Speeding On The M4 In Wiltshire !!!!

I totally agree Steve Old Chap, can't teach new sucking Grannies old eggs, What ?



Fritz Von I didn't think camera evidence (ie late night pub chucking out variety etc) could be used in court anyway, especially if the accused deny's everything point blankly, so why are cars any different ?

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
Never justify yourself Fritz.

Avoiding justification (politely) is very empowering.

Try it.

Nime

Thank You Noim, I'll give it a go John.

Fritz Vonm Always open to new offers innee

quote:

Fritz Von I didn't think camera evidence (ie late night pub chucking out variety etc) could be used in court anyway, especially if the accused deny's everything point blankly, so why are cars any different

You are mistaken. It is classed under the rules of evidence as admissable...

andy c!

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:

quote:

Fritz Von I didn't think camera evidence (ie late night pub chucking out variety etc) could be used in court anyway, especially if the accused deny's everything point blankly, so why are cars any different

You are mistaken. It is classed under the rules of evidence as admissable...

andy c!

Well I'll be badgered, lucky Our Mick's Rozzer chum's are good with their lenses then, innit !

Fritz Von I'd rather trust a Leica than a Cockney any day Yer Honour/Warship Whatever !!!

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
Harry,
I have put enqs in place to obtain the info you require, including causation factors. Dependant on where the enqs are in relation to each (they are both over two years ago - so you may argue these are irrelevant anyway!) I will get back to you.

The argument re injuries being relevant is important to consider here. The offences we discuss (due care, dangerous driving, use of mobile phone, tail gating etc) are preventative. In other words they don't need an injury to be caused before prosecutions take place.

With referance to experiences of dealing with 'fatal' crashes alone, I am going to be vague in order to protect relevant parties here, but the following were actual causes:

driver fatigue
drink/drugs coupled with not maintaining proper control/exceeding speed limit
medical condition causing loss of control
excess speed 'for the conditions' x 2 (one was exceeding the limit, the other was not)

As regards the M4 I don't know the stats that point to the reaons for speed enforcement. If you wanted to do so the local police will provide you with the information. you only have to ask them (phone their public relations office).

My point re all the above is they were all indipendantly witnessed, and all were preventable with common sense and the correct application of taught driving standards.

andy c!

Thanks Andy. Your last para says it all doesn't it. I live in fear of fatigue - I think it's a big killer but don't have any figures to back that up.

LTD - re being pissed. I wish I could laugh but your observation is just too close to the truth!

I did the corridoor of fear and dread in both directions today. I only saw two cars going over 80 - it's defenitely had an effect on speed, but I didn't see any evidence of The All Seeing Eye. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't postiion them for a few days, then roll them out when some people start to think it's just an urban myth.

Cheers

Harry

Another police officer in court today - this time in Shropshire - he took a brand new unmarked car for a test drive - 60 in a 30, and up to 159 mph on the M54. He was only found out when the in-car video was viewed by the police
I bet he gets off

quote:

medical condition causing loss of control

Does any one remember the Alex Furgusens speeding charges being droped?

John.

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Once cameras are everywhere (and that is now a certainty), speeding will almost certainly be a thing of the past.

Sorry to bang on about this but speed cameras do not catch dangerous drivers. It is the dangerous driver the police should be concentrating on. Whilst speed cameras have sprouted up everywhere there has been a marked reduction in the presence on the roads of road traffic police.

Mike

Quite, deaths going up, money going to the authorities, roads getting less safe, morons never caught.
Martin

In this country there seems to be a gravitational pull on speed limits - they come down but they never go up, despite the fact that as automotive technology improves, not only are cars capable of travelling faster, they can do it using less fuel, chucking out fewer noxious emissions (unless you are a 4 x 4 wanker), they can corner faster without losing control and their stopping distances become ever shorter.

In a number of €U states, motorway limits have been increased in recent years in part as a reflection of this improved technology.

But not here though.

For this reason alone I conclude that limits are not set as a due compromise between 1mph equalling near-zero risk of collision, and a free-for-all.

I foresee that limits will continue to fall whilst collision rates do not for as long as the Red Rose guys stay in unchallenged power.

How long will it be before the pedestrian red-flag carrier is at the head of every traffic queue of just a few individuals afforded the privilege of private transport, or indeed any transport at all?

Re. driver fatigue

Nothing makes me yawn (literally) more than travelling across the West Midlands conurbation late at night at a camera-enforced 30mph on near-empty roads for 45 minutes or more.

No I'm not tired, as my body clock is perfectly adjusted to suit my working hours, but I have to work hard at keeping my attention on the task of driving under such conditions.

Is this really safe?

Then there is the issue of traffic lights: a lot of them have had their sensory and interactive control systems removed so they now work crudely on a timer basis, whilst previously on a main road I'd never have to stop unless a vehicle from a side road was actually waiting to emerge.

Moreover, If I'm the driver waiting to emerge from a side road I now have to wait up to a minute before being permitted to proceed when previously I wouldn't even have been required to stop at all as the sensor would have picked me up 75 yards or so from the white line, the lights would have changed to my favour (and only for sufficient time for me to clear the junction hazard) before the traffic signals quickly resumed to the green light for the main road.

I even know a number of traffic light sets being biased towards the side road so that every lone vehicle (me) approaching the junction along the main road always has to stop. I then have to wait for the timer to be tripped by my arrival at the white line before waiting up to 45 seconds before I can continue. In my rear view mirror I see the light turn straight back to red.

There is definitely some anti-traffic flow wankery going on wrt traffic flows, and I'm sure that in the daytime some of those queues at traffic lights are being deliberately lengthened by adverse-to-flow signal timing.

No I'm not paranoid, I'm not buying into conspiracy theories. These are my own experiences of high-mileage driving over the last ten years.

You only have to see how much quicker the queues clear when the lights are out of action and everyone has to treat the junction as a roundabout (although poor driver training means that many drivers are totally confused as to who has right of way under such circumstances, and this in itself reminds me of an anecdote told to me by my father of the chaos that ensued in communist Leningrad when he visited the place back in 1973 and a serious accident occured on a road in the city - nobody had the confidence to use their initiative (out of fear of not towing some kind of official line?) and the place was paralysed for hours...)

This doesn't seem to be a county-wide problem as the sensor control systems in Stafford still work perfectly well, but in the rest of the county it seems to be another story...

It really pisses me off because I seem to be begrudgingly obeying the law for its own sake.

What I love about the M6 Toll motorway is that whilst the official limit is still 70, the enforcing coppers would be answerable to Midland Expressway for any loss of toll revenue should they strictly enforce this limit. The unofficial limit would seem to be about 95 mph...

To anyone who objects to this lack of strict speed limit enforcement I say:

You pays yer money and you takes yer choice - use the fucking M6 free route if it bothers you so much!

I can travel the 27 mile length of this road at ninety+ in the inside lane and still be overtaken by most other vehicles. To my knowledge there has not yet been a serious accident in the 14 months since it opened.

I do get pissed off by middle-lane hoggers doing under 80 though, as I have to move two lanes to overtake them.

I loved the idea of painting the cameras bright yellow so illegal speeders could slow down in time not to be caught! Tee hee!

Shouldn't the police start wearing bright yellow uniforms to give the bank robbers and shoplifters plenty of warning to stop doing what they are doing (wrong) before they are apprehended? Just think of the savings in paperwork!

"Well, you ain't got me bang to rights this time Guv 'cos I seen yer comin, innit occifer?"

Nime

Toy

If you caused an accident travelling at 90 mph, you would be in serious trouble. If your defence was that the authorities allowed such speeds, the insurance companies would go for their jugular.

The law is there to control fools like you who think they are safer than everyone else, when in reality they are not.

Regards

Mick

quote:

I bet he gets off

Unless he was on advanced driver training and properly supervised, I bet he does not get off.

Steve, the flaw with your argument is u assume others are going to be as careful as u. They are not, and the number of crashes that occur, as well as the examples of bad driving we all here have witnessed confirm this.

Politically it does not matter who is in power - it needs major change now to see more cops on the streets at all, never mind in volvo's marked or otherwise to deal with this issues mentioned here.

I akin this to stealing. If one pinches a little bit, but not alot, is this ok depending upon the time of day/night circumstances? Its the same with driver behaviour - regulation is needed and vital, along with the discretion of the experienced officer to decide on the correct course of prosecution action. If you object to certain speed limits, you need to look at why they are set at that speed. One of these reasons is uniformity of recognition all over the country - hence the highway code expaining this in effect when telling you what signs etc to look for.

I don't subscribe to the 'its ok to do 90 cos there is nowt there' attitude, because it still brings in the comment I made earlier (that has never been acknowledged, BTW) that british driver seem to think they can do nothing wrong, and are instantly not at fault when they do.

For the fourth time in this thread I say its about responsibility. People need to accept responsibility for their actions. If they do, then this will start to affect driver behaviour. If they remain insular and selfish, the crash and bad driving rates will never go down. You can only be educated if you volunteer to be so...

andy c!

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
Unless he was on advanced driver training and properly supervised, I bet he does not get off.

Not only will it be interesting to see if he gets off, it'll also be interesting to see if he gets a prison sentence.

All this debate about the why of speed limits is somewhat irrelevant: it does not really matter whether they are there for safety or for revenue collection from those who are caught breaking them They are what they are and have legal force.

Most people here are just trying to rationalise their breaking the law. Frankly my dear I don’t give a damn. I admit that I drive at whatever speed I consider safe in all the circumstances. If I think I might be caught speeding, I observe the limits; if not I don’t. Simple. No excuses.

Tinkering with speed limits, particularly on motorways, will have zero impact (boom-boom) on accidents because the cause of accidents is bad driving. Raise the motorway limit to 85 and rather than seeing a train of cars nose-to-tail at 70, you will have the same at 85 and the subsequent accidents will be more severe because of the higher speed.

How many of you brilliant drivers observe the 2 second rule? Not many I suspect because if you did you would find it virtually impossible to exceed any speed limit for any worthwhile period of time.


Admit it, you break the law because you choose to.

Steve,
it would somewhat smack of dual standards, eh?

Nigel,
Totally agree with you.

andy c!

Nigel. Good post.

BTW, not everybody enforces speed limits the same. In N Yorks we have no fixed cameras I think, instead the traffic police appear to agressively target particular roads with high accident rates. The police use marked and unmarked cars, they also use high visibility campaigns at biker cafes etc.

We have also seen relatively selective use of 20mph zones for instance, usually very sensibly sited (and observed).

I think this approach has gained considerable respect.

Bruce

quote:

How many of you brilliant drivers observe the 2 second rule?

I always observe the two-second rule.

quote:

Not many I suspect because if you did you would find it virtually impossible to exceed any speed limit for any worthwhile period of time.

With all due respect this is bollocks. You make use of road space as it becomes available to you. By observing the two-second rule (notwithstanding weather conditions) you are able to adapt your speed to traffic conditions on a second-by-second basis.

I do hate it when someone from the inside lane cuts in front of me because he thinks the big gap I've left is a space reserved for him.

Legal: driving at 69.9 mph leaving only one second between you and the vehicle in front.

Illegal: Driving at 90mph observing the two-second rule.

Which of the above is safer?

Which of the above should be more rigorously enforced?

Er..chaps. The 2 second rule is a minumum vhicle spacing not a rigid recommendation.

Steve,

Nigel Cavendish has cut through a lot of the crap here with a post of straight-talking common sense and the fact that andy c totally agrees with it whilst you totally disagree speaks volumes about your attitude to driving. I'd be a liar if I said I never exceeded the speed limit and was a totally perfect driver but it seems to me that not only do you break the law but you try to rationalise it by inventing your own rules on the fly and justifying why your rules make more sense.

It's sad that there are so many others out there just like you whose perverse sense of their own wisdom and driving superiority are making the roads a dangerous place to be.

Jon

Nigel and Jon
Excellent posts, you're both spot on with your observations.

It's really quite simple, break the law, suffer the consequences.

Regards
Clive

I thought the two second rule was the time it takes Our Mick to scarper from the Gluepot on a friday night when his round has been called ?


Fritz Von The rich remain rich, and the daft get dafter, and should those who pubically profess to being on the square really be made Magistrates in this day and age ?

quote:

It's really quite simple, break the law, suffer the consequences.

Or blindly obey every law without question. Don't take responsibility - let the law do that!

The law is not perfect and it shouldn't be treated as such.

I don't steal, commit murder, rape etc not because they are illegal but because they are wrong.

Rules are for fools.

If enough people break certain laws then surely it is time they are changed. If nobody ever broke the law (apart from a minority of people who have no respect for fellow beings never mind the law) bad laws would remain for ever.

Toy

It is only your opinion that speed restrictions of 70 mph are a bad law. Plenty agree with them.

I have to say, I think you have an appalling attitude for a taxi driver and I for one would not wish to sit in your cab.

Regards

Mick