It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
I agree when it comes to speeding over 70 but this is more about the variable speed limits on motorways. on that particular stretch of motorway I have just got to a 60mph flashing sign which then turns to 40mph. the car in front has no idea that this has happened until he reaches the next flashing light. I find it dangerous as he has to slow down 20mph before hitting the next sign. the m25 round there is usually busy but I have been on motorways often so called smart ones where they continually change the speed limit with from what I can see no real reason to do so. this is also dangerous. keeping an eye on speed and the signs just adds another distraction to what would of been a reasonably easy drive.
It shouldn't be that taxing and driving a potentially lethal weapon at speeds of up to 70mph shouldn't be 'a reasonably easy drive' as the driver should be concentrating - not relaxing and chilling out.
I do understand what you mean but if one is unable to check signs that are right above the road and drive safely then it does question if they should be behind the wheel at all.
It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
We've done this before, the above stats dont tell the story, its convenient for the government to use stats like the above to justify the fines and then hiking them up, how the hell can a speeding fine be more than someone who gets done for drunk driving or drugged driving?? Anyone who thinks that the government give a toss about safety on our roads is bloody naive and have no idea what they are talking about. It raises millions in revenue, thats is all. We have technology available, via GPS to fit limiters on all vehicle for the given road they are on, so if the government wants they could insist that all cars are fitted with a receiver box, so why don't they do it? because they would lose millions of pounds in tax, its all it is, sanctimonious people who spout nonsense about breaking speed limits need to live in the real world, the speed limits in our country were set when people were all driving around in Ford Anglias and the like, we now drive faster, safer cars with decreased stopping distances, so the speed limit should go up, it wont because many many people on the road dont know how to drive, not a clue, I see people who dont even know how to negotiate roundabouts, drivers who break mid corner in the wet, most car drivers dont even know it their cars are front wheel or rear wheel drive, so they dont have a clue how it will behave in a skid or in a corner. Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding, cameras do not pick up bad driving, and someone who knows how to drive, going a few MPH over the speed limit is an easy target, its total bullshit.
It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
I agree when it comes to speeding over 70 but this is more about the variable speed limits on motorways. on that particular stretch of motorway I have just got to a 60mph flashing sign which then turns to 40mph. the car in front has no idea that this has happened until he reaches the next flashing light. I find it dangerous as he has to slow down 20mph before hitting the next sign. the m25 round there is usually busy but I have been on motorways often so called smart ones where they continually change the speed limit with from what I can see no real reason to do so. this is also dangerous. keeping an eye on speed and the signs just adds another distraction to what would of been a reasonably easy drive.
It shouldn't be that taxing and driving a potentially lethal weapon at speeds of up to 70mph shouldn't be 'a reasonably easy drive' as the driver should be concentrating - not relaxing and chilling out.
I do understand what you mean but if one is unable to check signs that are right above the road and drive safely then it does question if they should be behind the wheel at all.
of course it wouldn't be so easy to keep an eye on the changing of speed limits if say you have a partner talking at you and a couple of kids in the back playing up and your late for that important family gathering because one of the kids took ages in the loo before setting off. fortunately I don't have kids so it makes for a nice relaxing drive.
It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
We've done this before, the above stats dont tell the story, its convenient for the government to use stats like the above to justify the fines and then hiking them up, how the hell can a speeding fine be more than someone who gets done for drunk driving or drugged driving?? Anyone who thinks that the government give a toss about safety on our roads is bloody naive and have no idea what they are talking about. It raises millions in revenue, thats is all. We have technology available, via GPS to fit limiters on all vehicle for the given road they are on, so if the government wants they could insist that all cars are fitted with a receiver box, so why don't they do it? because they would lose millions of pounds in tax, its all it is, sanctimonious people who spout nonsense about breaking spend limits need to live in the real world, the speed limits in our country were set when people were all driving around in Ford Anglias and the like, we now drive faster, safer cars with decreased stopping distances, so the speed limit should go up, it wont because many many people on the road dont know how to drive, not a clue, I see people who dont even know how to negotiate roundabouts, drivers who break mid corner in the wet, most car drivers dont even know it their cars are front wheel or rear wheel drive, so they dont have a clue how it will behave in a skid or in a corner. Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding, cameras do not pick up bad driving, and someone who knows how to drive, going a few MPH over the speed limit is an easy target, its total bullshit.
Are you suggesting that the speed limits should go up? Or are you suggesting that, due to the number of bad drivers, the current speed limits are appropriate?
I only ask as I know that your background means that you are more likely to have an educated answer to this question.
As for the fines, irrespective as to the reason for them do you not think that increasing the number of people that obey the laws is a good thing?
Just booked a speed awareness course yesterday after picking up a speeding offence on the M4 in Avon in July.
£92 fecking quid for the four and half hour course but it's better than the other option of £100 fine and three points.
Done exactly the same. My 1st speeding offence in over r0 years of driving. Speed awareness course at the Holiday inn Bexley. £92 is better than a fine and 3 points on my licence
It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
We've done this before, the above stats dont tell the story, its convenient for the government to use stats like the above to justify the fines and then hiking them up, how the hell can a speeding fine be more than someone who gets done for drunk driving or drugged driving?? Anyone who thinks that the government give a toss about safety on our roads is bloody naive and have no idea what they are talking about. It raises millions in revenue, thats is all. We have technology available, via GPS to fit limiters on all vehicle for the given road they are on, so if the government wants they could insist that all cars are fitted with a receiver box, so why don't they do it? because they would lose millions of pounds in tax, its all it is, sanctimonious people who spout nonsense about breaking spend limits need to live in the real world, the speed limits in our country were set when people were all driving around in Ford Anglias and the like, we now drive faster, safer cars with decreased stopping distances, so the speed limit should go up, it wont because many many people on the road dont know how to drive, not a clue, I see people who dont even know how to negotiate roundabouts, drivers who break mid corner in the wet, most car drivers dont even know it their cars are front wheel or rear wheel drive, so they dont have a clue how it will behave in a skid or in a corner. Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding, cameras do not pick up bad driving, and someone who knows how to drive, going a few MPH over the speed limit is an easy target, its total bullshit.
Are you suggesting that the speed limits should go up? Or are you suggesting that, due to the number of bad drivers, the current speed limits are appropriate?
I only ask as I know that your background means that you are more likely to have an educated answer to this question.
As for the fines, irrespective as to the reason for them do you not think that increasing the number of people that obey the laws is a good thing?
To qualify, speed limits should go up, because safety aids on cars make them safer than 50 years ago, but lack of driver education precludes that they wont. Also the less knowledgeable people of the Uk who believe the stats about speeding drivers will take a dim view.
Nice leading last Q, I am a free thinking person and if we as drivers, motorcycle riders etc got together and formed a lobby to protect our rights then the gov would think twice about the ridiculous laws that they have passed. Also instead of fining people, why not get them to do community service, this would be so much more practical, so that tells you all you need to know about the fines, its a government revenue stream. I dont think its breaking the law if a driver goes a few MPH over the speed limit.
A9) Failed to look properly was the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 42 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2016. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 30 per cent of fatal accidents.
For accidents where a pedestrian was injured or killed, pedestrian failed to look properly was reported in 54 per cent of accidents, and pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry was reported in 25 per cent of accidents.
Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of all accidents, but these accidents involved 15 per cent of fatalities. At least one of exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions was reported in 11 per cent of all accidents and these accidents accounted for 24 per cent of all fatalities.
65 per cent of fatalities in reported road accidents had driver or rider error or reaction (which includes failing to look properly, loss of control and poor turn or manoeuvre) reported as a contributory factor leading to the accident.
Source: Department for Transport - Contributory Factors for Reported Road Accidents Tables
It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
And that neatly sums up the unnecessary persecution of motorists! By way of comparison, according to The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, every year there are 6,000 deaths at home from an accident; every year more than two million kids under 15 end up in A&E because of an accident at home; and, just another snippet, around 25,000 under-fives attend A&E each year after being accidentally poisoned.
And yet, the Govt. hasn't seen fit to come round to my gaff and slap a so-called safety camera up in my lounge and I haven't got a doughnut-eating Black Rat* parked up in my back garden on the off-chance my pond is unsafe!
RoSPA's stats show the worst possible place to be is in your own lounge/living room and yet parents still worry about their kids walking to school - bonkers!
*Note: spending a quid on an official Black Rat sticker for your car is likely to be the best investment you could make if you speed a lot.
On plenty of occasions I've seen a reduced speed limit on the motorway, typically one sign after the after for miles and miles for no apparent reason, other than me surmising that someone has forgotten to switch them off. Getting 'caught' in those circumstances is harsh. Experiences like these just reduce my confidence in their authority.
A9) Failed to look properly was the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 42 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2016. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 30 per cent of fatal accidents.
For accidents where a pedestrian was injured or killed, pedestrian failed to look properly was reported in 54 per cent of accidents, and pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry was reported in 25 per cent of accidents.
Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of all accidents, but these accidents involved 15 per cent of fatalities. At least one of exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions was reported in 11 per cent of all accidents and these accidents accounted for 24 per cent of all fatalities.
65 per cent of fatalities in reported road accidents had driver or rider error or reaction (which includes failing to look properly, loss of control and poor turn or manoeuvre) reported as a contributory factor leading to the accident.
Source: Department for Transport - Contributory Factors for Reported Road Accidents Tables
So are we to assume that the driver that was behind the wheel when the pedestrian lost his/her life was interviewed and 'suggested' that the pedestrian (that cannot give a statement) failed to look and/or was careless, reckless or in a hurry before he/she stepped in front of the car?
It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
We've done this before, the above stats dont tell the story, its convenient for the government to use stats like the above to justify the fines and then hiking them up, how the hell can a speeding fine be more than someone who gets done for drunk driving or drugged driving?? Anyone who thinks that the government give a toss about safety on our roads is bloody naive and have no idea what they are talking about. It raises millions in revenue, thats is all. We have technology available, via GPS to fit limiters on all vehicle for the given road they are on, so if the government wants they could insist that all cars are fitted with a receiver box, so why don't they do it? because they would lose millions of pounds in tax, its all it is, sanctimonious people who spout nonsense about breaking spend limits need to live in the real world, the speed limits in our country were set when people were all driving around in Ford Anglias and the like, we now drive faster, safer cars with decreased stopping distances, so the speed limit should go up, it wont because many many people on the road dont know how to drive, not a clue, I see people who dont even know how to negotiate roundabouts, drivers who break mid corner in the wet, most car drivers dont even know it their cars are front wheel or rear wheel drive, so they dont have a clue how it will behave in a skid or in a corner. Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding, cameras do not pick up bad driving, and someone who knows how to drive, going a few MPH over the speed limit is an easy target, its total bullshit.
Are you suggesting that the speed limits should go up? Or are you suggesting that, due to the number of bad drivers, the current speed limits are appropriate?
I only ask as I know that your background means that you are more likely to have an educated answer to this question.
As for the fines, irrespective as to the reason for them do you not think that increasing the number of people that obey the laws is a good thing?
To qualify, speed limits should go up, because safety aids on cars make them safer than 50 years ago, but lack of driver education precludes that they wont. Also the less knowledgeable people of the Uk who believe the stats about speeding drivers will take a dim view.
Nice leading last Q, I am a free thinking person and if we as drivers, motorcycle riders etc got together and formed a lobby to protect our rights then the gov would think twice about the ridiculous laws that they have passed. Also instead of fining people, why not get them to do community service, this would be so much more practical, so that tells you all you need to know about the fines, its a government revenue stream. I dont think its breaking the law if a driver goes a few MPH over the speed limit.
As I understand it, speed limits have remained the same because whilst cars have improved in terms of safety (say compared to the days of the Ford Anglia), they are now heavier, so the improvement in braking has been offset by the increased weight, so no change in the stopping distances.
And you won't get prosecuted for speeding by going a just a few mph over the limit as they add 10% onto the speed limit to negate speedo inaccuracies, plus an additional 2mph. Obviously technically you are braking the law by going even 1mph over, but as said that isn't applied in reality.
It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
We've done this before, the above stats dont tell the story, its convenient for the government to use stats like the above to justify the fines and then hiking them up, how the hell can a speeding fine be more than someone who gets done for drunk driving or drugged driving?? Anyone who thinks that the government give a toss about safety on our roads is bloody naive and have no idea what they are talking about. It raises millions in revenue, thats is all. We have technology available, via GPS to fit limiters on all vehicle for the given road they are on, so if the government wants they could insist that all cars are fitted with a receiver box, so why don't they do it? because they would lose millions of pounds in tax, its all it is, sanctimonious people who spout nonsense about breaking spend limits need to live in the real world, the speed limits in our country were set when people were all driving around in Ford Anglias and the like, we now drive faster, safer cars with decreased stopping distances, so the speed limit should go up, it wont because many many people on the road dont know how to drive, not a clue, I see people who dont even know how to negotiate roundabouts, drivers who break mid corner in the wet, most car drivers dont even know it their cars are front wheel or rear wheel drive, so they dont have a clue how it will behave in a skid or in a corner. Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding, cameras do not pick up bad driving, and someone who knows how to drive, going a few MPH over the speed limit is an easy target, its total bullshit.
Are you suggesting that the speed limits should go up? Or are you suggesting that, due to the number of bad drivers, the current speed limits are appropriate?
I only ask as I know that your background means that you are more likely to have an educated answer to this question.
As for the fines, irrespective as to the reason for them do you not think that increasing the number of people that obey the laws is a good thing?
To qualify, speed limits should go up, because safety aids on cars make them safer than 50 years ago, but lack of driver education precludes that they wont. Also the less knowledgeable people of the Uk who believe the stats about speeding drivers will take a dim view.
Nice leading last Q, I am a free thinking person and if we as drivers, motorcycle riders etc got together and formed a lobby to protect our rights then the gov would think twice about the ridiculous laws that they have passed. Also instead of fining people, why not get them to do community service, this would be so much more practical, so that tells you all you need to know about the fines, its a government revenue stream. I dont think its breaking the law if a driver goes a few MPH over the speed limit.
As I understand it, speed limits have remained the same because whilst cars have improved in terms of safety (say compared to the days of the Ford Anglia), they are now heavier, so the improvement in braking has been offset by the increased weight, so no change in the stopping distances.
And you won't get prosecuted for speeding by going a just a few mph over the limit as they add 10% onto the speed limit to negate speedo inaccuracies, plus an additional 2mph. Obviously technically you are braking the law by going even 1mph over, but as said that isn't applied in reality.
Not anymore they dont. They say that car speedo's are totally accurate now, but they wont acknowledge that cars are safer now, double standards? Of course.
Bad driving causes accidents. Well that and pedestrians and other road users not paying attention. If you're at a speed where you are not in control of your vehicle then you're a bad driver.
To be honest I'm amazed there are not more accidents considering how few drivers seem to understand how roundabouts, merging, and road markings work.
Also the idiotic trend where people seem to be so terrified of the curb they will drive at least one or two door lengths away from it even if it means swerving into oncoming traffic. Get these lunatics off the road.
On plenty of occasions I've seen a reduced speed limit on the motorway, typically one sign after the after for miles and miles for no apparent reason, other than me surmising that someone has forgotten to switch them off. Getting 'caught' in those circumstances is harsh. Experiences like these just reduce my confidence in their authority.
No, getting caught in those circumstances is stupid.
Yes it's frustrating, and yes it may well be that the person in control has just forgot or is late in resetting the speed limit, but to drive through over and above the displayed limit (and you've seen it) assuming someone has made a mistake is just plain daft.
I get as frustrated as anyone in those circumstances and yes some limits are too low (not in built up areas) but I nor anyone else can ignore them without consequence because we don't agree with them.
It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
We've done this before, the above stats dont tell the story, its convenient for the government to use stats like the above to justify the fines and then hiking them up, how the hell can a speeding fine be more than someone who gets done for drunk driving or drugged driving?? Anyone who thinks that the government give a toss about safety on our roads is bloody naive and have no idea what they are talking about. It raises millions in revenue, thats is all. We have technology available, via GPS to fit limiters on all vehicle for the given road they are on, so if the government wants they could insist that all cars are fitted with a receiver box, so why don't they do it? because they would lose millions of pounds in tax, its all it is, sanctimonious people who spout nonsense about breaking spend limits need to live in the real world, the speed limits in our country were set when people were all driving around in Ford Anglias and the like, we now drive faster, safer cars with decreased stopping distances, so the speed limit should go up, it wont because many many people on the road dont know how to drive, not a clue, I see people who dont even know how to negotiate roundabouts, drivers who break mid corner in the wet, most car drivers dont even know it their cars are front wheel or rear wheel drive, so they dont have a clue how it will behave in a skid or in a corner. Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding, cameras do not pick up bad driving, and someone who knows how to drive, going a few MPH over the speed limit is an easy target, its total bullshit.
Are you suggesting that the speed limits should go up? Or are you suggesting that, due to the number of bad drivers, the current speed limits are appropriate?
I only ask as I know that your background means that you are more likely to have an educated answer to this question.
As for the fines, irrespective as to the reason for them do you not think that increasing the number of people that obey the laws is a good thing?
To qualify, speed limits should go up, because safety aids on cars make them safer than 50 years ago, but lack of driver education precludes that they wont. Also the less knowledgeable people of the Uk who believe the stats about speeding drivers will take a dim view.
Nice leading last Q, I am a free thinking person and if we as drivers, motorcycle riders etc got together and formed a lobby to protect our rights then the gov would think twice about the ridiculous laws that they have passed. Also instead of fining people, why not get them to do community service, this would be so much more practical, so that tells you all you need to know about the fines, its a government revenue stream. I dont think its breaking the law if a driver goes a few MPH over the speed limit.
That wasn't aimed as a leading question, and you answered (I think) it by suggesting that an alternative punishment as a deterrent was a work around solution. Thus a punishment should exist.
I understand that the fines raise money, but I'm not aware that it is being used to pay for lavish parties, for the elite, that wouldn't exist without the fines. I'm, personally, happy for the pot of money that pays for public services to grow, and if that can be done by 'punishing' people for non compliance of laws (irrespective as to which laws) then I'm happy. If the higher the fine the more likely that people will not break the law then that works for me too. If other fines are not big enough, in comparison, then let's raise them as well.
I don't have a problem with your suggestion that community service is used instead of a fine but I guess that decision needs to be made by the person that assesses the value of the community service opposed to what they can do with the money raised. That is not a decision I feel qualified to make personally, but from my understanding that is, exactly, what politics is all about - deciding how to raise money and what to spend it on.
I guess where we might not agree is just what laws should be changed. Being a little bit of a stickler for rules, and having little interest in getting into politics, I'm quite tempted to trust those making the rules and, by default, the rules that they make. Thus if the speed limit is set at 40 I accept that and try to keep to 40. I do not decide that the speed limit is too low and drive at 50. I take the same approach with other rules/laws too.
It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
We've done this before, the above stats dont tell the story, its convenient for the government to use stats like the above to justify the fines and then hiking them up, how the hell can a speeding fine be more than someone who gets done for drunk driving or drugged driving?? Anyone who thinks that the government give a toss about safety on our roads is bloody naive and have no idea what they are talking about. It raises millions in revenue, thats is all. We have technology available, via GPS to fit limiters on all vehicle for the given road they are on, so if the government wants they could insist that all cars are fitted with a receiver box, so why don't they do it? because they would lose millions of pounds in tax, its all it is, sanctimonious people who spout nonsense about breaking speed limits need to live in the real world, the speed limits in our country were set when people were all driving around in Ford Anglias and the like, we now drive faster, safer cars with decreased stopping distances, so the speed limit should go up, it wont because many many people on the road dont know how to drive, not a clue, I see people who dont even know how to negotiate roundabouts, drivers who break mid corner in the wet, most car drivers dont even know it their cars are front wheel or rear wheel drive, so they dont have a clue how it will behave in a skid or in a corner. Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding, cameras do not pick up bad driving, and someone who knows how to drive, going a few MPH over the speed limit is an easy target, its total bullshit.
Yes but the flip of that is that someone who doesn't know how to drive and is driving at 90mph is even more likely to cause an accident. Consequently there would be even more accidents if there weren't such restrictions.
What is also clear is that any number of drivers do not take into consideration road conditions. For example, how many accidents are caused by drivers going too fast in fog?
As for how quick they get the letter out to you, as far as I am aware there is a 'cut off point' time wise.
When speed cameras first started appearing, I used to fight every one (mine and my employees who drove 80k miles per annum). I won every single one of them by asking for proof as to who was driving explaining that due to the high miles covered, we always operated a two driver per vehicle policy and the lads could not remember who was driving. They obviously could not provide this and the letters I received used to get more scary with words like sentence, prison and judge etc thrown in for good measure. In the end and without exception, the final letter would read 'dropped due to a lack of evidence'. I even had a phone call from one police force telling me to sack both workers if they didn't fess up lol. They took it further with my wife and she ended up in court but the judge threw it out and bollocked the police for wasting his time.
However, another one of my workers got caught and I sent the normal letter off but by now the law had changed. As long as the summons is sent out sharpish, you cannot use the excuse that you cannot remember who was driving, and failure to supply the info meant the legal owner would get done. All my vans were in my name so that put a stop to that!! I cannot remember what the time scale is though.
@Greenie I very recently got nicked, as soon as the flash went I looked down and I was doing 41mph in a 30. (3am on a dual carrigeway ffs) When the summons arrived, they had me clocked at 37mph
It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
We've done this before, the above stats dont tell the story, its convenient for the government to use stats like the above to justify the fines and then hiking them up, how the hell can a speeding fine be more than someone who gets done for drunk driving or drugged driving?? Anyone who thinks that the government give a toss about safety on our roads is bloody naive and have no idea what they are talking about. It raises millions in revenue, thats is all. We have technology available, via GPS to fit limiters on all vehicle for the given road they are on, so if the government wants they could insist that all cars are fitted with a receiver box, so why don't they do it? because they would lose millions of pounds in tax, its all it is, sanctimonious people who spout nonsense about breaking speed limits need to live in the real world, the speed limits in our country were set when people were all driving around in Ford Anglias and the like, we now drive faster, safer cars with decreased stopping distances, so the speed limit should go up, it wont because many many people on the road dont know how to drive, not a clue, I see people who dont even know how to negotiate roundabouts, drivers who break mid corner in the wet, most car drivers dont even know it their cars are front wheel or rear wheel drive, so they dont have a clue how it will behave in a skid or in a corner. Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding, cameras do not pick up bad driving, and someone who knows how to drive, going a few MPH over the speed limit is an easy target, its total bullshit.
Yes but the flip of that is that someone who doesn't know how to drive and is driving at 90mph is even more likely to cause an accident. Consequently there would be even more accidents if there weren't such restrictions.
What is also clear is that any number of drivers do not take into consideration road conditions. For example, how many accidents are caused by drivers going too fast in fog?
Absolutely.
"Yes Officer I accept there was snow and ice and a bit of fog, and I didn't see the other car come around a blind bend - but I was only doing 60 down this country lane so not exceeding the limit".
I have been caught speeding twice in 38 years of driving.
Once in my sister's car doing 48mph in a 40mph zone some 25 years ago (3 points) for which my sister received the intitial letter - I should have embarrassed her by denying that I was the driver given that she was, at the time, a senior prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service.
The second time was some five years when I was doing 27mph over Tower Bridge which is a 20mph zone. I was the only one on the bridge at the time as it was 6.30am on Boxing Day and I was on my way to work. No points but a fine and I had to go to a speed awareness course which was purely for those who were caught speeding on Tower Bridge - and the room probably had over 40 people in it!
I have been caught speeding twice in 38 years of driving.
Once in my sister's car doing 48mph in a 40mph zone some 25 years ago (3 points) for which my sister received the intitial letter - I should have embarrassed her by denying that I was the driver given that she was, at the time, a senior prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service.
The second time was some five years when I was doing 27mph over Tower Bridge which is a 20mph zone. I was the only one on the bridge at the time as it was 6.30am on Boxing Day and I was on my way to work. No points but a fine and I had to go to a speed awareness course which was purely for those who were caught speeding on Tower Bridge - and the room probably had over 40 people in it!
There needs to be some sort of calculation done where unless the number of speed-related accidents within a month is at least 5% of the number of people caught speeding then the speed limit should either be raised or the camera removed entirely as clearly it isn't a blackspot.
I have been caught speeding twice in 38 years of driving.
Once in my sister's car doing 48mph in a 40mph zone some 25 years ago (3 points) for which my sister received the intitial letter - I should have embarrassed her by denying that I was the driver given that she was, at the time, a senior prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service.
The second time was some five years when I was doing 27mph over Tower Bridge which is a 20mph zone. I was the only one on the bridge at the time as it was 6.30am on Boxing Day and I was on my way to work. No points but a fine and I had to go to a speed awareness course which was purely for those who were caught speeding on Tower Bridge - and the room probably had over 40 people in it!
There needs to be some sort of calculation done where unless the number of speed-related accidents within a month is at least 5% of the number of people caught speeding then the speed limit should either be raised or the camera removed entirely as clearly it isn't a blackspot.
I get that argument but the person that sanctions removing it will (or may) feel culpable should an accident result in the loss of life after it's been removed. For that reason I think we have to assume that as soon as a camera is put up, and as long as the fines raised from it continue to pay for it's servicing, it will never be removed.
If it was cost neutral I would be happy for every road in the country to have speed cameras on it. I would also be happy for every street to have a CCTV camera on it - again, assuming that the cost of it doesn't reduce other public services.
I don't wee why people are so obsessed with not being watched unless they want to get away with something - you know like driving faster than the speed limit.
I have been caught speeding twice in 38 years of driving.
Once in my sister's car doing 48mph in a 40mph zone some 25 years ago (3 points) for which my sister received the intitial letter - I should have embarrassed her by denying that I was the driver given that she was, at the time, a senior prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service.
The second time was some five years when I was doing 27mph over Tower Bridge which is a 20mph zone. I was the only one on the bridge at the time as it was 6.30am on Boxing Day and I was on my way to work. No points but a fine and I had to go to a speed awareness course which was purely for those who were caught speeding on Tower Bridge - and the room probably had over 40 people in it!
There needs to be some sort of calculation done where unless the number of speed-related accidents within a month is at least 5% of the number of people caught speeding then the speed limit should either be raised or the camera removed entirely as clearly it isn't a blackspot.
There are cameras on the bridge and a speed limit because driving faster than that will cause additional damage to the bridge - apparently!
It is the driver's responsibility to be aware of the speed limit applying to the particular stretch of road they are on - and these are maximum speed limits, which is not necessarily the appropriate speed. Clearly if on a country road with no street lights and no repeater signs at regular intervals then it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the national speed limit applies - and conviction in those circumstances would be wrong and would almost certainly fail if it could be proven that the 'exception' signage was not in place.
So based on that, anyone who exceeds the speed limit is knowingly breaking the law and if caught should quite rightly be convicted. All this talk of stealth tax and the like is nonsense - if you don't speed there is nothing for which to get caught.
This is not a holier than thou speech - over the years I've been nicked numerous times and in the last 20 years I've probably only had a clean licence for the past 5 years. Prior to that anything from 3 to 9 active points on my licence - plus a speed awareness course thrown in. They were all my fault - not stealth taxes.
Just a further thought:
In 2015, 222 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 167 people died when someone was traveling too fast for the conditions.
We've done this before, the above stats dont tell the story, its convenient for the government to use stats like the above to justify the fines and then hiking them up, how the hell can a speeding fine be more than someone who gets done for drunk driving or drugged driving?? Anyone who thinks that the government give a toss about safety on our roads is bloody naive and have no idea what they are talking about. It raises millions in revenue, thats is all. We have technology available, via GPS to fit limiters on all vehicle for the given road they are on, so if the government wants they could insist that all cars are fitted with a receiver box, so why don't they do it? because they would lose millions of pounds in tax, its all it is, sanctimonious people who spout nonsense about breaking speed limits need to live in the real world, the speed limits in our country were set when people were all driving around in Ford Anglias and the like, we now drive faster, safer cars with decreased stopping distances, so the speed limit should go up, it wont because many many people on the road dont know how to drive, not a clue, I see people who dont even know how to negotiate roundabouts, drivers who break mid corner in the wet, most car drivers dont even know it their cars are front wheel or rear wheel drive, so they dont have a clue how it will behave in a skid or in a corner. Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding, cameras do not pick up bad driving, and someone who knows how to drive, going a few MPH over the speed limit is an easy target, its total bullshit.
Yes but the flip of that is that someone who doesn't know how to drive and is driving at 90mph is even more likely to cause an accident. Consequently there would be even more accidents if there weren't such restrictions.
What is also clear is that any number of drivers do not take into consideration road conditions. For example, how many accidents are caused by drivers going too fast in fog?
Sorry, I'd thought this was common knowledge but readily accept that it probably isn't! Anyway, officers in other operational areas call traffic officers Black Rats and the phrase has slowly spread into more general use.
Of course, it is meant to be a derogatory term and came about because they are renown for not turning a blind eye to other officers breaking "their" laws. In fact, it's said they relish being able to nick a fellow officer.
Despite its origins, - black rats don't mind eating their own kind - Traf Pol now seem to revel in it. To the extent that there is "Official Black Rat" merchandise.
It is said that many Black Rats have one of their "official" stickers on their private cars and that this acts as some kind of magic anti-speeding ticket device. If that is true, it would only work if you actually got pulled and not caught by a camera. And the stickers are so widely available that their magical properties may well have diminished.
Some stuff is merely tacky. Some, frankly, downright offensive: like the little TPAC and Taser enamel badges and the mug with a rat wearing a Santa hat and the words "Bah Humbug" underneath. Then for an outright winner in the "beyond parody" category, there's the enamel badge with a black rat/masonic icon combo....
It is perhaps also sadly to be expected that all the little model police officers are, in the jargon, IC1 Male.
Sorry, I'd thought this was common knowledge but readily accept that it probably isn't! Anyway, officers in other operational areas call traffic officers Black Rats and the phrase has slowly spread into more general use.
Of course, it is meant to be a derogatory term and came about because they are renown for not turning a blind eye to other officers breaking "their" laws. In fact, it's said they relish being able to nick a fellow officer.
Despite its origins, - black rats don't mind eating their own kind - Traf Pol now seem to revel in it. To the extent that there is "Official Black Rat" merchandise.
It is said that many Black Rats have one of their "official" stickers on their private cars and that this acts as some kind of magic anti-speeding ticket device. If that is true, it would only work if you actually got pulled and not caught by a camera. And the stickers are so widely available that their magical properties may well have diminished.
Some stuff is merely tacky. Some, frankly, downright offensive: like the little TPAC and Taser enamel badges and the mug with a rat wearing a Santa hat and the words "Bah Humbug" underneath. Then for an outright winner in the "beyond parody" category, there's the enamel badge with a black rat/masonic icon combo....
It is perhaps also sadly to be expected that all the little model police officers are, in the jargon, IC1 Male.
Fucking prefect wanker's. That's like having merchandise if you are a grass and revel in the reputation.
All that said, you are right. A traffic copper would actually have to pull someone over for driving like a prick, or maybe enforce the middle lane hogging law, or address actual dangerous driving.
You say the car is leased? If it is they get more time to issue the notice to you, ie gets issued to leasing company, then they advise the driver, then they issue the notice to you. That's how I understand it anyway.
Got caught in similar circumstances on a quiet Sunday afternoon a few moths back on the M20. I'd just joined the from the slip road at 70mph and hit a 50 overhead almost immediately so got clocked at 62.
Would loved to have challenged it as thought it was unfair but thought it's pointless and that in probably due one after 15 years without ever getting anything.
Offered the 2.5hr course at £67 so could have been worse but still grates.
Next day driving to Aldershot for work through 50's for ages with me sticking to it and every other bugger up my Arse and flying past me thinking I'm a prick.
It's hard to gestulate "I've just been caught by one of these, so am therefore driving like a granny" with hand sign only.
If you didn’t see the speed limit signs or that there maybe roadworks ahead and you didn’t adjust your driving maybe a speeding fine or an awareness course is not such a bad thing. Rather than looking at ways of avoiding the consequences of getting caught it might be an idea to have a look at what happens when accidents happen when speed is the main cause. I know cars have developed and are safer than they were but the people who drive them are basically the same as they always have been. If anyone wants to see the results of speed, google that road crash on the A20 back in April.
My mate got done on the same spot a few months ago. There was no reason for the speed restriction and it was a Saturday afternoon about 4pm. The photo showed 3 csrs in a half mile stretch of road. Disgusting.
Comments
I do understand what you mean but if one is unable to check signs that are right above the road and drive safely then it does question if they should be behind the wheel at all.
Anyone who thinks that the government give a toss about safety on our roads is bloody naive and have no idea what they are talking about. It raises millions in revenue, thats is all.
We have technology available, via GPS to fit limiters on all vehicle for the given road they are on, so if the government wants they could insist that all cars are fitted with a receiver box, so why don't they do it? because they would lose millions of pounds in tax, its all it is, sanctimonious people who spout nonsense about breaking speed limits need to live in the real world, the speed limits in our country were set when people were all driving around in Ford Anglias and the like, we now drive faster, safer cars with decreased stopping distances, so the speed limit should go up, it wont because many many people on the road dont know how to drive, not a clue, I see people who dont even know how to negotiate roundabouts, drivers who break mid corner in the wet, most car drivers dont even know it their cars are front wheel or rear wheel drive, so they dont have a clue how it will behave in a skid or in a corner. Most accidents are caused by bad driving not speeding, cameras do not pick up bad driving, and someone who knows how to drive, going a few MPH over the speed limit is an easy target, its total bullshit.
I only ask as I know that your background means that you are more likely to have an educated answer to this question.
As for the fines, irrespective as to the reason for them do you not think that increasing the number of people that obey the laws is a good thing?
My 1st speeding offence in over r0 years of driving.
Speed awareness course at the Holiday inn Bexley.
£92 is better than a fine and 3 points on my licence
Nice leading last Q, I am a free thinking person and if we as drivers, motorcycle riders etc got together and formed a lobby to protect our rights then the gov would think twice about the ridiculous laws that they have passed. Also instead of fining people, why not get them to do community service, this would be so much more practical, so that tells you all you need to know about the fines, its a government revenue stream.
I dont think its breaking the law if a driver goes a few MPH over the speed limit.
For accidents where a pedestrian was injured or killed, pedestrian failed to look properly was reported in 54 per cent of accidents, and pedestrian careless, reckless or in a hurry was reported in 25 per cent of accidents.
Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of all accidents, but these accidents involved 15 per cent of fatalities. At least one of exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions was reported in 11 per cent of all accidents and these accidents accounted for 24 per cent of all fatalities.
65 per cent of fatalities in reported road accidents had driver or rider error or reaction (which includes failing to look properly, loss of control and poor turn or manoeuvre) reported as a contributory factor leading to the accident.
Source: Department for Transport - Contributory Factors for Reported Road Accidents Tables
And yet, the Govt. hasn't seen fit to come round to my gaff and slap a so-called safety camera up in my lounge and I haven't got a doughnut-eating Black Rat* parked up in my back garden on the off-chance my pond is unsafe!
RoSPA's stats show the worst possible place to be is in your own lounge/living room and yet parents still worry about their kids walking to school - bonkers!
*Note: spending a quid on an official Black Rat sticker for your car is likely to be the best investment you could make if you speed a lot.
And you won't get prosecuted for speeding by going a just a few mph over the limit as they add 10% onto the speed limit to negate speedo inaccuracies, plus an additional 2mph. Obviously technically you are braking the law by going even 1mph over, but as said that isn't applied in reality.
To be honest I'm amazed there are not more accidents considering how few drivers seem to understand how roundabouts, merging, and road markings work.
Also the idiotic trend where people seem to be so terrified of the curb they will drive at least one or two door lengths away from it even if it means swerving into oncoming traffic. Get these lunatics off the road.
Yes it's frustrating, and yes it may well be that the person in control has just forgot or is late in resetting the speed limit, but to drive through over and above the displayed limit (and you've seen it) assuming someone has made a mistake is just plain daft.
I get as frustrated as anyone in those circumstances and yes some limits are too low (not in built up areas) but I nor anyone else can ignore them without consequence because we don't agree with them.
I understand that the fines raise money, but I'm not aware that it is being used to pay for lavish parties, for the elite, that wouldn't exist without the fines. I'm, personally, happy for the pot of money that pays for public services to grow, and if that can be done by 'punishing' people for non compliance of laws (irrespective as to which laws) then I'm happy. If the higher the fine the more likely that people will not break the law then that works for me too. If other fines are not big enough, in comparison, then let's raise them as well.
I don't have a problem with your suggestion that community service is used instead of a fine but I guess that decision needs to be made by the person that assesses the value of the community service opposed to what they can do with the money raised. That is not a decision I feel qualified to make personally, but from my understanding that is, exactly, what politics is all about - deciding how to raise money and what to spend it on.
I guess where we might not agree is just what laws should be changed. Being a little bit of a stickler for rules, and having little interest in getting into politics, I'm quite tempted to trust those making the rules and, by default, the rules that they make. Thus if the speed limit is set at 40 I accept that and try to keep to 40. I do not decide that the speed limit is too low and drive at 50. I take the same approach with other rules/laws too.
What is also clear is that any number of drivers do not take into consideration road conditions. For example, how many accidents are caused by drivers going too fast in fog?
When speed cameras first started appearing, I used to fight every one (mine and my employees who drove 80k miles per annum). I won every single one of them by asking for proof as to who was driving explaining that due to the high miles covered, we always operated a two driver per vehicle policy and the lads could not remember who was driving. They obviously could not provide this and the letters I received used to get more scary with words like sentence, prison and judge etc thrown in for good measure. In the end and without exception, the final letter would read 'dropped due to a lack of evidence'. I even had a phone call from one police force telling me to sack both workers if they didn't fess up lol. They took it further with my wife and she ended up in court but the judge threw it out and bollocked the police for wasting his time.
However, another one of my workers got caught and I sent the normal letter off but by now the law had changed. As long as the summons is sent out sharpish, you cannot use the excuse that you cannot remember who was driving, and failure to supply the info meant the legal owner would get done. All my vans were in my name so that put a stop to that!! I cannot remember what the time scale is though.
@Greenie I very recently got nicked, as soon as the flash went I looked down and I was doing 41mph in a 30. (3am on a dual carrigeway ffs) When the summons arrived, they had me clocked at 37mph
"Yes Officer I accept there was snow and ice and a bit of fog, and I didn't see the other car come around a blind bend - but I was only doing 60 down this country lane so not exceeding the limit".
Once in my sister's car doing 48mph in a 40mph zone some 25 years ago (3 points) for which my sister received the intitial letter - I should have embarrassed her by denying that I was the driver given that she was, at the time, a senior prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service.
The second time was some five years when I was doing 27mph over Tower Bridge which is a 20mph zone. I was the only one on the bridge at the time as it was 6.30am on Boxing Day and I was on my way to work. No points but a fine and I had to go to a speed awareness course which was purely for those who were caught speeding on Tower Bridge - and the room probably had over 40 people in it!
If it was cost neutral I would be happy for every road in the country to have speed cameras on it. I would also be happy for every street to have a CCTV camera on it - again, assuming that the cost of it doesn't reduce other public services.
I don't wee why people are so obsessed with not being watched unless they want to get away with something - you know like driving faster than the speed limit.
Of course, it is meant to be a derogatory term and came about because they are renown for not turning a blind eye to other officers breaking "their" laws. In fact, it's said they relish being able to nick a fellow officer.
Despite its origins, - black rats don't mind eating their own kind - Traf Pol now seem to revel in it. To the extent that there is "Official Black Rat" merchandise.
It is said that many Black Rats have one of their "official" stickers on their private cars and that this acts as some kind of magic anti-speeding ticket device. If that is true, it would only work if you actually got pulled and not caught by a camera. And the stickers are so widely available that their magical properties may well have diminished.
Anyway, fill your boots at: blackratmerchandise.co.uk/index.html
Some stuff is merely tacky. Some, frankly, downright offensive: like the little TPAC and Taser enamel badges and the mug with a rat wearing a Santa hat and the words "Bah Humbug" underneath. Then for an outright winner in the "beyond parody" category, there's the enamel badge with a black rat/masonic icon combo....
It is perhaps also sadly to be expected that all the little model police officers are, in the jargon, IC1 Male.
All that said, you are right. A traffic copper would actually have to pull someone over for driving like a prick, or maybe enforce the middle lane hogging law, or address actual dangerous driving.
Would loved to have challenged it as thought it was unfair but thought it's pointless and that in probably due one after 15 years without ever getting anything.
Offered the 2.5hr course at £67 so could have been worse but still grates.
Next day driving to Aldershot for work through 50's for ages with me sticking to it and every other bugger up my Arse and flying past me thinking I'm a prick.
It's hard to gestulate "I've just been caught by one of these, so am therefore driving like a granny" with hand sign only.
I know cars have developed and are safer than they were but the people who drive them are basically the same as they always have been.
If anyone wants to see the results of speed, google that road crash on the A20 back in April.