[Closed] Can you challenge over zealous speed limits?

Not quite enough angst, nowhere near enough pages and I've been sick twice eating 3 family Christmas tins of biscuits.

None of the trolls have got a bite yet IMO. Someone needs to take this thread but the scruff of the neck.

And there we go again, someone who's been brainwashed into thinking that only speeding = bad driving

You are the Stig and I claim my £5.

And there we go again, someone who's been brainwashed into thinking that only speeding = bad driving.

That's cos it's bad driving mate.
Trying to justify speeding = spouting nonsense.

That's cos it's bad driving mate.
Trying to justify speeding = spouting nonsense.

Really, can you please explain how doing 100mph on a very quiet motorway in good dry, clear conditions, in a well maintained modern car (with in my case a maximum speed of 180mph) is bad driving?

Equally are you able to grasp the concept that even driving at 20mph (below the 30mph limit) might not be a good idea outside a school at closing time or down a road with busy bars on late at night?

Really, can you please explain how doing 100mph on a very quiet motorway in good dry, clear conditions, in a well maintained modern car (with in my case a maximum speed of 180mph) is bad driving?

Because the Highway Code and laws of the land say so. Don't like it, move to Germany....

Edit: or take your chances, highly unlikely you'll ever see traffic police. Just don't complain if you do.

Birdstrikes are worse at 100mph than at 70mph, so are blow outs and other similar failures. Motorways are not sterile environments so there's always the chance of something unexpected.

Plus there's the pollution, inefficiency, excess consumption arguments.

Speed justification is always narrowed down to the simplest factor when they are asked why they choose to do it. Ultimately though, it's just because they want to and don't really care about any impact.

speeding can be fun and in appropriate places will not add significantly to danger. However those appropriate places get fewer and few as urban areas extend and traffic gets heavier

also speeding does not significantly reduce journey times. You spend such a small part of your journey at speed that it makes little difference unless you have deserted roads for many miles.

Even in my bad old days of hooning around on fast bikes I was very selective in when and where I would break the speed limits. Never in 30 and 40 limits, only on dry clear roads.

Here for example - long straight road with no side turnings. good surface, good visibility. Only when traffic is low of course ( edit - talking about doing 70 - 80 not 120 honest
https://goo.gl/maps/GeHL9k9f3zP2

I can only assume that people who continually push for lower speed limits in non-urban environments either don't drive or don't drive very far/often.

I'm certainly glad that when I was doing +40k miles pa that the only speed camera's were the ones held by policemen, and that pretty much any road in the country was a NSL.

And folk going slow on fast roads does my head in too, but at least I know how to overtake (and that doesn't include waiting in turn Mol :D).

[i]Because the Highway Code and laws of the land say so. Don't like it, move to Germany....[/I]

You do know that most autobahns are NOT unrestricted don't you?

100mph on motorways - nope nope nope. ~too unpredictable what will happen braking and reaction distances are greatly increased

You do know that most autobahns are NOT unrestricted don't you?

yep. and the german approach to speeding fines is much more business like.

agent007 - Member

can you please explain how doing 100mph on a very quiet motorway in good dry, clear conditions, in a well maintained modern car, blah blah blah

define 'very quiet'

define 'very quiet'

M25/M3/M40 - more than 6ft between cars.

Really, can you please explain how doing 100mph on a very quiet motorway in good dry, clear conditions, in a well maintained modern car (with in my case a maximum speed of 180mph) is bad driving?

...whilst it's not quite fizzling out, it's like there's just not enough testosterone for this thread to properly take off. Perhaps everyone's just a bit knackered after a long year? Or just getting old?

Come on - all the ingredients are here, someone needs to properly go for it...

I suspect this would have gone big, but alas, there were some handbags in a carpark causing a distraction.

Another demonstration to my post above about how speeding really does not sve you much time at all on a journey.

A good few years ago I was driving back from glencoe to Edinburgh 120 miles mainly on A roads - 2 3/4 hr drive according to the AA. A mate left at the same time. He drove to speed limits. I didn't going as fast as I dared. I stopped for petrol. He got back to Edinburgh before me. So I maybe saved 10 mins maximum. From this and the other I posted earlier I believe speeding will save you maybe 3 mins in the hour driving. So if saving time is your rationale then its completely bogus. Just leave 5 mins earlier.

My point is if you are speeding accept you are doing it because yo enjoy it not for any utilitarian reasons and also when you get nicked its your fault and don't bleat about it

@yak you're right - that's got everything. Race(ism), police, supermarkets, parking and volvos. Bit of a relief really, I was getting worried.

What I don't get, is why it's so hard for people to admit to bad driving. I would, if anyone asked! I'm a shit driver, impatient, reactive and I bloody hate driving, so want it to be over as quickly as possible. I'm not dangerous, but I am shit.
'It's bad driving mate.' Yep, I know, sorry.

I'm partly to blame for converting from petrolhead to carless ecowarrior.

This is purely so I can raise my sanctimony levels on here though and call you all out for being selfish polluting bastards.
I still advocate overtaking molgrips though, love the sound of a burbling V8 and the smell of burning methanol.

Hammering it really doesn't gain you much time. Back to my A65 example: from home to the M6 along the A65 is 45 miles and takes 57mins if I am heading that way at 5am and drive at the speed limit, hard braking to get down to the 30MPH and 40MPH limits through the villages rather than easing off and coasting into them. If there's normal traffic then it takes me 60mins, if there's heavy traffic, agricultural vehicles and the like then it's about 64-65mins.

A stop at a filling station for fuel/trail snacks/taking a leak negates any time advantage.

Birdstrikes are worse at 100mph than at 70mph, so are blow outs and other similar failures

Any stats for the number of accidents caused by bird strikes?

molgrips - Member

My point is that when most drivers look before pulling out of junctions, they are expecting you to be doing 50-60 if it's nsl. If you are some distance away, the driver may nit notice, and think there is plenty of room. Well in distance terms, there is lots of room, but your speed takes that room away.

That's why you don't speed near junctions. 💡
NEXT!

allan23 - Member

GPS controlled speed limiters in cars, a bit big brother but probably the only way to cure selfish driving

Almost all driving is selfish. Don't think sticking to speed limits gives you the higher ground. 💡

Really, can you please explain how doing 100mph on a very quiet motorway in good dry, clear conditions, in a well maintained modern car (with in my case a maximum speed of 180mph) is bad driving?

Equally are you able to grasp the concept that even driving at 20mph (below the 30mph limit) might not be a good idea outside a school at closing time or down a road with busy bars on late at night?

As has already been said, there's plenty that can happen in a split-second at 100mph on an empty motorway to give you a Bad Day.
As for the second bit, I'm in complete agreement. If I ruled the world I'd ban cars from pretty-much everywhere.

Are you a able to grasp that?

gauss1777 - Member

Depressing reading, so many people happy to exceed an often already too high speed limit

The speed limit does not dictate what speed is safe to drive at. All it does is give you a maximum for your envelope, therefore there is no such thing as a "too high limit", and you're a good example of why we shouldn't have limits in the first place.

Why do so many people feel entitled to complete lengthy journeys in short times?

The whole point of driving is to get from A to B quickly, otherwise you'd walk. All you're saying is that whilst you have the ability to choose a safe speed to drive at others don't. That's the molgrips fallacy.

This is assuming that you drive, and you drive in your opinion safely, which given the above I doubt.

🙂

The speed limit does not dictate what speed is safe to drive at. All it does is give you a maximum for your envelope,

drivel.

The whole point of driving is to get from A to B quickly, otherwise you'd walk

more drivel.

sbob - Member
you're a good example of why we shouldn't have limits in the first place.

when i'm in charge, the limit on 'my' road will be 10mph, and it'll be enforced.

terrahawk - Member

drivel.

In what way do you disagree?
Are you saying that the speed limit does give a safe speed to drive at? 😯

more drivel.

You really are going to have to elaborate. 🙂

ahwiles - Member

when i'm in charge, the limit on 'my' road will be 10mph, and it'll be enforced.

When I'm in charge there will be no cars on residential streets.

whitestone - Member

Hammering it really doesn't gain you much time.

You're just not hammering it enough.
Cambridge to Newcastle is achievable in two and a half hours with enough disregard for the limits.

Not that I condone breaking limits.

tjagain - Member

also when you get nicked its your fault and don't bleat about it

Never understood this line of thinking.
If you don't think you have the right to bleat, because the law is just, then don't break it in the first place!
Those knowingly breaking a law because they disagree with it are the ones who do have cause for a whinge.
💡

Ok, I'll play...i missed this beauty of a thread.

Anecdotal evidence but my experiences nonetheless....for those saying speeding gets you nowhere faster, my sister used to live 100 miles away, I could (and did) regularly make the journey door to door in an hour....that's an average speed of 100mph, now admittedly I was on a motorbike meaning traffic wasn't an issue (just split lanes/traffic if I came across any) and speed cameras were all front facing en route and seeing as motorbikes don't have front facing plates this wasn't an issue either...safe?...who knows!?...i'm still here and I did that journey for years, I didn't ride like that in the wet so I judged what was safe and got it right...i might have been wiped out by someone doing less than the limit but changing lanes without looking, that's more dangerous to me.

Last night my journey home was painfully slow, the road is winding Welsh lanes (but with 60/national limits) and virtually no overtaking spots, was stuck behind an artic that only seemed to be able to do 40mph and was often dropping to 20mph going uphill, don't tell me slow moving traffic doesn't hold people up, there was a queue of us behind this prat about 15 cars long, it's a road I usually drive at 50-60mph...if slow moving traffic doesn't slow you down why are empty roads so much faster to travel on?...and why is there always bunched up cars behind tractors and artics on single carriageway roads!?

Sliproads....there is always bunched up motorway traffic around sliproads, why?...if you watch people you'll find incompetent motorists trundling up them at way less than the 70mph the traffic they are joining is doing (often they'll be doing as little as 30-40mph and seem to have forgotten what the accelerator does), they then expect to join 70mph traffic!....nope, not gonna happen so what you get is everyone already on the motorway having to hit their brakes to accommodate the imbeciles trying to filter in at half the speed limit or everyone trying desperately to move over into lanes two and three to avoid said pillocks and this also slows everyone down at the junction.

Here's a little secret, if you speed up on the sliproad to the speed the traffic you want to join is going then you don't need a massive gap to filter into, if however you bimble up the sliproad at 40mph you'll be that idiot sat at the end of it virtually stationary because you can't find a gap big enough to pull into!

It's the same in reverse with people leaving the motorway, don't slow down to 50mph on the motorway before the sliproad you inconsiderate moron, you make everyone slow down behind you and cause congestion at that junction, leave the motorway at 70 and do your slowing on the sliproad!

Red lights...don't sit there handbrake on, our of gear fumbling around and acting surprised when they turn green...what were you expecting them to do!?...you should be ready to pull off on green not holding cars up that have the misfortune of getting stuck behind you.

Same for roundabouts, T-junctions etc...i maintain that a huge amount of congestion could be relieved if people just drove in a more considerate manner and concentrated on what was happening around them and understood what sliproads and the like are there for...all can be done without breaking as single speed limit, just drove like you're actually trying to get somewhere and not like you're out of an evening just killing time.

+1 deviant

If you averaged 100mph it's difficult to envisage a route where you wouldn't have been traveling too fast for the conditions at some points regardless of speed limits(unless you and sis live on motorway slip roads and you only visited her at 05:00 in the Summer). You've been lucky, Deviant, many haven't.

You post a lot about others being imbeciles and idiots because in your opinion they aren't fighting to shave seconds off their journey times. How do qualify your own behaviour?

Why you worry about how fast drivers get away from lights on a motorbike I have no idea - I get away quicker than most on push bike. I turn the engine off at lights unless they've already been red for awhile when I arrive, no point leaving it running for a minute and ten seconds. Hand brake on obviously because if I'm hit from behind I don't want to be pushed into crossing traffic. Out of gear so the clutch thrust and crank thrust bearings aren't under load (mechanical sympathy (and again my foot isn't going to fly off the clutch and launch me forward if hit from behind). When crossing traffic starts slowing I turn the engine on and slip it into gear, on green the handbrake goes down as the clutch comes up and continuously checking for light jumpers crossing (especially bikers) I cautiously pull out. It's not the dodderers you need to worry about on a bike it's those puling out of give ways and stops who are in a hurry and pull out having only made glances right and left and NOT THOUGHT "BIKE".

Bollox you averaged 100MPh unless its all motorway ie straight on and straight off. Ive ridden fast bikes. Averaging 75MPH needs a lot of time spent over 120MPH. to average 100 mph you would have to spend a lot of time over 150 mph to make up for all the time spent at 75.

deviant - what bike? How much 30 mph limit? How much motorway, what area what time of day?

Come on people, if we all do our bit we can keep this going 'til Christmas. 😀

How about the fatigue argument? "I can't drive slowly (under 50mph) because it's so boring I end up falling asleep/getting distracted. I have to drive faster to maintain my focus and concentration therefore driving faster is safer!"

Or the perennial "I drive a powerful car: I pay massive road tax for the right to be able to make progress as I see fit" I suppose it makes sense in terms of the polluter-pays-principle, but unfortunately it does tend to give a sense of entitlement.

Also, do people really join/leave motorways at 70mph? I live (and drive) in the SE so most of my experience is M25, M3, M4 and M40 all of which tend to have artics using the inside lane. I thought these were restricted to 52mph, so joining around that speed would be sensible no?

Far more risk and less time to react to stuff driving nose to tail at 50mph round one of those busy average speed motorway sections than there ever is driving at 100mph on a quiet section of motorway in good visibility. With the inverse logic being shown on this thread perhaps some of you should suggest avoiding all congested 50mph areas.

Not if you drive properly there isn't. Leaving proper distance between vehicles and remaining observant.

Not if you drive properly there isn't. Leaving proper distance between vehicles and remaining observant.

Not always the option though is there - leave a safe gap infront and some muppet instantly fills it, so drop back and same again happens.

If I'm driving at 100+ and there's traffic ahead then it's really easy to maintain an good safety margin by slowing down to pass this then speed up once road is clear again.

RE: Leaving / Joining Motorway - I agree. It increases risk to join slowly, or slow way before slip.

However that is a limited example of where speed *benefits* safety - except it is not speed, it is *matching* speed to flow of traffic.

I doubt 'making progress' near village or on single carriageway A-roads has much of a benefit to overall safety in the way the Motorway example does.

If I'm driving at 100+ and there's traffic ahead then it's really easy to maintain an good safety margin by slowing down to pass this then speed up once road is clear again.

you're awesome.

agent007 aka surf-mat?

In the interests of keeping it going...

[i]Also, do people really join/leave motorways at 70mph?[/i]

Yes.

[i]I live (and drive) in the SE so most of my experience is M25, M3, M4 and M40 all of which tend to have artics using the inside lane. I thought these were restricted to 52mph, so joining around that speed would be sensible no?[/i]

Like ANY driving, speed to suit the conditions, get up to 70, see a lorry and no gap in front, slow down. Commonbleedinsense, I believe it's called.

Lived in Aldershot, short journey to M3 motorway...blast to M25 junction...another motorway blast on M25 to M1 junction, blast up M1 to Milton Keynes exit...short journey to sister's house...it was actually dead easy and I reckon I could've done it faster if properly unscrewed my head.

Bikes at the time were a 1996 Kawasaki ZX7R then latterly a brand new (for the time) Kawasaki ZX6R....both would easily hit indicated 150mph+ speeds with more to come before I would bottle it.

Believe it or don't, makes no odds to me....was just countering the poster who ludicrously tried to claim that going fast doesn't get you anywhere quicker.
Re. the other points in my post for Edukator, they are car based examples, I haven't had a road bike for a few years now.

Like ANY driving, speed to suit the conditions, get up to 70, see a lorry and no gap in front, slow down. Commonbleedinsense, I believe it's called.

So, razz it up/down the slip road (not sure if we're talking grade separations here) to 70mph, see a lorry, slow down and filter into the line?

What's the point in razzing it? Surely there aren't that many slip roads that are 500m long too make it worth zooming up to that speed then slowing down?

I don't know maybe my experience doesn't match yours, but it's very rare I join a motorway that doesn't have a lot of traffic on it.

Ultimately I suppose it's more about the speed differential, rather than absolute speed. Of course, when you hitting potholes on poorly maintained motorways I'd rather do it at 70mph than at 100mph anyway!

Peyote

I don't know maybe my experience doesn't match yours, but it's very rare I join a motorway that doesn't have a lot of traffic on it.

Define a lot?

Ultimately I suppose it's more about the speed differential, rather than absolute speed.

Exactly. Much easier to merge safely if your speed matches that of the traffic you are joining. So about 85mph.

Certainly bull on the 100mph average then. Its only just over 70 miles. Now to do that in an hour is possible assuming a lot of time spent at 120 mph to make up for the time spent in speed limits

...hey, it's dangerous out there on the roads. I keep this danger to a minimum by spending as little time on them as possible, by doing the A to B stuff as fast as possible. I have points to prove this, and we all know what points mean?

[i] I don't know maybe my experience doesn't match yours[/i]

Sounds like it, but I think you missed the : [i]Commonbleedinsense[/i] bit, which is the crucial thing.

[i]merge safely if your speed matches that of the traffic you are joining. So about 85mph.[/i] .. in the slow lane? Or are you one of those that has to jump straight across to lane 3? 😉

Define a lot?

Well, I'm not going to start going off on AADT, or peak periods or stuff like that. I have to do enough of that in my job! Suffice to say typically I need to filter into a row of traffic travelling around 50 odd mph. I really can't remember the last time I had free reign to choose my own speed.

Sounds like it, but I think you missed the : Commonbleedinsense bit

Nope, I chose to ignore it. It's so often used to justify stuff that isn't justifiable on closer inspection (that wasn't a dig, just one of my own bugbears).

[i]Bikes at the time were a 1996 Kawasaki ZX7R then latterly a brand new (for the time) Kawasaki ZX6R....both would easily hit indicated 150mph+ speeds with more to come before I would bottle it.[/I]

Ah, slow ones.

zx9r c1 😀

If we're Willy waving, last two bikes were an R1 and a GSXR-750....both of which I'm sure would decimate an old, heavy Kwakker 900cc....even my Gixxer 750, which I'm convinced was the perfect blend of weight, power and handling for the road and put up a genuine 170mph+ as tested so many times by various mags, internet sites etc.

Merging onto a 70mph motorway stuck behind someone doing 40 is my favouritest thing ever. Totally safe. If it happens I'll drop right back to give myself a big gap, then use that gap to get up to the speed of the traffic flow before merging.

So, razz it up/down the slip road (not sure if we're talking grade separations here) to 70mph, see a lorry, slow down and filter into the line?

What's the point in razzing it? Surely there aren't that many slip roads that are 500m long too make it worth zooming up to that speed then slowing down?

Wind up to 70mph, and start assessing road conditions as soon as you can see the main carriageway so you can adjust accordingly. Obviously depends on the sliproad but you usually have quite a lot of visibility before you actually have to merge (y'know, if you actually look rather than fixating on the taillights in front of you). It's a lot easier in most cars to go from 70 to 50 than it is from 50 to 70. Often you'll find you're alongside another vehicle doing the same speed, so you've got plenty of leeway to slow down for a moment so you can pull out behind it.

Aside from people who only ever see perma-clogged motorways like the M25 at commuter times and are excused as they know nothing else, I can't believe I'm having to explain this stuff. There really should be a motorway section on the driving test.

Round Nottinghamshire the trick seems to be to reduce the speed limit for no reason and then get the speed cameras out in force.

Some of the examples are single carriageway roads reduced from NSL to 40 for no reason. There isnt even a building within a mile let alone anything else, the speed limit hadnt changed in 20 years in either case. It all just seems to be about raising revenue.

[i] It's so often used to justify stuff that isn't justifiable on closer inspection[/i]

It wsan't to [i]justify[/i] the bit I typed. It was in addition to it to save having to explain a load like what cougar just dun. 🙄
There ain't enough commonbleedinsense on the forum let alone on the roads!

Thanks for the explanation Cougar, it wasn't necessary though!

Like I said Dez, it wasn't a dig...

There ain't enough commonbleedinsense on the forum let alone on the roads!

Indeed. And this is why we have to have speed limits.

My OH is learning to ride a bike (well, a beast of a scooter) at the moment. I've told her, the single most important skill on the roads is awareness. If you're looking around you, scanning, seeking, thinking ahead, anticipating what potential erratic stupidity might occur next, reading the road conditions, looking ahead, then anything else is gravy. If everyone did this, we wouldn't have collisions.

The problem is that we're not in an ideal world. Almost 50% of the population are of below average intelligence. So we have to design roads to work both for competent drivers and for shitwits. I don't envy that task, frankly.

"Speed kills" is an easy (and inefficient) solution to a complex problem. In the event of a collision speed absolutely increases the [i]severity [/i]of the outcome of course, but if people left adequate braking distances for the conditions of the traffic and of the road and looked where they were bloody going rather than fannying about on Facebook or eating a bowl of cereal then speed would make very little difference to the [i]incidence[/i] of collisions.

Surely it should be readily apparent that rather than focusing all our efforts on "oh, you've done 45 in a 40 zone despite it actually being perfectly safe, here's a £100 fine and three points," our time would be better spent teaching people how to drive in a straight line without ****ing hitting anything in the first place?

Thanks for the explanation Cougar, it wasn't necessary though!

Well, you did ask! (-:

Aside from people who only ever see perma-clogged motorways like the M25 at commuter times and are excused as they know nothing else, I can't believe I'm having to explain this stuff. There really should be a motorway section on the driving test.

I agree 100 % but unfortunately testing on Motorways is very unlikely to happen under the current driving test.

Simply as some parts of the U.K. don't have Motorways and the test has to be a " level playing field " nation wide. I've put level playing field in quotes as the Test is definatly not a level playing field now anyway. Some test centres have routes that don't take the candidate over 30 mph, other test centres go straight out onto 70 mph Dual Carraigeways.

Even on my instructor test, I only went 1 junction on a motorway.

Surely it should be readily apparent that rather than focusing all our efforts on "oh, you've done 45 in a 40 zone despite it actually being perfectly safe, here's a £100 fine and three points," our time would be better spent teaching people how to drive in a straight line without ****ing hitting anything in the first place?

Are all our efforts focused on speed reduction though? Or is it just the one aspect that gets peoples backs up*?

There's lots of other road safety initiatives going on, as well as road efficiency projects. Reducing speed limits/reducing speeding (two separate things) are just another tool in the box.

*Incidentally taking road space for cycle lanes seems to come with similar ire from our motorist kin in a lot of urban areas.

I think this thread might start going places now that the parking racist thread got shut, thanks to some choice phrasing by agent007.

Peyote - anything governments do to try to control the behaviour of car drivers, make them pay their way or to make them stick to the law is immediately greeted by a huge backlash with " war on motorist" headlines in the Daily Wail etc. So governments shy away from doing anything.

A car driver obeying the highway code is a very rare thing indeed. Even the best most considerate driver I have been with still didn't get it all right.

What broomstick for speeding ?

I think this thread might start going places now that the parking racist thread got shut, thanks to some choice phrasing by agent007.

Yet It seems that I was the one who had breached rules

unfortunately testing on Motorways is very unlikely to happen under the current driving test.

Testing, sure, but that doesn't prevent teaching if only in theory.

Are all our efforts focused on speed reduction though?

"All," maybe not, but it's surely the most prominent.

anything governments do to try to control the behaviour of car drivers, make them pay their way or to make them stick to the law is immediately greeted by a huge backlash with " war on motorist" headlines in the Daily Wail etc. So governments shy away from doing anything.

That may be part of it, but I'd hazard that the main reason is it's cheap and easy. Policing (as a random example) mobile phone usage requires, well, policing, and that's expensive. Speed is easy, slap up a camera and wait for the money to come rolling in.

To sort out this mess (and many others) we need bobbies on the beat, patrol cars on the roads, who can make sensible decisions and spot dangers. And no-one wants to pay for that.

no-one wants to pay for that.

We could increase speeding fines ten-fold. That should generate some extra income.

Going by the lengths people go to avoid bans it more points that are needed not bigger fines.

So make any speeding offence 6pts.

Abolish all special pleading/defences. If your job depends on your licence don't get caught speeding.

The biggest change I've seen in a person's driving was when a speeding/tailgating colleague got a speeding ticket and a mobile phone ticket in the same month. The realisation that she was one similar month away from a ban had her driving at the speed limit without a phone.

The rarity of this can be judged by the way I heard a defence lawyer told his client he'd need to "drive like an angel" for the next 3 years after getting his 3rd 3pts.

Going by the lengths people go to avoid bans it more points that are needed not bigger fines.

£1000 fines are never going to happen. For an offence causing potential danger? People get fined far less than that when their bad driving has actually seriously injured or killed someone.

He ran over and killed 78-year-old Sylvia Roach after mounting the pavement as she walked a friend’s dog along Guildford Road in March, the court heard.

Farooqi was fined £560 and had six penalty points added to his licence which already carried six points for separate speeding offences.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/anger-mounting-over-killer-driver-4836818

Peyote - anything governments do to try to control the behaviour of car drivers, make them pay their way or to make them stick to the law is immediately greeted by a huge backlash with " war on motorist" headlines in the Daily Wail etc. So governments shy away from doing anything.

All true I'm afraid TJ. The motor lobby is a powerful force and it's backed up by a significant (majority) population of the country, so anything that penalises them is frowned on. "There but for the grace of god" and all that.

Only when we appreciate the negative impact of motoring (KSIs, pollution, social segregation etc.) fully will we start to recognise the responsibility associated with it and then start to control the negative aspects properly.

Behaviour modifcation with points worse. I collected 6 last summer. ( go onhave a good laugh at me) any more and no more hire cars for me. so no more speeding either. Not even an MPH

Both speeding tickets unfortunate but no one but myself to blame. My foot on the pedal

I'd go for immediate bans for mobile usage - just a 3 month, Immediate jail for drink drivers ( maybe only if significantly over the limit?)- no excuse. 3 pts for illegal parking, 4 for speeding

More significantly I would leke to see much more eforcement - a dedicated traffic police with it being cost neutral IE the money made in fines pays for the cops. Fines should be much bigger say £250 for speeding or if you cant pay you can accept a ban instead or have your car crushed

[i]both of which I'm sure would decimate an old, heavy Kwakker 900cc....[/I]

It wasn't a B model.

About 1 min in, all you speed haterz ignore the vid 🙂

Sounds like it, but I think you missed the : Commonbleedinsense bit
Nope, I chose to ignore it. It's so often used to justify stuff that isn't justifiable on closer inspection (that wasn't a dig, just one of my own bugbears).

@Cougar:

, but if people left adequate braking distances for the conditions of the traffic and of the road and looked where they were bloody going rather than fannying about on Facebook or eating a bowl of cereal then speed would make very little difference to the incidence of collisions.

So make any speeding offence 6pts.

A lot of ifs, but what do you base this on?

I'd be basing my agreement with cougar on experience.

Anecdotal evidence, nothing better?

Anecdotal evidence, nothing better?