I just do not get folk who complain about speeding tickets. If you can't do the time don't do the crime. I got two on one drive down the A9. One a section that had been reduced to 50 mph from 60 mph since I last drove it. Caught at 59 mph. My fault, I didn't see the signs. the other one on a dual bit around Drumochter. I put my foot down to get past a line of lorries. 89 MPH IIRC. Slightly sneaky camera van round a bend. 100% my fault as I was over the limit.
IIRC all new cars (since 01 Apr?) have got to have automatic speed limiters based on sign recognition
They don’t actually work. Mine often thinks the limit is 100mph on the M4 or gets the speed elsewhere wrong.
At present it just bongs which is way nicer than braking if it thinks you are speeding.
It also identifies as a car rather than a van, so is wrong again.
I spend most of my working day on the roads of the UK and the biggest cause of collisions and near misses I witness are lack of attention (phone etc), lane hogging and lack of indication.
Obviously speeding related collisions are aplenty , I’ve just not been unlucky enough to witness it myself.
OP should have agreed with her - 'yes dear, it's just to raise revenue...from stupid people who either can't read road signs or understand why they're there.'
It is a bit odd... I got a few speeding tickets in my yoot, had a clean licence now for longer than I remember.
My fault entirely... I knew I was speeding and didn't have the awareness to spot them and slow down.
I don't mind keeping to speed limits... I actually have a competition with myself to increase my MPG and it's a much less stressful way of driving and being less stressed I'm sure makes me a safer driver.
I'm not totally innocent.. I have been known to do 80 on the motorway so I'm still going to hell I guess.
If speeding automatically is against the law in all scenarios, they wouldn't run the course in that manner.The law is absolutely clear that speeding is against the law in "all" scenarios. There are carve-outs for emergency services but not for "civilian" riders/drivers. It sounds like they failed to communicate a fundamental message.
I recently set my car to limit speed limit +2, so I can only go 2mph over the limit under normal conditions, unless I boot it to override. Mostly to see how it worked as its a new car and has gadgets...but also, it's my first auto and is a bit on/off when you're bordering a gear change in eco mode so wondered if it'd make a difference.
I've never had so many road rage incidents. It's like I've taken a personal vendetta to piss them off.
I recently set my car to limit speed limit +2, so I can only go 2mph over the limit under normal conditions, unless I boot it to override. Mostly to see how it worked as its a new car and has gadgets...but also, it's my first auto and is a bit on/off when you're bordering a gear change in eco mode so wondered if it'd make a difference.
I've never had so many road rage incidents. It's like I've taken a personal vendetta to piss them off.
I find having front and rear dash cams fixes that problem... very rare I get someone rifling up my bum these days, despite sticking to 30 max in a 30 etc.
I do 'make progress' and I don't dither about, but I don't speed either.
If speeding automatically is against the law in all scenarios, they wouldn't run the course in that manner.The law is absolutely clear that speeding is against the law in "all" scenarios. There are carve-outs for emergency services but not for "civilian" riders/drivers. It sounds like they failed to communicate a fundamental message.
cops have discretion tho which it sounds like they were using in the advanced biking thing above
Also, how does a bit of tarmac magically become safer to drive at 60 whereas a metre earlier it was deemed 30 was the only safe speed. So in my view religiously sticking to the posted speed limits is not necessarily the best way to drive
Roads are safer when everyone is behaving predictably, when drivers aren't intimidating others, and when people are all going roughly the same speed. Allowing people to choose whatever speed they fancy doesn't do achieve any of those things.
Just been in northern Germany where we pedalled into a local small town. On the A road, we passed a very discreet speed camera on a tripod - black camera 20x20cm, unmarked black Vito totally hidden on the end of the wire 100m back in the fields and trees. We were in a hotel on the same road, and having heard the way 5% of people drove down it, a sneaky speed trap was much needed.
I should be allowed to decide how fast I can drive and what's safe. But most other drivers are crap, so this should only apply to me specifically.
Well that's the thing, speed limits need to be set for damage limitation with the lowest common denominator, and that is probably a younger person snapchatting on the phone and not looking where they are going, rather than how good a driver you are or how good your brakes/tyres are, etc.
yes, but anyone who is naive enough to suggest the law doesn’t apply in all circumstances might be in for a big shock when they meet a cop who doesn’t show the same discretion, or a fixed or mobile camera where essentially it’s a threshold/algorithm deciding to prosecute. Lots of people talk themselves into all sorts of excuses why it’s ok for them to speed in some circumstances.If speeding automatically is against the law in all scenarios, they wouldn't run the course in that manner.The law is absolutely clear that speeding is against the law in "all" scenarios. There are carve-outs for emergency services but not for "civilian" riders/drivers. It sounds like they failed to communicate a fundamental message.cops have discretion tho which it sounds like they were using in the advanced biking thing above
speed limits need to be set for damage limitation with the lowest common denominator
Well, sort of, but the law doesn't know how awesome you are. You can't legislate for that. We already try to do it with driving licenses and everyone makes an effort for the test and loosens their standards when no-one's watching.
Would you like that snapchatting teenager to self-certify their awesomeness and be distracted doing 50mph driving towards you, or 25mph?
Setting and enforcing universal speed limits has huge benefits for everyone. Allowing people to drive faster might slightly reduce their level of irritation (or might not, because it would also increase their level of entitlement even higher than it already is) so it's a no brainer really.
the bit i find baffling is that people want to speed at all. It won't make a meaninful difference to your overal journey time (a fact thats made obvious by satnavs), but it will substantially increase your risk of legal or medical problems. Why bother? Most cars have cruise control anyway
the bit i find baffling is that people want to speed at all. It won't make a meaninful difference to your overal journey time (a fact thats made obvious by satnavs), but it will substantially increase your risk of legal or medical problems. Why bother? Most cars have cruise control anyway
I call it the race to the next traffic queue, no benefit to the overall journey time but gotta get to the next traffic lights before everyone else. I guess at some level it's a form of rebellion against the system, don't tell me what to do etc.
Actually it can shorten your journey. A regular commute I do driving at 30 between two sets of lights (30 mph zone) mean the second set is always red. Do 40 it is green. I do 40.
the bit i find baffling is that people want to speed at all. It won't make a meaninful difference to your overal journey time (a fact thats made obvious by satnavs), but it will substantially increase your risk of legal or medical problems. Why bother? Most cars have cruise control anyway
That’s clearly not true.
Not everyone just drives to the shops.
Roads are safer when everyone is behaving predictably, when drivers aren't intimidating others, and when people are all going roughly the same speed. Allowing people to choose whatever speed they fancy doesn't do achieve any of those things.
Agreed, but clearly doing 70mph nose to tail on a full motorway or doing 90mph on a deserted motorway have differing safety implications. Or any other examples when raining/foggy etc etc
If we agree that quite often it's best to drive below the posted limit then surely the converse is also true without the need for someone to be labelled as sporn of Satan if they do sometimes speed.
I was driving between Scarborough and Whitby yesterday and due to the moorland fires there are lots of signs asking motorists to drive at 30mph, not to overtake and not to stop.
I was happy to oblige but the driver behind thought differently so overtook and went racing off into distance.
Seems that some folk don't want to protect the very people that are trying to protect them.
I caught up with car about 5 minutes later as there were a queue of cars behind a tractor carrying water. So achieved nothing other than putting other folk at risk.
It was good to see the majority of other drivers observing the limits, however.
Or any other examples when raining/foggy etc etc
The French idea of reducing the speed limit in the rain has merit.
Not everyone just drives to the shops.
No, but 25% of car journeys are less than 2 miles, and nearly 60% are less than 5 miles, and a massive chunk of daytime traffic is the school run (which frequently is a mass display of dreadful driving) - the average primary school commute is 1.6 miles, and a decent number of people will drive their kids less than a mile.
Over those sort of distances 20 mph vs. 30 mph makes little if any difference.
@Bruce- It's not as simple as that. I've been on Police motorbike safety courses where they led us at upto 90 mph on the road and then let us lead at speeds up to 20 mph over the limits (eg: 80mph on a country lane, 90mph on a motorway) as they wanted to observe and guide motorcyclists how to be safer in the real world. We were reminded that while they were observing we could be 'pulled over' for dangerous riding.
I did those speeds on the road with a marked police rider following me. Some of the things they teach are to slow down to below the limit for junctions, look for dangerous moments where other traffic can block your visibility and not speed in residential areas. If speeding automatically is against the law in all scenarios, they wouldn't run the course in that manner.
Actually it can shorten your journey. A regular commute I do driving at 30 between two sets of lights (30 mph zone) mean the second set is always red. Do 40 it is green. I do 40.
Idk how much if any time that saves you, maths is not my thing, but here in Spain in many villages where the limit drops from 90 to 50kmh, if you go through the sensor over 50 you're presented with a stop light. Neat little idea especially towards the coast with people flying through your village to get to the beach...
The signs look like this, if the link works
@bob_summers Also had those in the Dordogne this summer, and rumour has it there's one between Dumfries and Stranraer.
Ohhhh I like that, it's not even at a junction so very much as the feel of being made to stand on the naughty step 😂
Ohhhh I like that, it's not even at a junction so very much as the feel of being made to stand on the naughty step 😂
Well, if you have some cars stopped behind you that *were* under the speed limit, it's like the whole class being kept behind because of that one dickhead XD
Also had those in the Dordogne this summer, and rumour has it there's one between Dumfries and Stranraer.
they have one of those in coupar angus on the forfar road.
but clearly doing 70mph nose to tail on a full motorway or doing 90mph on a deserted motorway have differing safety implications.
Yes, but what are you going to do with that fact? You can't let people make their own judgement - people make terrible decisions. It's bad enough now. The only way to make it work is to have a blanket limit. And really, what's wrong with that? So your day's drive takes half an hour longer - so what? If you're working, then your employer has to budget for that time. If you're driving for pleasure, then just suck it up. It takes as long as it takes. If we put the motorway speed limit up to 80, everyone would be whinging about not being able to do 90.
In terms of incentives - I saw a post about a speed camera in Sweden. If you speed, it fines you. If you are under the limit, you are entered into a draw to win the fines for that month.
The French idea of reducing the speed limit in the rain has merit
It's a great idea but often leaves me wondering "is this rain?", as a hint of drizzle starts/stops/starts. Maybe they've defined it somehow, I dunno
If you speed, it fines you. If you are under the limit, you are entered into a draw to win the fines for that month
That would be great - maybe 50:50 split with "the authorities" though
If you speed, it fines you. If you are under the limit, you are entered into a draw to win the fines for that month
I like that, but ultimately it's rewarding car ownership / use, which is objectively bad.
Spend it on bike lanes instead.
"Ohh this new ASL at the lights, it was entirely paid for by the speed and income proportional fine that Anthony from accounts got for showing off in his new Audi 😂"
In the IAM's case
I don't know whether it's personal bias but I don't think the IAM does anything to make driving safer for anyone, largely down to their obsession with "making progress", which is now used as an excuse for driving like a dick.
Likewise the way they taught that you shouldn't need to indicate if you're aware of your surroundings, which is bollocks on a motorway. No matter how astute you are things change quickly and the blink or two of your indicator might be the only warning someone is going to get before you drive into them.
the bit i find baffling is that people want to speed at all. It won't make a meaninful difference to your overal journey time (a fact thats made obvious by satnavs), but it will substantially increase your risk of legal or medical problems. Why bother? Most cars have cruise control anyway
I rarely 'speed' but I certainly enjoy driving fast (but still within NSL) on some twistier country roads, a guilty pleasure for sure as it's not doing the MPG any good. I'm not doing it to get somewhere as I know fine well that the empty stretch of road won't last and there'll be another camper or confused foreigner who thinks the speed limit is in km/h somwhere up ahead 🙄.
Speaking of, I'm sure the phenomenon of dangerously 'slow' drivers is on the increase, certainly in the highlands. We were doing 35mph behind some folk this summer, be they camper vans, older drivers, foreigners. We've also witnessed some truly dangerous overtakes because of it. It takes a bit of a mental adjustment and some breathing exercises to just accept your fate and trundle along behind.
I’ll take “dangerously slow” over fast drivers who should be on a race track.
Especially the fast drivers who say they “make progress” like a pseudo emergency service driver!
If I want to drive slower than the person behind, I normally pull into a lay-by and let people past.
It requires the person behind to wait until there is an option to pull over.
i would rather have mr monk in front of me than behind sitting on my bumper.
I’ll take “dangerously slow” over fast drivers who should be on a race track.
Generally speaking yes with some exceptions eg the people who join the motorway at 30-40.
Bonus points if they immediately pull into 2/3 lane to dodge the anti tank mines in the inside lane.
If I want to drive slower than the person behind, I normally pull into a lay-by and let people past.
It requires the person behind to wait until there is an option to pull over.
i would rather have mr monk in front of me than behind sitting on my bumper.
I'm not an arsehole, I sit well off the slow driver, useful if some maniac tries to overtake both of us but needs to dive in if they misjudge it 🙄
cops have discretion tho which it sounds like they were using in the advanced biking thing above
Not that sort of discretion. Don't do it, you won't have any legal protection
