speed limits

alastairq

The_Turner wrote: »

It would conclude there is no case to answer, would it not?

The DSA being the 'technical expertise' in matters to do with driving standards....such an outcome would only occur if the advice demonstrated that the individual charged with an offence acted as a 'competent, careful' driver would be expected to do.

The_Turner

alastairq wrote: »

The DSA being the 'technical expertise' in matters to do with driving standards....such an outcome would only occur if the advice demonstrated that the individual charged with an offence acted as a 'competent, careful' driver would be expected to do.

It would be for a court to determine that.

alastairq

It would be for a court to determine that.

Back where we started?

As I said, if a Court cannot arrive at a reasonable conclusion given the evidence.....then the Court would seek [defer] to the DSA for advice, since the DSA is the 'expert body' in matters regrading driving standards...

Thus, the conclusion a Court arrives at, isn't influenced by a lack of driving knowledge on the part of the Magistrates concerned...

In just the same way, a defendant isn't disadvantaged in Court through a lack of knowledge of legal procedure....the Clerk is there to look after the defendants interests in this respect.

The_Turner

alastairq wrote: »

Back where we started?

As I said, if a Court cannot arrive at a reasonable conclusion given the evidence.....then the Court would seek [defer] to the DSA for advice, since the DSA is the 'expert body' in matters regrading driving standards...

Thus, the conclusion a Court arrives at, isn't influenced by a lack of driving knowledge on the part of the Magistrates concerned...

In just the same way, a defendant isn't disadvantaged in Court through a lack of knowledge of legal procedure....the Clerk is there to look after the defendants interests in this respect.

What do you base this on?

alastairq

The_Turner wrote: »

What do you base this on?

which bit?

cyclonebri1

NBLondon wrote: »

If you mean what I think you mean by calculated - you're right. Better to inconvenience A than collide with B - if you calculate that the risk of A colliding with you as a result of that manoeuvre is less than the risk of B colliding with you if you don't.

Inconvenience A to prevent A colliding with B? If you can do it without increasing risk to yourself - good for you. You're calculating that the risk of A developing road rage is less than the risk of a collision. You're also hoping that A will see the whole picture afterwards and realise you were being proactive rather than obstructive.

Of course, you are saying that your calculation of the risk is more accurate than A's. You may be right if you have a better view than A or A is obviously dangerous (like the Audi driver Lum has just described). However... Inconvenience A just because one thinks they are wrong, going against the highway code or appear aggressive and one may be drifting towards being an arrogant git.

Back to the topic! Higher limit --> higher (probably) average speeds --> less time to do all this judging of risks.

You don't get this I'm afraid.

Forget the A's and B's, this is simply a natural reaction, probably a male testost... etc thing.

The reaction is to teach the chancer a lesson, my ref to a collision was simply that it wasn't intended or even close to causing one, but simply a threat.
,

cyclonebri1

Strider590 wrote: »

Sorry, I forgot overtaking was a crime........

I think the issue was wasting time in the wrong gear waiting for 'your' overtaking opportunity was a waste of fuel????

Lum

alastairq wrote: »

And if a driver's idea of 'coping' involves transgressing the Law...or even, simply feeling the need to take 'dramatic' action.....then these alone say more about the shortcomings of an individual driver than anything else.

It's only dramatic if you haven't planned your escape routes in advance.

It's also permissible to break some laws (such as the speed limit) in an emergency situation, though in these days of camera enforcement it's increasingly difficult to prove as the camera will often capture the "offence" but not the reason for it.

The example I gave earlier of my GF going a little over one car length through a red light into a visibly empty junction in order to avoid getting rear ended by the car behind which was unable to stop and had lost traction, is an example of where such a thing is permissible, though I'm sure some here would argue she should have stayed put, had her car written off and deal with the injuries that would result.

NBLondon

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

The reaction is to teach the chancer a lesson, my ref to a collision was simply that it wasn't intended or even close to causing one, but simply a threat.
,

I can see that it's a natural reaction from some (as is the "speed up when being overtaken" that Strider seems to encounter a lot.) Hence my point about simply continuing past an apparently oblivious driver in Lane 2 rather than attracting their attention and provoking a reaction. And that it might be provoked by the first driver to do this so I'm more cautious if I'm considering being the second driver to do so. Please note the term considering - it's not just blast past and to hell with anyone else...

However - I must admit I have unknowingly made false statements here...:doh:

What about the M18, anyone?

Thank you for reminding me, alastairq. I have driven on that a few times. Not in the last 15 years mind you and the car I had then was painful at anything over 65mph so I wouldn't have been in the situation...