speeding

27col

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

How do you know ... have you done one?

Yes I have done one.

artbaron

Lum wrote: »

Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002: Paragraph 4:

The sign shown in diagram 670 (except when displayed on a variable message sign in the manner mentioned in regulation 58(7)(b)) shall not be placed along —

(a)a road on which there is provided a system of carriageway lighting furnished by lamps lit by electricity placed not more than 183 metres apart in England and Wales or not more than 185 metres apart in Scotland and which is subject to a speed limit of 30mph.

This is a necessary law. After all, putting up adequate signage would reduce the money scammed from members of the public.

And "lamps lit by electricity" - as opposed to what? Lamps lit by swamp gas? Lamps lit by magic? Who comes up with this drivel?

Chopper_Read

joinaman wrote: »

Aahhhhhh the magic 4 hours of Bull s**t

The droning on of the lies and deceipt, the refusal to listen to the truth, who refuse to even accept the figure from the goverment and the hospitals
he same people who say do not drive to suit conditions, cos that will kill the world, you MUST drive at the speed limit, even tho over 90% of accident s are under the speed limit, with only around 7% caused by exccesive speed

Another money making machine,for the private company run by APCO ( police Chiefs)

Where do you get your figures from?

Lum

Chopper_Read wrote: »

Where do you get your figures from?

I was wondering that too. It's actually only 4% of accidents caused by exceeding the speed limit. (source: DFT)

The vast majority of accidents are caused by poor observation and judgement, something that might improve if people wen't spending their time concentrating on signs, cameras and trying to mentally measure the distance between a pair of bloody streetlights!

UsernameAlreadyExists

27col wrote: »

Yes I have done one.

I've not yet, although I thoroughly derserve one.
Is it interesting/informative, or just pure bullshi1t?
What's your honest take on it?

Joe_Horner

Lum wrote: »

The vast majority of accidents are caused by poor observation and judgement, something that might improve if people wen't spending their time concentrating on signs, cameras and trying to mentally measure the distance between a pair of bloody streetlights!

And if we got rid of the "insurance blame" culture.

Something my dear old dad drummed into me all those years ago was that just because the insurers decide it was the other guy's fault, doesn't mean you couldn't have avoided it.

His golden rule was, if the d*ckh**d driving badly hits you then it's your fault for not avoiding him. It's not cast in stone, but it's a good rule to plan your driving by because it encourages you to spot and avoid the d*ckh**ds!

Lum

In principle it sounds good, but you're getting very close to victim-blaming there.

For example one of mine was where a person to my left, in the leftmost lane, decided to change lanes right in front of me on a 3 lane motorway roundabout as they apparently wanted to turn right. I stood on the brakes, managed to not hit them, and then the guy behind who was arguing with his kids drove straight into the back of me still doing 50mph.

Not really much I could have done, but in hindsight I would have come out of that whole mess a lot better if I'd just driven into the side of the person who changed lanes.

At least everyone involved was obeying the 70mph speed limit!

artbaron

Joe_Horner wrote: »

His golden rule was, if the d*ckh**d driving badly hits you then it's your fault for not avoiding him. It's not cast in stone, but it's a good rule to plan your driving by because it encourages you to spot and avoid the d*ckh**ds!

Just called good driving. Literally 15 minutes ago I was driving down the main street in the village. There were cars parked to the right, making it single-lane and I was in the correct lane. A woman sat at a junction on my left, 50 yards ahead, looking to turn right (towards me). It would have been perfectly legal for me to go ahead at 30mph but I saw something in her stupid cow expression and immediately I knew she'd pull out. And she did, 20 feet in front of me, so her car was in my lane pointing the wrong way. If I hadn't have noted the tell-tale signs of I-shouldn't-be-let-within-50-yards-of-a-car-let-alone-a-public-road I'd have wrecked my car (only a loan car as it happens but still).

derrick

londonTiger wrote: »

I was speeding once, doing 50 at a 40mph road - wizzing along. Then a set of ble lights flashed behind me.. I shat myself.. "oh no 3 points in the first year of driving, im screwed!".

Then I pulled over into the left lane, and the blue light car sped past, it was undercover police in an unmarked vehicle. I guess they were CID and probably have bigger fish to fry.

Not very good undercover with the blues on:D

.

27col

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

I've not yet, although I thoroughly derserve one.
Is it interesting/informative, or just pure bullshi1t?
What's your honest take on it?

I found it very informative and quite useful. From people who knew what they were talking about, and were not judgemental in any way. They will not stand for people who come in and think that they need only turn up and with a chip on their shoulder. If you attend with a bad attitude you will be asked to leave and your case will then go through the courts in the normal way.
Incidentally, I managed to get another ticket only about six weeks later. So maybe I should have paid even more attention.