Stupid Unnecessary M1 Average Speed Cameras

bigjl

PCMcGarry wrote: »

It's you are or you're, you idiot.

So not only a Stalker but the grammar Police!

Lol.

Don't have much of a life do you.

Why do you only try and start arguments?

Lol.

pendragon_arther

bigjl wrote: »

So not only a Stalker but the grammar Police!

Lol.

Don't have much of a life do you.

Why do you only try and start arguments?

Lol.

It's okay, I've worked with people like this in mental health. It's called a multipleusername personality disorder.

forgotmyname

BykerSands wrote: »

Fight what? Either you were speeding or you weren't. Years ago if you actually had a case and won it would have cost anything.

The speed limit was lowered whilst they did the roadworks, the roadworks had moved much further down the road actually on the roundabout and no longer on the road with the reduced limt.

As i mentioned it was not worth the effort, a day off work would have cost me much more.

HornetSaver

The most dangerous thing on any motorway, speed cameras or not, is the speed differential between its users. If the limit is 70mph but a handful of cars per mile are doing 90, that's nearly an extra 9 metres per second. All hell breaks loose when those cars have to brake at short notice. Same principle when doing 70 in a 50 zone, albeit slightly less dangerous because the 70 drivers have slightly more time to react.

I agree that limits are often left in place unnecessarily, but when in place they must be followed. Someone pulls onto the motorway from the left at 40, you're doing 60 in the left, they're expecting 50 at most and don't see anything therefore emerge, you're forced to brake hard and if you react slowly (more likely on a quiet road in the small hours) that's an accident which is 100% your fault (and which would bump up both your insurance premiums much more than the cost of a speeding ticket).

System

HornetSaver wrote: »

The most dangerous thing on any motorway, speed cameras or not, is the speed differential between its users. If the limit is 70mph but a handful of cars per mile are doing 90, that's nearly an extra 9 metres per second. All hell breaks loose when those cars have to brake at short notice. Same principle when doing 70 in a 50 zone, albeit slightly less dangerous because the 70 drivers have slightly more time to react.

I agree that limits are often left in place unnecessarily, but when in place they must be followed. Someone pulls onto the motorway from the left at 40, you're doing 60 in the left, they're expecting 50 at most and don't see anything therefore emerge, you're forced to brake hard and if you react slowly (more likely on a quiet road in the small hours) that's an accident which is 100% your fault (and which would bump up both your insurance premiums much more than the cost of a speeding ticket).

That sounds more like you are advocating that motorways should have only a small band of allowable speeds to eliminate the danger of speed differential

System

pathtofreedom wrote: »

If it is the stretch of the m1 I'm thinking of, it might be as there is no hard shoulder available due to the road works while they are putting in the smart motorway signs. So I'd think 50 was safer even if no one is working, in case there is a broken down car in one of the lanes that is stranded.

OMG!! however do we manage to frive on dual carriageways safely with no hard shoulder? If that were the case why aren't there permanent speed restrictions on portions of motorway that were designed without hard shoulders?

Managed motorways tend not to have hard shoulders any more. Even when there is no lower speed limit the hard shoulder is still signed as a 4th lane. M42 & M6 come to mind.

HornetSaver

In theory that's exactly what I'd advocate (in practise a workable law would be impossible to craft). Legally you can do 40mph on a motorway with steady but free flowing traffic going at 70 around you. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Incidentally I reckon lorries being restricted to 60 is the main reason why the national speed limit is still only 70.

cool_dude_2000

phill99 wrote: »

Another post where someone has been done for speeding but wants to blame someone else.

Wow. Another example of someone from the oh-so-righteous-brigade. Why don't you and your buddies get off your high horses and read the original post before passing judgement.

To everyone else with valuable contributions: to me it's clearly a money making exercise. Question why they leave such speed restrictions for many months and why 59 mph results in a conviction for some police forces and not others.

PCMcGarry

HornetSaver wrote: »

In theory that's exactly what I'd advocate (in practise a workable law would be impossible to craft). Legally you can do 40mph on a motorway with steady but free flowing traffic going at 70 around you. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Incidentally I reckon lorries being restricted to 60 is the main reason why the national speed limit is still only 70.

The speed limit for lorries is 60 they are often restricted to 56 or 52.

PCMcGarry

cool_dude_2000 wrote: »

Wow. Another example of someone from the oh-so-righteous-brigade. Why don't you and your buddies get off your high horses and read the original post before passing judgement.

To everyone else with valuable contributions: to me it's clearly a money making exercise. Question why they leave such speed restrictions for many months and why 59 mph results in a conviction for some police forces and not others.

How? Because they only make money from criminals.