Gotta catch me first!
Doing my NEBOSH General cert at the mo at a hotel in Eastleigh. Every day at least one of the conference rooms has 2 speed awareness courses, must be at least 30 people a day, 5 days a week. Apparently that's the same all the time. Amazing that so many people end up on them, wonder what the ratio is of course to points & fine.
[I]The current limit for a speeding fine is 100% of the driver's weekly wage, up to £1,000 - or £2,500 if they are caught on a motorway. [/I]
So?
Back in the early 80's (on my way home from Le Mans 24hr bikes, in the UK though), I got caught speeding. Policeman suggested that we could call it 97mph. I agreed as I'd been going far, far quicker.
If memory serves me well the fine was over £100 and 3 points, which I paid back at £5 per month. I was earning £5k pa. So a weeks gross.
Will the new fine be gross or net?
The size of the fines or the points will only act as a greater deterrence to those who already avoid speeding. Those who have a lesser regard for the limits don't care anyway, and will continue to break the law in this respect.
The [b]likelihood[/b] of being caught is a better way to prevent speeding.
Smart speed limiters on cars, thats it 80% of speeding fixed, easy to do, saves money, saves lives, reduces pollution.
Downside is you can no longer sell cars as penis enlarging.
Mixed feelings on speeding. It has become far more automated in the last 20 years, and I dont think it is a good thing.
35 on a deserted city centre dual carriageway road at 4.30am does not deserve a fine, yet one near to me catches lots of people (no footpath on either side of the road, so there should not be any pedestrians)
30 past a group of people stood on the pavement outside a nightclub at 2am, maybe does need a 'Due care' fine, same can be said of school entrances, doing 20 could be construed as going too fast if children are running out etc.
80 on a motorway - doesnt everyone do 80 when the road is clear?
Do I feel like a criminal when doing 80? Certainly not. I'd suggest an old style Police patrol car would not bother with someone at 80 either (so long as they were'nt acting daft like swapping,lanes etc), but go past a camera and you'll be fined.
I don't understand why vehicles are capable of more than 70mph in the UK. We should have speed limiters.
Sadly I see to much speeding on the M27 these days, it normally contains two/three saloon types racing each other..
If caught, I'd be happy for the offender to have a speed limitation device fitted to thier vehicle, limited to say 30mph for a year. If the offender changes vehicles in that time the limiter gets transferred over at thier expense.
[quote=5plusn8 ]I don't understand why vehicles are capable of more than 70mph in the UK. We should have speed limiters.
What happens if you decide to take the tunnel or ferry to France?
because they are dangerous and can massively increase your TED.
say you are on a single carriageway A road . NSL so an arctic is supposed to trundle along at 40ish.
Its safer to be on the wrong side of the road for less time if you have the ability to warrrp it up to 80, rather than bouncing off a limiter at 70. Its wrong and speeding etc , but its safer.
It's not safer than waiting for a more suitable gap to overtake or not overtaking . We really need to change attitudes to speeding and putting fines up a few quid won't do that
I'd like to see more short bans. Say a week for a first offence of any kind, maybe a month for a second within a set time. Should make people think about how much they need to drive.
Clarkson had it lastnight while on a speed limitless German road where everyone was driving sensibly. It's not the speed limit, it's the attitude.
There are so many things that the Brits can't do sensibly that we need controls, other cultures seem to be able to cope (drinking for another).
Speed isn't the danger, bad attitude and driving is.
My wife got caught a couple of weeks ago. 57kph in a 50. Fine is over 100 quid.
Guy who works with me got done last autumn. 120 in a 90, so only 18mph over the limit. 4 month ban as he got done 4 or 5 years ago (over 75 in a 70). His fine is minimum 400 quid.
Both are deserted bits of road in the middle of nowhere.
You lot get off pretty lightly at the moment.
Speed isn't the danger, bad attitude and driving is.
Bingo.
Reckon we'll have stupidly slow speed limits once everyone is in an automated driverless vehicle of some description? No, probability is that they'll be quicker because of the ability to actually drive (so long as there is a unified system/software in place to ensure all models act the same) properly.
It's about understanding when it's safe to speed and when it's not.
I regard the excuse that speeding makes overtaking safer pathetic. wait. Just an excuse really?
Why not have decent penalties? 1st offence, say 10 grand plus car crushed. That would stop most. And it keeps those who reckon the well off should be more heavily penalised. £2 k car against £20 k car.
More the point actually make it happen, not feel sorry for the speederbor his family.
I regard the excuse that speeding makes overtaking safer pathetic.
Thing is, it does.
Highway code 163
[i][b]move quickly past the vehicle[/b] you are overtaking, once you have started to overtake. Allow plenty of room. Move back to the left as soon as you can but do not cut in[/i]
[url= http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-the-road---overtaking-162-to-169.html ]HW Code - overtaking[/url]
Now we're not talking about those who overtake with little or zero gap but stick their foot down in their S3 or M135i.
What we're talking about is the fact that speeding is deemed acceptable and suitable in certain scenarios because it's safer to do so, again it's a reasonable use of that extra speed as well i.e. not an excuse to do 100+ in a 40.
What we're talking about is the fact that speeding [b]is deemed acceptable and suitable in certain scenarios because it's safer to do so[/b], again it's a reasonable use of that extra speed as well i.e. not an excuse to do 100+ in a 40.
Unfortunately, and as an advocate that fast driving =/= dangerous or unsafe driving, there is no provision in the law to permit breaking the speed limit. Even plod under blues and twos will be investigated for accidents while speeding. What you claim is a mythh.
What the speed limit reducers and car crushers want is plain stupid though. 😛
Even plod under blues and twos will be investigated for accidents while speeding.
What on earth does that have to do with overtaking, of course they'll be investigated to understand did they follow their protocols and use their training correctly or were they being stupid and whatever the crash was, it was or wasn't there fault.
Speed is irrelevant in that scenario.
The law doesn't specifically allow the exceeding of limits in any scenario, but as I quoted the Highway code encourages quick passing because being on the otherside of the road is dangerous.
What on earth does that have to do with overtaking.
Everything to do wuth speeding.
Show me where it expressly says that speeding is permitted and then you have a case, otherwise it's just the fat bloke down the pub who knows a bloke, who knows a bloke spouting bar room bollocks.
I'll remind you that I would support wholeheartedly road without limits, so you're arguing with the wrong chap (or perhaps not).
Everything to do wuth speeding.
They could have had an accident at 10mph in a 60mph zone. They'd still have an investigation into the cause of the accident.
I reckon folk who consider that all speeding needs banning somehow either never drive anywhere or when they do it's on urban streets and/congested roads.
Where I live it's none of those things.
A couple of weeks ago I got a late (and delayed) train back. Once I'd left the city it's about 60 miles to my house. I didn't see another vehicle on the road, either to overtake nor coming the other way. Sit at 60 or go quicker, you can guess
The chances of getting caught is minimal and random. Proper enforcement (average speed systems) and a more pragmatic approach to setting speed limits, the number of roads that have their limits dropped in the name of road safety / pollution reduction is getting ridiculous. The average motorist now has no respect for limits.
Get city centre traffic and motorways moving again, remove some traffic lights / junctions, prioritise through routes, remove the pinch points (bus lanes that last 200 yards don't help the buses either), reconsider speed limits, fit red light cameras and introduce more average speed cameras. A proper joined up strategy is required not the hodge podgy of traffic calming and anti pollution measures we have now that are not working.
I don't understand why vehicles are capable of more than 70mph in the UK. We should have speed limiters.
So then I can't drive at the top speed limit in France of 83mph (130 kmph) ?
As above it would have to be a gps/smart based as speeding in town in a 30mph limit is far more dangerous
My 2 pence ( 😉 ) on fines is that it's the points that really bite.
They could have had an accident at 10mph in a 60mph zone. They'd still have an investigation into the cause of the accident.
🙄
Have you found the law that explicitely says that you can break the speed limit when overtaking yet? I really want to see that this is true, as you claim.
Because you said.
What we're talking about is the fact that [b]speeding is deemed acceptable and suitable in certain scenarios because it's safer to do so[/b], again it's a reasonable use of that extra speed as well i.e. not an excuse to do 100+ in a 40.
EDIT: Acceptable by who?
And then
The law doesn't specifically allow the exceeding of limits in any scenario, but as I quoted the Highway code encourages quick passing because being on the otherside of the road is dangerous.
I'm not convinced that you know what your talking about.
😛
I don't have a problem with safely overtaking fast, but the real issue is fixed camera's cant discriminate between someone momentarily hitting 80mph to boot past someone, and someone who's just driving too fast and being dangerous. It's a binary thing, sppeding..get a fine. Not speeding, ok.
The only alternative I can see is to have thousands more traffic police on patrol who can use discretion between making safe swift progress on a quiet dual carriageway in good conditions and dangerous driving on a busier road. The cost of this would be eye watering.
So when you look at the issue logically, fixed camera's are a more sensible option, speed at your own risk and you can't complain when you get fined heavily.
35 on a deserted city centre dual carriageway road at 4.30am does not deserve a fine, yet one near to me catches lots of people (no footpath on either side of the road, so there should not be any pedestrians)
Why doesn't it deserve a fine?
wilburt - Member
Smart speed limiters on cars, thats it 80% of speeding fixed, easy to do, saves money, saves lives, reduces pollution.Downside is you can no longer sell cars as penis enlarging.
My car has a speed limiter (and makes everyone assume you have a micro-todger), I leave it set on 30 and activate it whenever I am in a 30 limit...
So in towns I get tailgated near enough constantly, and normally have a clear road ahead, IME pretty much everyone is impatient and speed in towns these days whatever they might claim.
[quote=BoardinBob ]5plusn8 » I don't understand why vehicles are capable of more than 70mph in the UK. We should have speed limiters.
What happens if you decide to take the tunnel or ferry to France?
All the french people die?
Or more realistically, the car cannot do more than 70 in France. Big deal.
Speed isn't the danger, bad attitude and driving is.
This, the majority of people suck at driving and make bad decisions regardless of speed they're travelling at.
I predict 6 pages, no new ground covered.
Speed limiters are a distraction. That is to say, the motorways are statistically the safest roads to be on; limit a vehicle to 70mph and you achieve not much, whilst totally ignoring urban areas where speeding is a much bigger problem.
because they are dangerous and can massively increase your TED.
TED?
My car has a speed limiter (and makes everyone assume you have a micro-todger), I leave it set on 30 and activate it whenever I am in a 30 limit...
I do the same by paying attention.
Its simple
speeding to overtake to spend less time on the wrong side of the road = potential 3 points and fine of £XXX
dont speed whilst overtaking and risk a head on smash with a combined speed of well into 3 figures = death/injury/pain/loss of income/fine/points.
Lets not go on the 'you dont have to overtake' . Everyone overtakes something .- bike, milk float, horse , traction engine , molgrips, lorry , learners etc at some point.
TED Time Exposed (to) Danger
And according to the thoughts above I should be dead, banned/in prison and/or killed/maimed a thousand folk - none of those things have occurred in my +34 years of speeding and my (estimate) of a million miles.
Nor have I had any accidents, either with other folk or by myself.
Although as a sop to the anti-speeders my car now has a speed restrictor on it, unlike vehicles in the past 🙂
IMO folk don't drive to the conditions, usually at about 35-45, irrelevant of the speed limit or conditions - which I guess is why in 30's & 40's I've always someone up my chuff, but rarely in NSL's.
The other thing I've started doing is driving at 60-65 in the LH Lane on motorways, it's a revelation, all the cocksockets can still sit in each others boots in the middle/RH Lane and the Middle Lane hogs can "hold them up" doing 67 and refusing to change Lane...
But the slow lane is absolutely great, lots of clear space ahead, no bugger tailgating me, pull out to go past the odd lorry, half the stress, better fuel consumption and maybe 10 minutes more on a long journey?
I can't really fathom why we're all in such a rush all the time...
TED= time exposed to danger
80 on a motorway - doesnt everyone do 80 when the road is clear?
Honest answer? No I don't
dont speed whilst overtaking and risk a head on smash with a combined speed of well into 3 figures = death/injury/pain/loss of income/fine/points.
If you can't overtake without speeding then you haven't left sufficient room to overtake.
Why doesn't it deserve a fine?
legally it deserves a fine, but 'common sensically' it doesnt, its not dangerous.
as ever on these threads opinions are polarized, either '51 in a 50 deserves a fine cos its against the law', or 'you should just be fined for driving dangerously'. im in the second camp. conditions are different depending on time of day, weather, amount of traffic/public nearby, why should a 30 apply to all those situations?
'cos its the law' doesnt cut it with me, but its a fine and points if we go over. just have to accept it *shrugs*
Amazingly clear and simple, isn't it? Otherwise you are arguing that speeding is a way of resolving your poor observational skills.If you can't overtake without speeding then you haven't left sufficient room to overtake
legally it deserves a fine, but 'common sensically' it doesnt, its not dangerous.
Most speeding doesn't meet the definition of dangerous driving. The simple fact is, it's the law, everyone knows it's the law, and there's no great downside to complying with the law.
I have been driving from west midlands to wester ross every late spring for 30 years. We drive non stop apart from driver swaps every 2-2/12 hours. 20 years ago we used to do 75-80 on the motorways and 65 ish on the A9 from Perth
We now stick to 70 on the motorways and 60 on the A9. It takes on average assuming no hold ups 25 minutes longer over the 550+ miles. We save (at least 10%, and yes we once measured it with the same vehicle) fuel and it's less stressful.
What does the hive think ofmAverage speed cameras? My maw would have them everywhere.
jimw- your time obviously isn't as valuable as many folk on here. Good point on the fuel saving/environmental aspect too.
steveoath- so would I. It's made a huge difference to driving on the A9.
Motorways are the safest roads because the two directions of traffic are segregated. The dangers of increased speed are that the speed differentials between slow vehicles like those towing trailers or caravans and powerful cars become bigger and that the energies involved in any crash become greater and make injuries more likely.
You overtake when it's safe to do so for you, the vehicle you are overtaking and for anything coming in the opposite direction. If the vehicle in front is significantly slower then there'll be more opportunities. if it's close to the speed limit then ease off and relax, you aren't going to gain a huge amount of time on most journeys.
Back to the original topic: the fines have been increased because:
The feedback was that current guidelines "did not properly take into account the increase in potential harm that can result as speed above the speed limit increases".
To "qualify" for these higher fines you would have to be doing 51MPH in a 30MPH limit for example, i.e. not just drifting over the limit because of inattention.
I think the excuse that gets trotted out of "I need to be drive for my job" should result in a bigger fine: if you need to drive for your job then you should be extra careful to follow the rules of the road.
Average speed cameras? since I am that annoying driver in front who sticks to speed limits, I have no problem with them.