We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Speed Cameras ... ::sigh::
Comments
-
Gandalfthesecond wrote: »Depends on the road in question.
If street lights in a built-up area are 185ft or less apart, then driving on sidelights is quite legal.
How many built up area's with street lighting are NSL zones?
Im of the opinion that driving on just parking/sidelights at night should be an offence, there's just no need for it at all!!
Same goes for fog/snow....
I keep seeing this bleedin Nissan Micra on my way home from work, it's got only one working parking/side light!!!!! You actually think it's a cyclist until you get up closer....“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an a** of yourself.”
<><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><> Don't forget to like and subscribe \/ \/ \/0 -
-
Strider590 wrote: »How many built up area's with street lighting are NSL zones?
Im of the opinion that driving on just parking/sidelights at night should be an offence, there's just no need for it at all!!
I actually believe the opposite. Cars have too many, and too bright, lights these days. Plenty of idiots around here in Micras and the like driving around with full beams on during the day too!
We should go back to the old fashioned way. Sidelights are there so that your car can be seen. they should be reasonably dim, but cover a large area. the old Volvo 940 sidelights would be an example of a perfect sidelight apart from the fact that you can't turn them off.
Headlights for if you can't see, eg if there are no streetlights, full beams for when no-one is coming the other day.
Oh and no sodding daytime running lights! I don't care what the Scandanavians think, their lighting situation is different to ours.
Two reasons for this.
1) Modern lights are so bright these days that even in the day time they can leave after image green streaks in your vision, and at night they obliterate your night vision to the point that it can be difficult to see for a brief period after the oncoming car has passed. This is particularly true if you pass on a corner and are caught in the "uptick" area of the headlights.
2) They are so bright that other, more vulnerable, road users fade into the background. Cyclists and Pedestrians aren't really able to carry around the battery/ballast/bulb needed to run a HID front light. Motorbike riders have often run daylight running lights so that they stand out a bit. I do not mind this as they are harder to see and stand to come off a lot worse in an accident. By decking out every Range Rooney with super bright LED fairy lights and enormous HIDs, the motorbike riding behind it will not be noticed by many drivers and one of them will then procede to pull out into the side of the bike.0 -
35 is what they set fixed camera at in a 30, not sure about the mobiles, probably be offered a speed awareness they are very popular these days as most of the money goes to the local authority not central government.Nothing to see here, move along.0
-
Strider590 wrote: »What's more dangerous?
Me overtaking 3 cars at 70mph in a 60mph zone at 2am....... or the car coming the other way with no (or just parking lights) lights on?
Which would the Police prosecute?
Maybe just pick up the pieces, and remark what a pair of nobbers the driver's were :rotfl:0 -
Dont shoot me down in flames ,but I believe there are some guidelines out there which say the minimum police should prosicute is over speed limit+10%+2mph.Which would make it 36mph minimum.
Might be wrong,pepipoo may give you more info.
As you have rightly alluded, that is a discretionary unofficial guideline for a police officer. They have to follow it, especially if in their opinion, the driving was not of a standard where they could ignore it.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
Just need to vent a little ...
Finances, as they likely are for most, tough at the moment and the wife has just been served with an "intent to prosecute" notice for doing 35mph in a 30mph zone. I recall I was done for 38mph a couple of decades back but 35mph seems very harsh - and yes I know >30 is breaking the law but when I see boy & girl $*%$'s fly past my house every day and not get done then ...
Anyway, likely fine will not help the finances one bit.
In terms of points & fine v possible speed awareness course I'm tempted to tell her to suck up the points ... so I guess the real reason for being here is to ask ... if she does get the option then what's the likelihood of points affecting her insurance?
She's been driving now for 32 or 33yrs without any priors.
First of all, just because you see others doing it does not make you (or your wife) doing it as well. On top of which, you really have no idea whether the youngsters, who you witness speeding, get caught or don't. Secondly, it is not so much the first set of points, but the next that will affect your insurance premiums more. If you can avoid getting any points now, all the better the next time it happens, it is always better to have only one conviction than two.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
I thought the speed awareness courses are the same cost as the fine yoy would receive. Seems a wiser way to go, save having three points on your license.
But as said a visit to Pepipoo is a must, although it will probably advise the course as well, unless you think the offence wasn't committed
The costs of the courses depends on which police area you live in. Some will charge the same, some might change more, but generally speaking the extra isn't a great deal more.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
The guideline still exists, it's set by ACPO and recommends that prosecutions start at 10%+2, namely 35 in a 30, 46 in a 40 etc.
However it's just a guideline, and not even a government guideline, so the camera partnerships can enforce at any speed they want, even 31 in a 30.
I did hear somewhere that they start at two miles per hour above the limit, to allow for mistakes. I might be wrong though.The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0 -
Both and rightly so (except if the road was lit and the oncoming car had only side lights on, there would have been no offence committed).Strider590 wrote: »What's more dangerous?
Me overtaking 3 cars at 70mph in a 60mph zone at 2am....... or the car coming the other way with no (or just parking lights) lights on?
Which would the Police prosecute?The greater danger, for most of us, lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low and achieving our mark0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards