I've got a speeding ticket !!

Conor_3

IvanOpinion wrote: »

actually no, the human brain is not good enough to accurately determine such speed differences .. often the indication is more to do with how the car is responding under the right foot and the sound of the engine.

But the difference between you and me is that on virtually every journey, you're in the same car so you should know. I drive different vehicles every day. They vary massively. I can go from driving a 15ft long car to a 53ft long lorry and the lorries have different sized engines, anything from 8 to 16 gears and the heights of the cab and how high I am off the ground can vary by 2ft from lorry to lorry and over 6ft from a lorry to a car so I can't use many of the indicators you can. Yet when I've slowed to 30MPH as I've approached the 30MPH sign, I can maintain that speed within the tolerances allowed. I can jump in my car and maintain 56MPH without looking at the speedo for miles and miles.

And to address your scenario about the hilly roads you're on, that does nothing other than illustrate that there are many people who actually can't really drive at all to an acceptable level.

IvanOpinion

Conor wrote: »

And to address your scenario about the hilly roads you're on, that does nothing other than illustrate that there are many people who actually can't really drive at all to an acceptable level.

That would probably be the majority then. Previously people would simply lift their foot off the accelerator and let the car run on its own, now the only way is to drive on the brakes, or a lower gear .. burning up more fuel. I have no complaints about speed cameras if they are benficial but given the number of accidnets on the particular road versus other nearby roads they have mounted them in totally the wrong places .. I am assuming the council are not a pack of liars when they say they are there for safety (was that a pink elephant that just fluttered past my window )

I also drive one of 3 cars depending on what mood I am in

ivan

chuckles1066

Hintza wrote: »

There is no other area in law where thye public are so disadvantaged by the system of guilty until you can (attempt) to prove your innocence.

It is all about revenue collection and nothing to do with road safety.

Indeed..........a camera that flashes at 600ms instead of the legally proscribed 500ms will "demonstrate" to a Court that you were travelling at 36mph in a 30mph zone, 48mph in a 40mph zone and 60mph in a 50mph zone.

The calibration certificates for these units are a joke...........bear in mind they're subject to extreme temperature variations and yet one annual certificate is deemed to be a fit-all solution. So a unit will operate identically at -5C in January as it will in +29C in August????

Besides which, go HERE for an example of what passes as a legally binding calibration certificate...........it's a bit of paper with a signature on, nothing more, nothing less.

Rip-Off Britain, trust me.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

IvanOpinion wrote: »

if she had have been speeding there is no doubt the child would have been killed.

Ivan

There is a lot of doubt actually, since if she had been travelling faster she would have passed the child before it ran out.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

mookie wrote: »

40.1 in a 40 zone...not really a good example. :rolleyes:

The OP was supposedly doing 40MPH in a 30MPH zone, that type of speed does make a difference when it comes to safe driving.

The only safe speed is one that is safe for the conditions. Thats it.

Numbers on sticks do not determine that speed.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Conor wrote: »

I'm sorry, can you point out where I mentioned speed causing accidents because I think you'll find I've not and you'd be hard pressed to find any post anywhere where I have.

I've mentioned complying with the law which you agree to do when you get your licence.

Technically you agree, however I pay no attention to speed limit signs, never have, never will. I do about 20k a year, been driving since '89, and never once been caught speeding.


The vast majority of the motoring public do not comply with speed limits. Obviously this leads to millions of road deaths per year.......

chuckles1066

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

The only safe speed is one that is safe for the conditions. Thats it.

Numbers on sticks do not determine that speed.

Indeed.

130mph around the M25 at 3am on a Sunday morning is perfectly safe (been there, done it, I'm here aren't I?)...................25mph outside an urban school at 3.30pm is probably not.

But not because of vehicle speed, mind you............don't get me started on kids having to learn the Green Cross Code.

anewman

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

The only safe speed is one that is safe for the conditions. Thats it.

Numbers on sticks do not determine that speed.

I can think of many NSL roads where you could not possibly ge up to 60mph

headpin

C_Ronaldo wrote: »

have you not seen that ad with the little girl and speed kills, the speed limits are there for a reason, would you rather your son/daughter dies from the injuries from a car hitting her at 40mph or your son/daughter being alive as they were hit by a car doing 20mph,

Of course I have seen it. Have you watched what it shows though?

A small child that runs out in to the path of a car. Where were the girls parents/carer? Was was she allowed to run out in the road? Who was taking responsibility for her health and safety? Why was she out alone? Had she had any road safety training?

Basically the little girl was killed or injured because nobody wanted to take responsibility for her H&S. that was not the driver's fault or responsibility. Had the girl stayed on the footpath and not run out in the road the car could have been travelling at 100mph and it would not have mattered.

As I said in my original post, if pedestrians, including children, took responsibilty for their own safety there would not be a problem. Cars generally do not chase pedestrians along pavements. It is pedestrians that are generally in the wrong place (i.e. in the road) without looking properly or thinking about what they are doing, where they are going and what is going on around them. On your basis we my just as well ban cars all together.

The little girl got what she desreved. Harsh but true. Had she stayed on the footpath where she should have been then nothing would have happened to her. If she wanted to cross the road she shoud have found a safe place to do so (not between parked cars, waited till the road was clear and then without hesitating whist loking and istening all the time.

anewman

headpin wrote: »

As I said in my original post, if pedestrians, including children, took responsibilty for their own safety there would not be a problem. Cars generally do not chase pedestrians along pavements. It is pedestrians that are generally in the wrong place (i.e. in the road) without looking properly or thinking about what they are doing, where they are going and what is going on around them. On your basis we my just as well ban cars all together.

In Germany, I believe that if as a pedestrian you cause an accident. I.e. cross the road at a non-designated crossing and get hit, that when you are dead, the costs involved in the accident are taken from your estate. Quite a different set of affairs here.

However, you can't hold children responsible for what they do. They are less able to judge the speed and distance of a car. The only possible way to stop them attempting to cross roads is to keep them on one of these...