92 in a 70

Nobbie1967

fred246 wrote: »

If someone has been driving for years yet there ability is so poor surely they need some driving lessons and a retest. If they have previous convictions they are obviously a hardened criminal and should have their licence revoked and they should be jailed.

I reckon his garage tampered with the speedo so he thought he was going at 70. You can't trust garages as you know well fred:rotfl:

TooManyPoints

Have you not read the new rules,its now castration and 6 points.

There are no new rules.

90 on a motorway with good visibility and plenty of space between you and the driver in front can be perfectly safe.

Yes it can. Provided some idiot in front of you doesn't do something silly.

And yes, people slowing to 55 to pass a speed camera in a 60 limit is annoying.

Indeed it might be. But the speed limit is the absolute speed that can be undertaken, not the minimum that must be achieved at all costs..

The argument over the appropriateness of speed limits is specious. On some occasions 180mph might be safe. On others 25mph might be dangerous. Parliament has determined a happy medium (albeit "arbitrary"). The reason for this is that the appropriateness of speed in particular circumstances is highly subjective and would lead to ridiculous courtroom arguments. The answer is obvious: if you are not prepared to comply with the speed limits, don't drive. Driving is a privilege not a right and to enjoy that privilege you have to agree to comply with the rules. Moaning about the law after having been caught is simply daft. If you want the law changed lobby your MP. And good luck with that.

AdrianC

TooManyPoints wrote: »

The argument over the appropriateness of speed limits is specious. On some occasions 180mph might be safe. On others 25mph might be dangerous. Parliament has determined a happy medium (albeit "arbitrary").

Woah, hold on...
The default limits are very, very old, and were set for very, very different road conditions and cars to today.
The urban default is unchanged since 1935.
There was no extra-urban default at all until 1967, when it was set to 70mph on all non-urban roads. The current 60mph on single carriageways dates back to 1977, having been reduced to 50mph (60mph dual carriageway/motorway) during the fuel crisis.
Every non-default limit is set by local authorities.

TooManyPoints

The default limits are very, very old, and were set for very, very different road conditions and cars to today.

It isn't the roads or the cars that are the most common factor in most accidents. It is the way vehicles are driven and the capabilities of those driving them. They are fairly constant: there is (and always has been) a proportion of drivers who have less than ideal capabilities and a proportion of drivers who have little or no regard for other road users. Limiting their speed (or at least sanctioning those who transgress) is one way to mitigate their lack of capability or judgement.

Nick_C

TooManyPoints wrote: »

It isn't the roads or the cars that are the most common factor in most accidents. It is the way vehicles are driven and the capabilities of those driving them. They are fairly constant: there is (and always has been) a proportion of drivers who have less than ideal capabilities and a proportion of drivers who have little or no regard for other road users. Limiting their speed (or at least sanctioning those who transgress) is one way to mitigate their lack of capability or judgement.

Another is to have a man walk in front of of the vehicle carrying a red flag.

I'm all in favour of speed limits, but they should be considered and appropriate. Then they might be respected.

Supersonos

daveyjp wrote: »

Gantry cameras are now being replaced by roadside units which can be activated at any time.

I've seen the one near Wakefield flash on numerous occasions.

I'm surprised these new cameras are put on the left of the carriageway rather than the right. They must be constantly obscured by lorries.

Car_54

Supersonos wrote: »

I'm surprised these new cameras are put on the left of the carriageway rather than the right. They must be constantly obscured by lorries.

I'd be surprised too if it were true.

ElefantEd

Nick_C wrote: »

All that braking for speed cameras makes an accident more likely. And is environmentally unfriendly.

And yes, people slowing to 55 to pass a speed camera in a 60 limit is annoying.

Actually, taking you eyes of the road to check your speed when approaching a speed camera (which are often there to enforce the speed limit in dangerous areas) isn't great either.

I agree with your first two points, but not the third. How long does it take to glance down at your speedo? Let's be generous and say half a second (I think it is probably less). At 60mph you have travelled 13 metres. Scarcely enough to create any danger.

AdrianC

Agreed, Ed. Knowing what speed you're doing is as essential as knowing what's behind and around you - your eyes are constantly on the move, scanning and building a mental map. The speedo is just one source of information about your speed - there's plenty comes from your surroundings, too.

As well, of course, as the most important comparative... Is the speed appropriate for the conditions?

TonyMMM

By all means campaign for speed limits to be raised/changed ...

but that argument has no bearing whatsoever on a current allegation of speeding, so irrelevant really.