on most A roads in
Cheshire that its almost impossible to remember what speed limit you're
under.

You should be able to work it out from the road and street lighting.
If the limit varies from that default there should be small repeater
boards every few hundred yards.

Having said that I know of stretches of road that are "ambiguous".
Single carriage way A road. Leave a village and go past a National
Speed Limit sign (60). However the full street lighting continues but
there are no repeater boards (30). Entering next village, after the
best part of a mile, there is a single ordinary sized NSL sign on the
right (60). The village has street lighting and building(*)(30). On
leaving that village you don't pass any NSL signs, the street
lighting and buildings just end. In the opposite direction you don't
pass a twin 30 boards as you enter that village.

(*) Note the use of "street lighting", it is the presence of street
lighting that triggers the 30 limit, buildings do not have to
present. "Street lighting" is lighting designed to primarily
illuminate the carriageway. Lighting designed to illuminate primarily
walkways/pavements etc is not "street lighting" but "footway
lighting".

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sat, 7 May 2016 22:51:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I find that satnav driving time, when limited to 60 mph, plus 30
mins
(and 20 mins per planned pee/coffee stop) gives enough buffer to
get
lost in a one way system or snarlled up in roadworks.

In some parts of the country that's far from true. One route I'm
familiar with takes anything from 3.5 to 7.5 hours. It's not really
predictable.

Find a better route. B-) Does the Trafficmaster YQ system still
exist? That was very good, portable unit with zoomable map of whole
country, that showed the average speed on sections of road. As you
could see the whole country you could decide if the better was was
up/down the M6 or up/down the A1/A1M/M1. Or if not in a hurry, wait
until the M25 cleared from the morning/evening crawl before setting
out.

Though I take your point, I used to travel into Leeds for an 0700
start around two hours driving. If the start was 0800 or heaven
forbid 0900 I'd still have to leave at 0500. Bloody sheple, all
wanting travel in the same direction at the same time...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
wrote:
The argument should be whether the law needs to be changed to allow a
higher speed. You might not like it, you might have sound arguments
against it, but if the law says there is a 70 mph limit on a motorway,
then that should be adhered to. (Yes - loads of hypocrisy there.)

I used to do a journey where on one road there were countless speed
limit changes. Trying to keep up with them consistently was a mare. I
appreciate why lots of limit changes are problematic.

A decent satnav should have up to date speed limits.

Don't know whether TomTom counts as decent, but though freshly updated
there were at least two places near London last Friday with permanent 50
signs but the satnav showed 70.
--
Nick (=----)

On Mon, 9 May 2016 07:48:48 +0100, polygonum wrote:

The non-variable speed limit informational signs were not showing any
issues.

Ah, just like the ones I saw last night saying that the M6 Northbound
from the A591 was closed 6th to 9th of May. Can't say I noticed.

Or last week when the informational boards south of Preston had "M6
CLOSED", except it wasn't, yes they reduced it down to a single lane
on the hard shoulder with lots of coneage with lights on and
temporary area lighting and lead you off at a junction. But that was
it, no DIVERTED TRAFFIC signs or FOLLOW O for M6 N. Well there
wouldn't be the motorway wasn't actually closed! It took two slo mo
watches of the dashcam to spot that one could have stayed on the
motorway by driving into darkness over the white hatching of the hard
shoulder. There was a round blue "traffic split" sign but it was
non-reflective and not illuminated. There was no other signage to
indicate the split and of course you'd been told the M6 was closed...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 09/05/16 09:03, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2016 20:54:57 +0100, bert wrote:

There are now so many changes in speed limits on most A roads in
Cheshire that its almost impossible to remember what speed limit you're
under.

You should be able to work it out from the road and street lighting.
If the limit varies from that default there should be small repeater
boards every few hundred yards.

I would say that my driving is now less safe than it used to be,.
because of the time spent looking for repeater boards and at the speedo,
rather than at the road and other road users.

Especially since the most profitable place top put a speed camera is
where its least needed.

I.e. where the road is open, clear of obstructions and pedestrians, and
well lit.


--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On Sun, 8 May 2016 20:52:22 +0100, bert wrote:

Job Seekers Allowance please.

And I'm reasonably sure available to pretty much anyone who is
available for and actively seeking a job. At least for as long as one
is allowed to claim it before being shuffled off onto other benefits
to "massage" the unemployment figures...

The self employed don't get Statutory Sick pay, ie their full wage
when unable to work due to illness/injury but they can get(*)
Incapacity Benefit.

(*) Or could (I have twice) they renamed it and I think adjusted the
rules a little while ago and I haven't reason to dig for the latest
set.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Monday, 9 May 2016 09:25:06 UTC+1, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 7 May 2016 22:51:51 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:

I find that satnav driving time, when limited to 60 mph, plus 30
mins
(and 20 mins per planned pee/coffee stop) gives enough buffer to
get
lost in a one way system or snarlled up in roadworks.

In some parts of the country that's far from true. One route I'm
familiar with takes anything from 3.5 to 7.5 hours. It's not really
predictable.

Find a better route.

There isn't one. There isn't even another that's anywhere near as good.


NT

On Monday, 9 May 2016 07:48:52 UTC+1, polygonum wrote:
On 08/05/2016 23:28, tabbypurr wrote:
The variable speed limit system on the M25 is a great idea. But cutting corners on running costs make it mostly worse than useless.

Variable speed limits do have their limits!

The other week I was approaching the Severn bridge with variable speed
limit of 50 or 40. Passed the "end of variable speed limit" signs, very
obvious national speed limit applies, straight into queues of stationary
traffic just a few yards after them. The non-variable speed limit
informational signs were not showing any issues.

That's to be expected at times, even if the system works. But the M25 routinely has an assortment of reduced limit zones for no visible reason. Some stay in place over a month! Most of the time it seems worse than useless.


NT

On 08/05/2016 08:10, Tim Watts wrote:
On 08/05/16 07:59, Chris French wrote:
John Rumm Wrote in message:
On 06/05/2016 19:44, F wrote:
On 05/05/2016 22:21, Tim Watts wrote:

Does he know there are an arse load of speed cameras on the southern
section that are now activated even when the variable limit is at 70?

The variables on the M62 will also flash at 70+ (79? - 70 +10% +2) even
when they're not displaying a limit and, apparently, turned off.

Given most cars speedos will over read 10%, that would be getting on fo
an indicated 90 ish...

The bits of variable speed road I have been on seem to have had
average speed cameras anyway. So you wouldn't see them flash as
they don't.



Several of the new ones are HADECS 3 and they don't flash either.


As on the southern section of the M25 before and after the Clacket Lane
services!
I quite often fail to spot them although I know they are on the ends of
gantries that span right across the motorway.

--
Michael Chare

On 09/05/2016 00:04, Clive George wrote:
On 08/05/2016 17:08, polygonum wrote:

Many years ago I used to drive more or less the length of the A34 - call
it Winchester to Preston - on a regular basis. OK - M6 for a bit! Wasn't
too bad. After a gap of years, I tried it again. Horrible with loads and
loads of reduced speed limits - many seemingly for reasons other than
safety, like "go another way, you idiot".

I do a journey like that regularly - motorway from Preston to Oxford,
dual carriageway to Winchester, I think the only permanent 50 limit is
Oxford for a couple of miles, the rest is standard 70 unless you hit the
variable limits on the busier sections of motorways. One roundabout at
Oxford, slip roads for the rest - I think that counts as a pretty easy
drive :-)

I would have thought, and route via Winchester ought to count as a hard
drive ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 09/05/2016 10:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I would say that my driving is now less safe than it used to be,.
because of the time spent looking for repeater boards and at the speedo,
rather than at the road and other road users.

+1

On 10/05/2016 21:05, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/05/2016 10:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I would say that my driving is now less safe than it used to be,.
because of the time spent looking for repeater boards and at the speedo,
rather than at the road and other road users.

+1

I find myself using cruise control in situations I never would have
considered in years gone by. Means I can actually watch the traffic, the
signs, all the other things than the speedo that contribute to what is,
I hope, both a safer and a more pleasant drive.

--
Rod