Doing 60 in a temp 50 on M4

[patdavies]

but my whole point has been that if discretion were used which it never is, they could easily forego the points and just fine me.

 

I was under the impression that I had already made it clear earlier in the thread that this scenario is simply not possible under the current legislation. Penalty point are mandatory. There is no discretion in this - that's why it's called a fixed penalty.

 

The only discretion is to prosecute or not. Since you admit the offence, why should discretion be used not to prosecute? You were traveling at 20% above the prevailing limit (and your speedo would have been reading higher still)

Edited July 6, 2009 by patdavies
Correcting spelling mistakes. LOL

[patdavies]

Now Pat you know this is no place for having fun or enjoyment of any description. Any more of this will result severe repercussions.

 

\hangs head in shame\

[jed52]

Freakyleaky; I apologise if my comments have been taken as personal insults, I was only replying to what I thought was a sarcastic remark to me.

 

Danny; On reflection, I shouldn't have used my 'tossers' remark, I take it back.

I dont want to make personal attacks on anyone, but you were the one who made the sarcastic remark.

I dont patronize people and I'm sorry you feel that way, and it's never my intention to put people down.

I dont think that you doing 60 in a 50 limit at 2am is driving irresponsibly, if you were doing 100, then yes, thats irresponsible, even dangerous.

The point is that discretion will never be used in a case like this, you are either speeding, or you're not speeding, simple. The police will prosecute a speeding motorist, they will not say 'just a minute, lets see if there was a reason for him/her to be going that fast, we might just let them off with a warning'. It's not going to happen, is it?

 

And i've never been on a high horse, only a little one.

[freakyleaky]

 

And i've never been on a high horse, only a little one.

High Horses can be dangerous. Especially at high speed. You are well advised to stick to the smaller ones where possible.

[Fair-Parking]

40 mph? Isn't that the sign that comes up after you have come to a halt in a long queue on the motorway? Usually for an 'incident', whatever that may be.

 

And we taxpayers have paid millions for these less than useless signs.

[postggj]

you mean the ones that they never bother to turn off

[jed52]

High Horses can be dangerous. Especially at high speed. You are well advised to stick to the smaller ones where possible.

 

:lol: I think I will freakyleaky, and I definitely won't go on a motorway with one.:lol:

[Fair-Parking]

Precisely. Those who plan and operate motorway signs too often lose sight of reality. Signs are supposed to be informative, but far too many do not add anything to our safety. I take the view that signs restricting drivers to 50 mph on an empty motorway at 2am when nobody is working are themselves in contempt of reality. It is clear that these signs are meant to restrict speed and to protect workforces during busy times (the purpose).

 

But then what do I know having driven 43 yrs without accident or conviction, even accounting for the many, many times I have momentarily lost concentration? Indeed my life is so sheltered that I've never met anybody who hasn't suffered loss of concentration whilst driving.

 

I'm also old enough to remember when the police accepted that traffic will always find it's own acceptable speed regardless of signs. Perhaps the brains of the authorities are much more highly tuned now in trying to reverse the logic of the ordinary motorway patrol copper.

 

Far too often authorities take the view that only those with 'training' know anything and that the rest of us need to coralled, controlled and dictated to as if we do not have any common sense at all.

 

For the record, when I am in control of one and half tons of lethal metal, I'LL be the one to make decisions about what is safe for it and what is not and not some faceless operative in a distant control centre.

[freakyleaky]

 

For the record, when I am in control of one and half tons of lethal metal, I'LL be the one to make decisions about what is safe for it and what is not.

Lets hope your decision is the right one then.

[Fair-Parking]

Indeed, for after 43 years I cannot guarantee that.

 

Can you think of a better option?

[freakyleaky]

I can think of plenty of options that I think would be the best way.

No doubt others would disagree though so I'm saying nowt!!

 

I will say that if everyone decided to make their own decisions on how fast to drive and where I do believe there would be chaos on the roads. Some people do need guidance. Unfortunately the wrong people seem to be doing the guiding these days. Maybe the faceless operatives in the distant control centers should all have at least 43 years driving experience.

[Fair-Parking]

So if we don't think that the driver should be responsible for his actions at all times, I presume that we should find somebody else to prosecute for mistakes and errors of judgement.

[freakyleaky]

I have never said the driver should not be responsible for his own actions.

If you make a mistake or error of judgment then it's nobody's fault but your own.

[Fair-Parking]

Let's not lose sight of what the OP and his critics said, which is basically questioning whether 60 mph in a temporary 50 speed limit on an empty motorway at 2 in the morning is lacking common sense.

 

If it was perfectly safe, then why are we persecuting the OP? And couldn't those who imposed this fantasy limit (Why 50? Did they complete a full risk assessment? What criteria was used to decide that 50 at 2 in the morning was the maximum acheivable under safety considersations?) in these circumstances have done better by exercising a more common sense?

 

Why do we knock down caggers when we should be questioning the thought process of those who would control us?

[freakyleaky]

If the speed limit is 50 then you should do 50 not 60.

Whoever imposed this limit had their reasons I'm sure. However I don't imagine that they would have thought about varying the speed limit in that area depending on the time, the day, the weather conditions etc etc. I imagine the limit was set as the safest overall limit for the area regardless of the time.

 

Are you suggesting that a limit should be set but that limit should only be enforceable under certain circumstances? Now that would open up a can of worms wouldn't it?

1 person is let off because there were no other cars within a mile of him but another was issued a fine and points because there was a car within 3/4 of mile of him? Where would the line be drawn? How flexible could these mitigating factors be?

 

Who can tell if it is "perfectly safe" at any time on a road anywhere anyway?

 

By all means question the rules and regs but we have to adhere to the ones in place until they are changed, surely!

[crem]

Having had to make a long journey again yesterday (a quite Sunday evening) involving a number of motorways with roadwork cones out, I can safely say the most dangerous part of that trip were the sections when vehicles were trying to slow down to and maintain something like the 50mph restriction which was completely unnecessary for those circumstances. However, as the number of 50mph signs they put out is only exceeded by the number of camera warning signs displayed, then many were trying to brake sharply with others not reducing by much at all. I suspect the half that weren't slowing to 50 knew the camera signs didn't actually mean there was any cameras there!

[patdavies]

. However, as the number of 50mph signs they put out is only exceeded by the number of camera warning signs displayed, then many were trying to brake sharply with others not reducing by much at all. I suspect the half that weren't slowing to 50 knew the camera signs didn't actually mean there was any cameras there!

 

The ones that amuse me are those who break sharply for the SPECS cameras (the high ones on yellow gantries) - bit late if you've got to the camera!

[patdavies]

If the speed limit is 50 then you should do 50 not 60.

Whoever imposed this limit had their reasons I'm sure. However I don't imagine that they would have thought about varying the speed limit in that area depending on the time, the day, the weather conditions etc etc. I imagine the limit was set as the safest overall limit for the area regardless of the time.

 

Are you suggesting that a limit should be set but that limit should only be enforceable under certain circumstances? Now that would open up a can of worms wouldn't it?

1 person is let off because there were no other cars within a mile of him but another was issued a fine and points because there was a car within 3/4 of mile of him? Where would the line be drawn? How flexible could these mitigating factors be?

 

Who can tell if it is "perfectly safe" at any time on a road anywhere anyway?

 

By all means question the rules and regs but we have to adhere to the ones in place until they are changed, surely!

 

See post #42 as to why speed limits are not variable. And why they are set as they are.

 

40 mph in a contraflow is a closing speed of 80 mph - highly dangerous. What makes motorways safe is the fact that most collisions occur with speed differentials of less than 20 mph (except those on the most dangerous part of any motorway - the hard shoulder - where the speed differential is 70 mph)

[Startkey&Clutch]

I dont think that you doing 60 in a 50 limit at 2am is driving irresponsibly, if you were doing 100, then yes, thats irresponsible, even dangerous.

 

But at what point does someones speed become irresponsible?

60 in a 50 is 20% over, so is it 30%, 40% or 50% even?

Im not commenting on your case in particular, just wondering

[jed52]

I would suggest, S & C, that when the OP was doing 60 at that time of the morning with no other vehicles around, then no, its not irresponsible, but change the circumstances,ie, poor weather, rush hour traffic etc, then that could be deemed as irresponsible. It obviously depends on the prevailing conditions at the time, surely. But the authorities are not interested in that, you are either speeding or you're not.

[jed52]

Danny.

I've just been reading some of your previous threads!!!

The message I want to get across is; please dont slag me off for having higher moral standards than you. It seems that if you dont get the answers you want to hear, you will give the posters a hard time. It wont work with me.

If you want to carry on with this discussion, pm me. I'm not prepared to lose my membership on here arguing with you.

Edited July 6, 2009 by jed52

[crem]

£50 parking fine (possibly £100) and a speeding fine and points, all within about a month! Tut, tut, tut.

 

So does receiving a parking ticket and speeding fine (both completely unrelated to each other) within a specific period of time now put danny54 on Britain's most wanted list? I can't see it myself.

[jed52]

Probably not crem. I'm just trying to make a point. I edited that statement anyway. jed

[wheelergeezer]

I think this thread has run its course.

 

Bottom line is I think most people believe that a 50mph speed restriction on that motorway at 2am that particular day was not warranted, but we were not there and don't know what roadworks may have been going on the day before or after and thus why the restrictions were left in place.

 

I also think most people agree that the penalty would seem a little unfair, but justified and alas you'll have to take this one on the chin. We all know there are nutters out there doing mental speeds that SEEM to get away with it, but they all get caught in the end.

 

No moral judgements from me. Unlucky, but t'was your fault at the end of the day. I know I know, but it was just one of those silly ones to be perfectly honest.

 

good luck

[jed52]

I think this thread has run its course.

 

I think you're right WG, we should call it a day.

jed.