Intented prosecution - Exceed 50mph Motorway temp restriction (Roadworks) -ACD

MORPH3US

psarinuk wrote: »

morph3us,
It would help not to be too judgemental..

Where have I judged anyone?

So would you agree with funkycoldribena that people should be able to break the law (any law not just speeding) and get away with it.... very strange...

As for....

psarinuk wrote: »

a child can get killed by a non-speeding but careless driver or a car with poor brakes too..
Painting all drivers with the same brush won't help, keep in mind the circumstances..

You are quite correct but who is to say that the speeding vehicle doen't also have poor brakes etc... regardless all other things being equal... a speeding vehicle is more likely to kill someone than a non-speeding vehicle FACT! No brainwashing needed although it is funny that everyone who disagrees is brainwashed...

psarinuk wrote: »

Painting all drivers with the same brush won't help, keep in mind the circumstances..

I have seen no "circumstances" mentioned that justify speeding and I am willing to be a judge would agree with me. If the OP wants to test that by taking it to court then I would be interested in the outcome.

MORPH3US

funkycoldribena wrote: »

How did I know that line was coming...so boring.Stop being brainwashed.

Right so no speeding driver has ever killed anyone... its all propoganda from the government and police... it would be hilarious to think you seriously believed that if it wasn't regarding such awful circumstances....

funkycoldribena

Im not saying speeding is ok,just this notion that doing eg 35 in a 30 is some sort of horrendous killing spree about to happen,I'd like to see all speed cameras abolished and more traffic police on the road.They have discretion, a camera does not.I know I'd rather have someone coming down my road in a roadworthy car paying attention,sober and not having to constantly look at the speedo at 40 than someone whose car is falling to bits or has drunk 12 pints at 29mph.

A lot of the trouble is speed limits have been reduced so ridiculously,esp on a lot of dual carriageways that when a lot of people get on back roads they feel a release from cameras and generally let rip esp on the moors near me.If you restrict people too much Im sure they subconciously fight back in small ways.

psarinuk

MORPH3US wrote: »

Where have I judged anyone?




I am willing to be a judge.

I've appealed. Watch this space for outcome..

msmyth18

Option 2! Much cheaper in the long run

pwllbwdr

funkycoldribena wrote: »

Im not saying speeding is ok,just this notion that doing eg 35 in a 30 is some sort of horrendous killing spree about to happen

I think you need to do some maths. This may surprise you.

Assume two cars, one travelling at 30, one travelling at 35. Being generous, I'm going to say that they both put the brakes on at the same place relative to the obstruction (child/car/cat etc) and both obtain the same amount of retardation.

If the 30mph car can just stop without hitting the obstruction, how fast do you think the 35mph car will be travelling when it collides with it?

Answer: 18mph.

alleycat`

That assumes both the cars are the same, tyre pressures are the same, the brakes are equally worn, the road is exactly the same, the temperature of the tyres and road are the same and so on and so forth.

Thinking distance, ABS, car maintenance and alertness all come into the equation (along with loads of other things).

Speed is usually an aggravating factor in crashes it is rarely the only factor.

I suspect the point that was made is that a well maintained vehicle with an alert driver slightly over the speed limit is a better / safer bet than someone who is inattentive, drunk or in a poorly maintained vehicle at 29mph.

The camera says the second option is safer when reality would tend to suggest otherwise.

Personally i'd have taken the awareness course.
You'd probably learn something - i know most people probably would (including myself).

Quentin

psarinuk wrote: »

I've appealed. Watch this space for outcome..

What grounds did you use?

MORPH3US

pwllbwdr wrote: »

I think you need to do some maths. This may surprise you.

Assume two cars, one travelling at 30, one travelling at 35. Being generous, I'm going to say that they both put the brakes on at the same place relative to the obstruction (child/car/cat etc) and both obtain the same amount of retardation.

If the 30mph car can just stop without hitting the obstruction, how fast do you think the 35mph car will be travelling when it collides with it?

Answer: 18mph.

If that is true then its a scary thought, but it doesn't sound right to me (not saying it isn't right though).

Can you show how you worked that out?

alleycat`

stopping distance at 20mph is 40feet.

Travelling at 35mph instead of 30mph adds 21feet to stopping distance (based on a 1965 car - which is high way code values).

I'd suspect it'd be a fair few feet less than this in a modern car (4 or 5 feet better).

18mph seems a bit high but i take the point you were making..

Devils advocate:-

In the wet the braking distance at 30mph is further than 35mph in the dry.

So rain kills?