speed camera rant!

[Rob S]

The reason we have so many cameras is because of people with your attitudes. You are your own worst enemy.

 

No, the reason we have speed cameras is because the Government thought they could do traffic enforcement on the cheap by putting them up. They thought they could convince us that speeding was a major factor in accidents and that putting them up would cut accidents at a stroke. They then allowed police forces around the country to cut down on their traffic departments.

 

The cameras have not cut accidents anywhere near as much as the government had hoped they would and figures from the police show that in 93% of accidents excess speed is not the main cause.

 

As for my attitude, like many I am fed up with the needless ratcheting down of speed limits on roads for no good reason, swiftly followed by the installation of speed cameras. If there are sound reasons for reducing speed limits for safety reasons then good, I am all behind it. But in most cases there is little if any justification for the reduction, other than for political reasons.

 

Over the years I have completed a number of advanced driving courses to enable me to improve my driving skills and maintain them. Hardly the approach of someone with a "questionable" attitude to road safety is it. What courses have you completed since passing your test Al?

[Weird Al Yankovic]

 

Over the years I have completed a number of advanced driving courses to enable me to improve my driving skills and maintain them. Hardly the approach of someone with a "questionable" attitude to road safety is it. What courses have you completed since passing your test Al?

 

None.

 

However, the old adage that there is nothing like experience is more appropriate for driving than most anything else.

 

In the years 2003 to 2006 I drove for a living covering some 110,000 miles in each of those years. Which is about the equivalent of 12 times around the world in total but every mile within the UK with a speed camera seemingly at every turn.

 

Why have I been able to achieve a clean licence in all the time I have held a licence?

 

Is it just a coincidence that I also happen to be accident free and, thankfully, always have been?

 

And your attitude need not be just considered by what courses you have taken and passed. The most skilled driver can be banned from the road if he decides to speed.

 

And as an employer in the past I have looked at driver's history rather than what courses they have in the bag.

 

Which one is more likely the safer bet?

[Rob S]

None.

 

However, the old adage that there is nothing like experience is more appropriate for driving than most anything else.

 

Which is all well and good if you don't get into bad habits. The good thing about taking training beyond the test is that it identifies any bad habits that you may have picked up and gives you a chance to eradicate them.

 

In the years 2003 to 2006 I drove for a living covering some 110,000 miles in each of those years. Which is about the equivalent of 12 times around the world in total but every mile within the UK with a speed camera seemingly at every turn.

 

That's just over 300 miles a day if you drove for every day of the year. Or if you drove for 5 days a week for 52 weeks 420 miles. Take away 4 weeks of holiday per year and that becomes 456 miles per working day. As you adhere rigidly to the speed limit your working day must have been very long if you were covering that sort of mileage and loading and unloading throughout the day.

 

 

Why have I been able to achieve a clean licence in all the time I have held a licence?

 

Because you know where the cameras are and slow down for them?

 

Is it just a coincidence that I also happen to be accident free and, thankfully, always have been?

 

Not a single accident in your entire driving life?

 

And your attitude need not be just considered by what courses you have taken and passed. The most skilled driver can be banned from the road if he decides to speed.

 

It certainly shows a serious attitude to a persons driving if they are not content with just passing their test and they want to take further training to improve their skills.

 

And as an employer in the past I have looked at driver's history rather than what courses they have in the bag.

 

Which one is more likely the safer bet?

 

A combination of a good driving record with evidence of further training is the obvious answer here.

[Rob S]

Speeding is dangerous driving. I meant (though I'm sure you knew anyway but just felt like arguing for the sake of it) that there are other sorts of dangerous driving apart from speeding.

 

No, I didn't argue for the sake of it, but when you put forward your ridiculous viewpoint that speeding is dangerous and a serious criminal offence, then it had to be responded to.

 

 

It doesn't matter if exceeding the speed limit is not always dangerous. It is the law! I'm sure it applies to all of us that there are aspects of the law that we don't agree with. But this doesn't matter because we still have to obey it. If you're too childish to accept this basic concept then it serves you right when you get caught for doing it.

 

So we should meekly obey the law and do nothing about bad laws that get passed, just sit there and accept it? If the Government i ntroduce bad laws then we have every right to challenge them, just the same as we are doing with bank charges and other examples of unfair practices.

 

I'm not surprised to read that you ride motorcycles. A significant minority of motorcyclists seem to have this attitude that the speed limit doesn't apply to them.

 

A significant minority? A bit of an oxymoron don't you think:rolleyes:

 

 

I have so often been going at 60 in a 60 road and a motorcycle has overtaken me and within a few seconds he is completely gone. And motorcyclists who behave like this wonder why their accident rate is so high?!

 

They know why the accident rate is high as it is usually down to a collision with another vehicle at a junction where the driver of the vehicle has failed to see them. Something that is of far greater risk for motorcyclists.

 

 

Do you teach your pupils that they can completely ignore the speed limit? It seems like it given the number of motorcyclists who constantly go miles above the limit.

 

No, I teach them to drive safely and within the speed limits.

 

The fact that you are experienced makes it even more shameful and inexcusable that you believe it is OK to speed.

 

You should remember that to assume makes an ass of you and me:rolleyes: Which is what you have effectively done in saying that you think I believe it is ok to speed. All I have done in this thread is responded to some of the utter tripe that you have written about speeding and it being a serious criminal offfence and dangerous at all times.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by Tom87

I have so often been going at 60 in a 60 road and a motorcycle has overtaken me and within a few seconds he is completely gone. And motorcyclists who behave like this wonder why their accident rate is so high?!

 

The immediate question that arises in my mind is "How do you know that you are travelling at 60 mph"?

 

Please don't say that it is because that's what your speedometer says.

 

Your speedometer may not legally under read at any speed - thus manufacturers make them over read at all times. This allows for tyre wear, mechanical errors and different manufacturer's tyres being fitted.

 

My vehicle speedometer shows 80 mph when the satnav indicates 70 mph.

 

It is for this reason that Police vehicles are fitted with calibrated (daily check) speedometers and only they are allowed to enforce the limit by reference to a speedometer. Those who sit in lane 3 of a motorway with the attitude of "I'm doing 70 and you shouldn't be going any faster" are simply guilty of obstruction. Neither they, nor their vehicle, is adequately equipped to measure speed accurately enough for their hypothesis to be true.

[stewpots]

this is going to be controversial.... but i make no apologies for that . I am an experienced and and well qualified motorcycle instructor, i know the highway code very well and i spend at least 6 hours of every single day riding my motorcycle - on the roads of this fair country.

who amongst us thinks that speed limits, the use of speed cameras and traps etc is right? useful? promotes safety on the roads?

i have seen more erratic and dangerous behaviour in front of speed cameras/traps than anywhere else, why? because no matter how fast you are going, if you suddenly see one - you stamp on the brakes. this whole 'hounding motorists for money' thing is now bordering on extortion. for those interested, the actual offence is not '33 in a 30' its 'excessive speed' of course we've all forgotten that point, and so have the police. the policies of local police forces to always issue a FPN is not a legal requirement, there was a time when a police officer was allowed to judge for him/her self whether or not this was needed - now it is a matter of policy. enforcing speed limits achieves the sole purpose of removing responsibility for 'correct use of speed' from the driver, i wonder how many police have attended an accident involving a pedestrian and heard the famous 'i was only doing 30' line. because 30 is the pre judged speed for that road - the average driver no longer thinks, and people get hurt. the whole logic behind speed limits/cameras/traps just defies belief to me, it's like being fined/endorsed etc 'in case you crash' its all very scarey to me and i can't believe that as a nation we put up with it. all polite comments/criticisms appreciated

 

My friend got off 4 speeding fines/points by not putting up with it

 

They are usful books availble and he 'bent the law'

 

So many just pay up without a fight

[patdavies]

My friend got off 4 speeding fines/points by not putting up with it

 

They are usful books availble and he 'bent the law'

 

'Bending' the law is illegal and he deserves to be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice (with attendant jail time) if this is what he did.

 

However, ensuring that the prosecuting authorities follow the laws to the letter when attempting to enforce is acceptable - the law on speeding is absolute; but it cuts both ways.

 

So many just pay up without a fight

 

The system absolutely depends on this. It is a critical part of automated enforcement. If everybody elected for their day in court, the system would collapse under the weight of cases.

[stewpots]

'Bending' the law is illegal and he deserves to be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice (with attendant jail time) if this is what he did.

 

However, ensuring that the prosecuting authorities follow the laws to the letter when attempting to enforce is acceptable - the law on speeding is absolute; but it cuts both ways.

 

 

 

The system absolutely depends on this. It is a critical part of automated enforcement. If everybody elected for their day in court, the system would collapse under the weight of cases.

 

If the Police want to prosecute my friend going 37mph in a 30mph zone at 9pm at night rather then deal with muggers and house break ins (e.g in Slough) then they will get a re action

 

My friend will deal with them with the 'contempt' that such a 'prosecution' diserves and as you say as its a cash generating scheme most police forces give up after you send letter 4 asking for photos and why the Intend to Prosecute was sent 3 days outside the law etc etc

 

Try this one say you were not driving there can you send photo on

 

they write back saying can you send photo of car and we can check data base

 

Ignore it , if they send another say you dont have camera you have legal right to see photo

 

They then send it (but ignore it)

 

If they chase then say it doesnt look like your car colour (it usually isnt has pic quality id bad)

 

etc etc

 

Most go away

Edited May 20, 2008 by stewpots

[stewpots]

I agree Mr Joe.

 

All of us can recognise that 1 mph over the limit is probably rarely ever dangerous but some posters just refuse to accept that some speeding can be dangerous.

 

The safest way to not be charged with drink driving is to not drink at all when driving.

 

And the best way to not speed, which may then be dangerous, is to not drive above whatever the limit is wherever you happen to be.

 

If a driver is unable to do that then they shouldn't have a licence because they don't have the skill to actually drive.

 

It's so simple yet beyond some people which is why we have so many speed cameras.

 

 

whats your view of average speed cameras of 40mph by road works on Motor ways with no one working on them ?

 

Big difference having speed cameras outside schools bottom of hills and cash generating cameras that have no bearing on the road

[patdavies]

If the Police want to prosecute my friend going 37mph in a 30mph zone at 9pm at night rather then deal with muggers and house break ins (e.g in Slough) then they will get a re action

 

Speeding is an absolute offence.

 

My friend will deal with them with the 'contempt' that such a 'prosecution' diserves and as you say as its a cash generating scheme most police forces give up after you send letter 4 asking for photos and why the Intend to Prosecute was sent 3 days outside the law etc etc

 

It does not deserve any contempt at all. If the NIP was sent outside the lawful limit (14 days for the first NIP to the RK only), then any prosecution must fail.

 

You are not entitled to the photographs as evidence until you have entered a plea of 'not guilty' at Court, Some forces will send out a copy if asked for then 'to help identify the driver'.

 

Try this one say you were not driving there can you send photo on

 

If this is a lie, then don't try it. They are perfectly capable of making enough mistakes on their own without the need to lie to them.

 

you have legal right to see photo

 

As I explained above, you don't

 

 

 

Most go away

 

No they don''t; most in a case as you describe would be in Court for failing to provide.

 

The driver/RK in this case has been very, very lucky.

[patdavies]

whats your view of average speed cameras of 40mph by road works on Motor ways with no one working on them ?

 

The speed limits applied on a temporary basis to motorway roadworks are not simply to protect the workforce. They are there in the dead of night for two reasons.

 

1) the motorway is in an unsafe state (ie contraflow, incomplete crash barriers, setting concrete, no hard shoulder available, etc.)

 

2) It is simpler to have a blanket limit for the entire period of the works than to have to sign and unsign at the beginning and end of each day. Erecting and dismantling signs is one of the most dangerous jobs on a motorway, as during the work, the workers are exceeding close to the traffic and the signage becomes ambiguous and confusing.

 

If you speed through motorway roadworks - especially contraflow, then you are a total idiot (and I will set Tom and Weird Al onto to you).

 

Anyway, average speed cameras (SPECS) are easily defeated.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Which is all well and good if you don't get into bad habits. The good thing about taking training beyond the test is that it identifies any bad habits that you may have picked up and gives you a chance to eradicate them.

 

Yes, like speeding! Boom-boom!!

 

 

 

That's just over 300 miles a day if you drove for every day of the year. Or if you drove for 5 days a week for 52 weeks 420 miles. Take away 4 weeks of holiday per year and that becomes 456 miles per working day. As you adhere rigidly to the speed limit your working day must have been very long if you were covering that sort of mileage and loading and unloading throughout the day.

 

If you have ever worked for yourself then you may know that one doesn't work 5 days a week, 9 to 5.

 

And 4 weeks holiday a year??!! I wish! That means 4 weeks away from work with no pay plus whatever one spends whilst on those 4 weeks off!

 

I had one week in Spain in 4 years.

 

And there were/are no driver's rules for the self employed driving less than a 3.5 tonne regarding hours worked.

 

On a good day I could have driven from Cardiff to London and back in about 5 or so hours, that's half a day's work! See how 400, 500, 600 miles plus is easily achieved?

 

I told you-I obey the rules!

 

 

 

Because you know where the cameras are and slow down for them?

 

Yeah, right! I live in south Wales and I know where all the cameras are situated in the UK, as I drove UK wide, even the newly sited ones?

 

And I didn't use sat nav (alerts) either! Map reading is a dying skill.

 

The real reason? If I drive within the limits in south Wales and do the same in Ipswich, for example, I'll not break the law.

 

 

 

Not a single accident in your entire driving life?

 

No, not one at fault. How good is that?

 

 

It certainly shows a serious attitude to a persons driving if they are not content with just passing their test and they want to take further training to improve their skills.

 

What on earth will driving through a dark country lane with dipped beams, or whatever your course included, prove other than you are good at it?

 

If it was needed for the normal driver then it would surely be included in the learning process and test.

 

 

A combination of a good driving record with evidence of further training is the obvious answer here.

 

Agreed but you only have one of these attributes, and that's by taking your word for the further training.

 

Those most opposed to speed cameras, as you obviously are, have been personally affected by them as you have been zapped in the past.

 

Don't tell me I'm wrong because it is the case, admit it.

 

There could be one on every road for all I care as I don't fall into the trap of being so foolish when driving.

 

You too would have that opinion if you were confident with your own driving.

 

...

[Weird Al Yankovic]

The immediate question that arises in my mind is "How do you know that you are travelling at 60 mph"?

 

Please don't say that it is because that's what your speedometer says.

 

Your speedometer may not legally under read at any speed - thus manufacturers make them over read at all times. This allows for tyre wear, mechanical errors and different manufacturer's tyres being fitted.

 

My vehicle speedometer shows 80 mph when the satnav indicates 70 mph.

 

It is for this reason that Police vehicles are fitted with calibrated (daily check) speedometers and only they are allowed to enforce the limit by reference to a speedometer. Those who sit in lane 3 of a motorway with the attitude of "I'm doing 70 and you shouldn't be going any faster" are simply guilty of obstruction. Neither they, nor their vehicle, is adequately equipped to measure speed accurately enough for their hypothesis to be true.

 

Not quite true.

 

I have driven many vehicles with sat nav fitted and I have never seen more than a couple of miles difference between the sat nav and the vehicles speedo.

 

Therefore, there were two speed measurements and both readings would be within just a difference of 2 or 3 miles.

 

If one reads 70 and the other reads 68 then I would know I am driving within the limit. And sat navs are very accurate, they need to be.

 

To be accused of obstructing in these circumstances would be ridiculous.

 

To ignore these readings would risk speeding.

[Rob S]

 

Yes, like speeding! Boom-boom!!:grin:

 

No, such as poor positioning, lack of forward anticipation, poor hazard perception just off the top of my head

 

If you have ever worked for yourself then you may know that one doesn't work 5 days a week, 9 to 5.

 

And 4 weeks holiday a year??!!:grin: I wish! That means 4 weeks away from work with no pay plus whatever one spends whilst on those 4 weeks off!

 

I had one week in Spain in 4 years.

 

And there were/are no driver's rules for the self employed driving less than a 3.5 tonne regarding hours worked.

 

On a good day I could have driven from Cardiff to London and back in about 5 or so hours, that's half a day's work! See how 400, 500, 600 miles plus is easily achieved?

 

I told you-I obey the rules!

So Cardiff to London and back in 5 hours? That's an average speed for the entire journey of 60mph, not including the time it took you to load or unload your delivery, or any toilet/refreshment stops.

It would be interesting to see what type of vehicle you used for your work.

 

 

Yeah, right! I live in south Wales and I know where all the cameras are situated in the UK, as I drove UK wide, even the newly sited ones?

 

And I didn't use sat nav (alerts) either! Map reading is a dying skill.

 

The real reason? If I drive within the limits in south Wales and do the same in Ipswich, for example, I'll not break the law.

I doubt your claim that you never broke the speed limit, especially when you go back to post 5 where you said this:-

"Not once was I ever summonsed for speeding (or had an accident).

 

(Which is not necessarily the same as never speeding but it does leave me free to say, if I wish, that I never did speed as no one can have evidence I did)"

Now, if you never broke the rules, as you have said often enough in this thread, you could have said "I never broke the speed limit". I suspect in your attempt to maintain the moral high ground that you have been economical with the truth with regards to your earlier claims.

 

 

 

But earlier on you were saying you never had an accident. So you have moved the goalposts again.

 

 

What on earth will driving through a dark country lane with dipped beams, or whatever your course included, prove other than you are good at it?

 

If it was needed for the normal driver then it would surely be included in the learning process and test.

 

Your comment above shows your ignorance of what is taught on further driving courses.

 

 

Agreed but you only have one of these attributes, and that's by taking your word for the further training.

 

I have the certificates from the relevent organisations to show I have completed the courses.

 

 

Those most opposed to speed cameras, as you obviously are, have been personally affected by them as you have been zapped in the past.

 

Don't tell me I'm wrong because it is the case, admit it.

 

Yes, you are wrong, I have not been zapped by one.

 

 

There could be one on every road for all I care as I don't fall into the trap of being so foolish when driving.

 

You too would have that opinion if you were confident with your own driving.

 

 

I am confident in my driving abilities but not to the extent of being complacent and arrogant about them. Which is how you come across.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

No, such as poor positioning, lack of forward anticipation, poor hazard perception just off the top of my head

 

And speeding.

 

 

 

So Cardiff to London and back in 5 hours? That's an average speed for the entire journey of 60mph, not including the time it took you to load or unload your delivery, or any toilet/refreshment stops.

 

It would be interesting to see what type of vehicle you used for your work.

 

Vauxhall Combo's for the best part.

 

And I did state '5 or so hours'...and 'on a good day'...but you choose to cut and paste to suit.

 

Nonetheless, a return journey of approx 310 miles, 'on a good day' (traffic flow good), making just one delivery of an envelope to west London is quite achievable in '5 or so hours' legally.

 

A couple of minutes to take a leak, hardly worth mentioning.

 

 

 

 

I doubt your claim that you never broke the speed limit, especially when you go back to post 5 where you said this:-

 

 

"Not once was I ever summonsed for speeding (or had an accident).

 

(Which is not necessarily the same as never speeding but it does leave me free to say, if I wish, that I never did speed as no one can have evidence I did)"

 

Now, if you never broke the rules, as you have said often enough in this thread, you could have said "I never broke the speed limit". I suspect in your attempt to maintain the moral high ground that you have been economical with the truth with regards to your earlier claims.

But I put in brackets exactly that point, I highlighted it myself, so as not to deceive. I was being honest.

Now I could have taken the moral high ground and stated 'I have never broken the speed limit' but I didn't.

I don't drive with my vision constantly on the speedo, it would be dangerous.

However, I have never received any points so no evidence exists that I have ever broken the speed limit.

Now check back and show me where I have said I have never broken the rules?

I have said I observe speed limits and have never been summonsed for speeding. Take it how you want but it is a fact.

 

 

 

 

But earlier on you were saying you never had an accident. So you have moved the goalposts again.

I have never had an accident. My full no claims bonus proves that.

Somebody years ago ran into the rear of my car. So what?

The important thing for me, and anybody with a blemish free accident driving history, is to not be at fault, which I wasn't.

Though that is too obvious for you to understand.

 

 

 

Your comment above shows your ignorance of what is taught on further driving courses.

Completely uninterested in this type of thing. I can already drive to the acceptable standard as I have a licence and my driving history further enhances my skills.

 

 

 

I have the certificates from the relevent organisations to show I have completed the courses.

 

Bully for you!

 

 

 

Yes, you are wrong, I have not been zapped by one.

 

Sorry, but I think you have. You resent speed cameras, I'm not bothered by them.

 

Why? Why should something that has never caused you any burden whatsoever so trouble you?

 

It makes no sense.

 

 

 

I am confident in my driving abilities but not to the extent of being complacent and arrogant about them. Which is how you come across.

 

I'm just stating fact.

 

I have no particular driving skill other than passing my test 20 years ago at the third attempt and I have done some driving for a living.

 

You, on the other hand, regard yourself as a 'professional' driver (whatever that means), an advanced motorist, you are so good you feel you can teach others whilst at the same time being unable to understand the concept of speed.

 

I know how you come across to me but I'll refrain from saying so.

 

...

[Rob S]

No, such as poor positioning, lack of forward anticipation, poor hazard perception just off the top of my head

 

And speeding.

No, they talk about correct use of speed. But as you have never done such a course you are at a bit of a disadvantage with regards to the course content.

 

Vauxhall Combo's for the best part.

 

And I did state '5 or so hours'...and 'on a good day'...but you choose to cut and paste to suit.

 

Nonetheless, a return journey of approx 310 miles, 'on a good day' (traffic flow good), making just one delivery of an envelope to west London is quite achievable in '5 or so hours' legally.

 

A couple of minutes to take a leak, hardly worth mentioning.

An average speed of 62mph for a 5 hour journey. Without exceeding 70mph and sticking to the speed limits once you got into London. I'll let other member make up their own minds on that one

 

 

 

 

I doubt your claim that you never broke the speed limit, especially when you go back to post 5 where you said this:-

 

 

"Not once was I ever summonsed for speeding (or had an accident).

 

(Which is not necessarily the same as never speeding but it does leave me free to say, if I wish, that I never did speed as no one can have evidence I did)"

 

Now, if you never broke the rules, as you have said often enough in this thread, you could have said "I never broke the speed limit". I suspect in your attempt to maintain the moral high ground that you have been economical with the truth with regards to your earlier claims.

 

But I put in brackets exactly that point, I highlighted it myself, so as not to deceive. I was being honest.

 

Now I could have taken the moral high ground and stated 'I have never broken the speed limit' but I didn't.

 

I don't drive with my vision constantly on the speedo, it would be dangerous.

 

However, I have never received any points so no evidence exists that I have ever broken the speed limit.

You mean you have never been caught. And now you have set out your stall you are unlikely to admit that you don't speed. But having seen your claims I suspect people will make up their own mind as to the voracity of your claims. And the one thing that people will have difficulty in accepting? A courier driving a van sticking to the speed limits. That is as likely as a politician telling the truth:D

I have said I observe speed limits and have never been summonsed for speeding. Take it how you want but it is a fact.

I can take it as a fact that you have never been summonsed. I can also believe you when you say you observe the speed limit, but having observed the limit, what speed do you then drive at? Because I am having difficulty in accepting that you rigidly stick to all speed limits, given that you no doubt had deadlines to meet like all couriers do.

 

But earlier on you were saying you never had an accident. So you have moved the goalposts again.

 

I have never had an accident. My full no claims bonus proves that.

 

Somebody years ago ran into the rear of my car. So what?

So that means you have had an accident. I guess that is too obvious for you to understand.

Yes, you are wrong, I have not been zapped by one.

 

Sorry, but I think you have. You resent speed cameras, I'm not bothered by them.

 

Why? Why should something that has never caused you any burden whatsoever so trouble you?

 

It makes no sense.

You can think what you like Al but the fact remains I have not been zapped by a speed camera. As for your comment about something that has never caused me a burden, I'm sure there are many people out there who campaign for fairness and justice in areas that have never caused them a personal burden, but they still go out and do it. Are you saying that people should only campaign against laws, policies, guidance from Government departments etc if it has only directly affected them?

 

I have no particular driving skill other than passing my test 20 years ago at the third attempt and I have done some driving for a living.

 

You, on the other hand, regard yourself as a 'professional' driver (whatever that means), an advanced motorist, you are so good you feel you can teach others whilst at the same time being unable to understand the concept of speed.

 

I fully understand the concept of speed and its correct use Al, which is something I suspect you have difficulty in grasping. As for regarding myself as a professional driver, can you show me where I said that please? And it's not a case of I can teach others because I feel so good about it, it's something that I got involved in a long long time ago on a voluntary basis in my spare time and for no payment, apart from expenses. I was taught to ride by a bunch of guys who did it in their spare time and I was so impressed by them that it motivated me to want to do the same. That was almost 30 years ago and I am still working a couple of Saturdays a month teaching learners how to ride a motorcycle.

It's something I still enjoy, seeing someone who at 9am in the morning had never sat on a bike before and then seeing them a few hours later with a big grin on their face and really enjoying the experience. But I suspect that is something you would not understand.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

[/i]

 

No, they talk about correct use of speed. But as you have never done such a course you are at a bit of a disadvantage with regards to the course content.

I accept that observation.

 

And it is good that the correct use of speed is debated.

 

 

An average speed of 62mph for a 5 hour journey. Without exceeding 70mph and sticking to the speed limits once you got into London. I'll let other member make up their own minds on that one

 

5 or so hours!!! It is a journey of some 150 miles. If one has good traffic along the way, and I did mention west London which means that coming from the west anyway is not that bad a journey!, is not that bad a chore.

 

 

 

 

I doubt your claim that you never broke the speed limit, especially when you go back to post 5 where you said this:-

 

 

"Not once was I ever summonsed for speeding (or had an accident).

 

(Which is not necessarily the same as never speeding but it does leave me free to say, if I wish, that I never did speed as no one can have evidence I did)"

 

Now, if you never broke the rules, as you have said often enough in this thread, you could have said "I never broke the speed limit". I suspect in your attempt to maintain the moral high ground that you have been economical with the truth with regards to your earlier claims.

 

 

 

You mean you have never been caught. And now you have set out your stall you are unlikely to admit that you don't speed. But having seen your claims I suspect people will make up their own mind as to the voracity of your claims. And the one thing that people will have difficulty in accepting? A courier driving a van sticking to the speed limits. That is as likely as a politician telling the truth:D

Or of you ever giving a straight answer!!

No, I don't speed. Do I have/ever had speed fines? No!

Have I ever had the intention to speed? No.

Have I ever broken the speed limit? Yes, most probably.

Did/do I know it is wrong and can be dangerous? Yes.

Are there times when speeding is essential, as in avoiding an accident? Yes there are.

But you can't see any of these.

 

 

 

I can take it as a fact that you have never been summonsed. I can also believe you when you say you observe the speed limit, but having observed the limit, what speed do you then drive at? Because I am having difficulty in accepting that you rigidly stick to all speed limits, given that you no doubt had deadlines to meet like all couriers do.

Self employed!! If a customer wanted me to go to Nottingham from Cardiff then I'd tell them it would take around 3 hours. If that was no good then they could go elsewhere!

Why would I put pressure on myself being self employed? I was the boss!!

 

 

But earlier on you were saying you never had an accident. So you have moved the goalposts again.

 

 

 

So that means you have had an accident. I guess that is too obvious for you to understand.

That would imply I have caused an accident.

My insurers ask me 'Have I ever been at fault in an accident?'

No, I haven't! I can't help some burk smashing into my rear!

Why would I mention some idiot clipping me 15 years ago, to you or anyone, in my claim I have a blemish free accident record?

Do I also mention the fact I had to replace a car door years ago because somebody hit and run?

I didn't claim as the car was a banger and, in any case, it was not my fault.

You and I, and anyone else, will know that when somebody states they are accident free they refer to their driving record on causing accidents.

You are nit picking and looking silly.

 

Yes, you are wrong, I have not been zapped by one.

 

 

 

You can think what you like Al but the fact remains I have not been zapped by a speed camera. As for your comment about something that has never caused me a burden, I'm sure there are many people out there who campaign for fairness and justice in areas that have never caused them a personal burden, but they still go out and do it. Are you saying that people should only campaign against laws, policies, guidance from Government departments etc if it has only directly affected them?

I just find it odd.

Who, for example, really complains about the unfairness of Inheritance Tax if it hasn't, or is ever likely, to affect them?

Why are speed cameras such an issue for you?

 

 

 

 

I fully understand the concept of speed and its correct use Al, which is something I suspect you have difficulty in grasping. As for regarding myself as a professional driver, can you show me where I said that please? And it's not a case of I can teach others because I feel so good about it, it's something that I got involved in a long long time ago on a voluntary basis in my spare time and for no payment, apart from expenses. I was taught to ride by a bunch of guys who did it in their spare time and I was so impressed by them that it motivated me to want to do the same. That was almost 30 years ago and I am still working a couple of Saturdays a month teaching learners how to ride a motorcycle.

 

It's something I still enjoy, seeing someone who at 9am in the morning had never sat on a bike before and then seeing them a few hours later with a big grin on their face and really enjoying the experience. But I suspect that is something you would not understand.

Good for you, it's admirable.

 

 

...

[toadsRmylife]

anyone that thinks that either experience or training alone is enough on todays roads is out of their mind, one requires as much as possible of both these things. Training needs to be updated regularly, because road systems and users change (just look at the traffic situation over even the last 10 years)

Weird al - looking at someones driving history cannot predict their driving future. in expressing a preference for experience over valid recent training you have eluded to what is certainly a bigger cause of accidents than speed "i've been doing this for 20 years, i know what i'm doing"

the reason i protest so strongly against speed cameras is not because i've ever been nicked, as i have repeatedly stated:

1) they are there to make money out of otherwise law abiding citizens who are just going about their daily business and not hurting anyone.

2) they do not contribute at all to road safety.

3) the are an invasion of my privacy and civil liberties

4) they are the expression of a general attitude of 'get the motorists, they are easy targets' by the establishment.

[credit allergy]

Weird AL The highway code says break of 20 minutes during 2 hours of driving is recommended. Also di you comply with sec 98 transport act 1968. Which simply put says that if you are driving a goods vehicle not subject to EU rules for tachos etc then there are daily limits. A combo is designed to carry goods and therefore comes under the transport act 1968.

[credit allergy]

Sorry Al last post should read section 96 transport act 1968. Section 98 relates to keeping records which a combo is exempt from as it does not require an operators licence. Hours involved are no more than 10 hours driving and no more than 11 hours duty time. There is no legal requirement for breaks daily or otherwise. You learn something new everyday!

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Sorry Al last post should read section 96 transport act 1968. Section 98 relates to keeping records which a combo is exempt from as it does not require an operators licence. Hours involved are no more than 10 hours driving and no more than 11 hours duty time. There is no legal requirement for breaks daily or otherwise. You learn something new everyday!

 

Self employed!!!

 

You are talking about an employed driver! Which is why a lot of the big firms sub-contract rather than employ drivers.

 

There was/is no limit to driving hours for the self employed in what were my circumstances. As you rightly state, no records are required to be kept so how would enforcement happen?

 

Every UK driver needs to use common sense and take 'adequate rest.' Which is what I did.

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Weird al - looking at someones driving history cannot predict their driving future. in expressing a preference for experience over valid recent training you have eluded to what is certainly a bigger cause of accidents than speed "i've been doing this for 20 years, i know what i'm doing"

Not quite what I said.

I learnt to drive and part of that process was to obey speed limits. This is what I do and I have never had a speeding ticket.

If people did the same then they too wouldn't get fined either.

Looking at someone's driving history is an obvious pointer to their future conduct, that is quite obvious. One cannot predict but one can put their faith more in a driver with an excellent driving record rather than one who has not.

 

the reason i protest so strongly against speed cameras is not because i've ever been nicked, as i have repeatedly stated:

 

1) they are there to make money out of otherwise law abiding citizens who are just going about their daily business and not hurting anyone.

But how is somebody who breaks the speed limit 'law abiding?'

How do you know every person zapped hasn't hurt anyone in the process?

2) they do not contribute at all to road safety.

The one put up near me has.

There were 3 fatalities in the space of a year and in the five years since a speed camera there has not been a single accident.

Kinda destroys that myth, huh?

3) the are an invasion of my privacy and civil liberties

What? Why is speeding a part of your privacy? Why should you be allowed to speed on a public road because it is your private thrill??

And what civil liberty is broken because you may break the law?

 

4) they are the expression of a general attitude of 'get the motorists, they are easy targets' by the establishment.

 

Yes, you missed a vital word out, 'get the speeding motorists, they are easy targets.'

Of course they are easy targets because they are quite stupid.

 

...

[patdavies]

On a good day I could have driven from Cardiff to London and back in about 5 or so hours, that's half a day's work! See how 400, 500, 600 miles plus is easily achieved?

5 or so hours!!! It is a journey of some 150 miles. If one has good traffic along the way, and I did mention west London which means that coming from the west anyway is not that bad a journey!, is not that bad a chore.

Which is it? 150 miles for one-way, or as you originally claimed for the return journey - some 300 miles.

 

What is that sound I hear, is it the sound of someone desperately back-pedalling?

 

Self employed!! If a customer wanted me to go to Nottingham from Cardiff then I'd tell them it would take around 3 hours. If that was no good then they could go elsewhere!

Even if you start in Nottingham adjacent to the MI and finish in Cardiff at the end of the A48(M) that is still 163 miles and goes through one of the worst motorway congestion blackspots (M42). I, whom you rate as a dangerous speed freak, would not attempt to do that journey in 3 hours. Edited May 21, 2008 by patdavies

[Weird Al Yankovic]

Which is it? 150 miles for one-way, or as you originally claimed for the return journey - some 300 miles.

 

What is that sound I hear, is it the sound of someone desperately back-pedalling?

 

What?

 

If you had read the previous posts I have already explained how that journey, either viewed one way by some 150 miles, or by return, by some 300 miles, is achieved in some 5 or so hours!

And that journey concerned Cardiff to London!

 

Even if you start in Nottingham adjacent to the MI and finish in Cardiff at the end of the A48(M) that is still 163 miles and goes through one of the worst motorway congestion blackspots (M42). I, whom you rate as a dangerous speed freak, would not attempt to do that journey in 3 hours.

 

Huh? Looks like you confused yourself!

Why not cut and paste what I actually said?

 

Self employed!! If a customer wanted me to go to Nottingham from Cardiff then I'd tell them it would take around 3 hours. If that was no good then they could go elsewhere!

 

Around 3 hours.. So, are you saying I could not drive from Cardiff to Nottingham in 'around 3 hours?' 163 miles and legally?

At 3am to 6am? 10am to 1pm? Where congestion is less or non-existant?

A Saturday? A Monday? A Friday?

One can estimate a journey and that same journey to Nottingham on a Friday afternoon would obviously take longer.

I have been on plenty of journeys where I have not had one minute of hold up during the entire journey, albeit not too often.

Why would a 163 mile journey not be achieved in (around) 3 hours when the traffic is good or excellent?

See, jumping in to try and discredit me. You are unbelievable.

 

 

...

[pin1onu]

2) they do not contribute at all to road safety.

The one put up near me has.

There were 3 fatalities in the space of a year and in the five years since a speed camera there has not been a single accident.

Kinda destroys that myth, huh?

...

Strong though anecdotal evidence may be it doesn't actually prove it. There is a statistical term called regression to the mean. (if you want to see this demonstrated in relation to speed cameras have a look as safespeed.org.uk). If the average fatalities was 0 then 3 fatalities in one year is what would in statistical terms be called a blip. A statistician would argue that the normal trend is re-asserting itself after the blip. If the average before that year was 0 then it is the figure merely regressing towards the mean anyway. The camera has had no effect.

 

Also what about non-fatal accidents in the area. Remember the siting of the speed camera can be anywhere within 3Km of a serious accident.