Doing 60 in a temp 50 on M4

[Startkey&Clutch]

The point is, if you get caught speeding, tough, dont speed.

Good post TD27.

jed

 

 

I agree.

The way I see it is that even if it is about raising revenue, then you make voluntary contributions, so simply choose not to contribute.

[borisbeaver]

At 2am in the morning, I'd be looking out for the drunk pedestrian or the drunk driver on the wrong side of the road.

[jed52]

So, in other words, bb, you would be sticking to the speed limit and driving carefully. Normal driving then!

jed

[cal37]

Points on your licence have lost allot of relevance. My family have fun trucks for many years and I too have driven HGV`s for 23 years (with only one conviction but that’s more luck I guess). Not too long ago we wouldn`t touch a driver with more than 3 points and even if they only had 3 points they would have to be a very good driver for us to take them on.

 

 

These days we take on drivers with a max of 9 points and it’s not only us, just look in the job centres, the papers, most if not all say a max of 9 points. The things is, not long back, to get more than 3 points, you had to be a pretty bad driver, now its bloody hard not to get some points if you cover the sort of miles an HGV driver does.

 

There are a few single carriageway roads( A303, A9 to name two ) throughout the UK that the police used to want HGVs to drive at 50mph which is over the limit( 40 mph ) as it helped with traffic flow and stopped car users getting frustrated and trying to overtake when its dangerous. Now with the cameras in place, HGVs stick to 40 mph and there are problems, anyone who has used the A9 knows this.

 

Cameras have their place in really dangerous stretches of roads but the powers to be just use them to make money, so they now popup everywhere, a bit like daffodils on the sides of roads. It’s time we got back to good old policing, a time where a police car would pull alongside me, doing 60 on a dual carriageway (Limit 50 ) and sign me to slow down.

 

 

We now spend far too much time, looking down at our speedos, making sure we are not above the speed limit, instead of looking at the road and that is far far more dangerous than someone slipping slightly above the speed limit.

Edited July 9, 2009 by cal37
My spelling

[jed52]

Cal37, I have used the A9 hundreds of times over the years and it can be frustrating for other motorists to get stuck behind a HGV doing 40, and yes I have been guilty of doing 50 on there, purely to keep the traffic flowing freely, but I use the laybys to pull over and let queues clear. There are not too many cameras on the stretch between Perth and Inverness, and those that are there dont have weight sensors, so they will be set at 60 (as far as I know, I haven't been up there for a good few months now.)

 

By the way, have you got any jobs going? I need one desperately.

jed

[Conniff]

It’s time we got back to good old policing, a time where a police car would pull alongside me, doing 60 on a dual carriageway (Limit 50 ) and sign me to slow down.

 

I don't think anyones budget would allow for that many patrol cars.

[cal37]

Jed indeed there are only 2 cameras the last time i was up there but they also use mobile cameras too.I too have used the laybys to let others past, but as you will know,we wouldn`t get our runs done in our times if we pulled over at ever layby, so, you will always get people trying to overtake when its not safe to do. My point is that cameras do not always help and can at times make problems.

 

Conniff, i`m not saying thats the way to do it but in times past we all respected the police and if one gave you a telling off, you took note of it.Now we all hate the cameras and have lost allot of respect for the powers to be over them.( and all the other ways the powers to be dream up and parting us with our cash )

 

These days its all about targets,paperwork etc and they have no time to police like we'd all like them to do.As TD27 said, we need more police on the roads, not more cameras.

Edited July 9, 2009 by cal37

[Tom87]

I've just come across this thread and it's been a very interesting read. Here's my pinch of salt.

 

I do understand the OP's frustration, given the circumstances, however at the end of the day he has no-one else to blame and he should take the punishment and continue his life. Fair play to him, he did admit it was his responsibility, he made a mistake and hopefully as it's happened now, it should save him money in the future.

 

Yes, there are plenty of speed limits all over the place that are pointlessly slow for the road, also there are those that are dangerously fast - I'm thinking of the A5 through Snowdonia, a very bendy mountain road with hairpin bends and drops of hundreds of metres by the side of the road, but this road has a 60mph limit except through villages, even though in places you can only safely go 25-30 max. But this is all opinion and just because I think it's too fast/slow, doesn't mean it is, I'm not a perfect driver.

 

Yes, it is infuriating that the majority of roadworks you come across are completely unattended by any workers and are sometimes just a line of cones in the road blocking a lane but nothing whatsoever is going on behind the cones. To top it off they have temporary limits to protect their invisible workers.

 

But - and a big but - our opinion of speed limits doesn't matter: they are there and it is our legal requirement to obey them, and if we don't, we can be punished. Everyone knows that and thus there is no excuse for speeding.

 

What miffs me if people who try to wriggle out of a speeding charge with groundless claims that the technology was faulty and other such desperate excuses. Also those who get caught and act as victims. That is intolerable and I have no sympathy for those people.

 

I do have understanding for those who have made a genuine mistake and accept their punishment and move on with their lives. As someone else said, anyone who says they never speeds is a liar. I always stick to the speed limits on principle but sometimes I have caught myself going a bit over due to looking at the road rather than the speedometer, and when I notice this I slow down.

 

Speed cameras: yes, dangers are caused by drivers suddenly braking at the last minute, but it is the drivers who are to blame for this, not the cameras. If the drivers had been obeying the speed limit in the first place they would not need to brake. Also I'm not sure if the revenue argument washes - those who habitually speed know if they didn't speed, no revenue would be made, but the same people continue to speed and voluntarily fund these cameras they claim to disdain so much. They are paying their worst enemies to stay put.

 

Here's my thought on some temporary speed limits: sometimes I feel I am the only person on the whole motorway who is going at the 50 limit while everyone sticks to 70. Thus it is actually me who is the danger.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Tom87

[electron99]

 

Yes, it is infuriating that the majority of roadworks you come across are completely unattended by any workers and are sometimes just a line of cones in the road blocking a lane but nothing whatsoever is going on behind the cones. To top it off they have temporary limits to protect their invisible workers.

 

Where roadwork signs and speed restiction are left in place when the workman have gone it is to protect the newly laid surface.

 

A lot of damage can be done by an cars driving over fresh tarmac.While the surface is hardening, temporary speed limit signs are left in place because roadworks always involve cones and barriers across the carriageway, something you don't want to meet unexpectedly at 2 a.m in the morning.

[Conniff]

I'm thinking of the A5 through Snowdonia, a very bendy mountain road with hairpin bends and drops of hundreds of metres by the side of the road, but this road has a 60mph limit....

 

Can't chavs in their Saxo's and numpties on their chicken chasers be directed there, 'no limit boys, away you go'.

[dx100uk]

wee splat!!!!

 

no my fav one is this:

Truck Photographs HGV LGV, A9 Berriedale Braes Caithness

 

done this many times on the way to Wick.

 

dx

[patdavies]

Yes, it is infuriating that the majority of roadworks you come across are completely unattended by any workers and are sometimes just a line of cones in the road blocking a lane but nothing whatsoever is going on behind the cones. To top it off they have temporary limits to protect their invisible workers.

 

The rationale behind the existence of temporary limits when nobody is apparently working has been explained at least twice previously on this thread

 

 

What miffs me if people who try to wriggle out of a speeding charge with groundless claims that the technology was faulty and other such desperate excuses. Also those who get caught and act as victims. That is intolerable and I have no sympathy for those people.

The prosecuting authorities are also required to comply with the law in bring any prosecution. Ensuring that they do is not simply looking for a 'loophole' or 'technicality'.

 

Speed cameras: yes, dangers are caused by drivers suddenly braking at the last minute, but it is the drivers who are to blame for this, not the cameras. If the drivers had been obeying the speed limit in the first place they would not need to brake.

There is a growing tendency to brake automatically even when travelling under the speed limit. I have, for example, seen this time and time again on the A339 just north of Basingstoke, 2 x Truvelo cameras on either side of a single carriageway with a posted limit of 60 mph. At least 90% of drivers travelling below this limit still brake sharply.

 

Furthermore, you will see drivers braking for the cameras on motorways - regardless of speed - where a SPECS system is operating. By the time you reach the camera, it is too late - they work on average speed since the previous linked camera

 

Also I'm not sure if the revenue argument washes - those who habitually speed know if they didn't speed, no revenue would be made, but the same people continue to speed and voluntarily fund these cameras they claim to disdain so much. They are paying their worst enemies to stay put.

There is another thread running at the moment about someone who passed the same camera twice and is being prosecuted twice - after the event. If the first had been a traffic officer stop, rather than a revenue raising camera, then the second offence would probably not have occurred.

 

Since speed cameras cannot prevent speeding (unlike a Police Officer), then they only exist to penalise those who do speed ie by raising revenue.

[TD27]

I agree TD27,about mindset, but does it go further? There would seem to me, to be two types of mindset when somebody gets caught speeding. One will take it on the chin and say, ok, I got caught, fair cop. And the other one will wriggle like a worm on a hook. Is it something to do with a dislike of authority or control? 'Why should I do 50, when it looks perfectly safe to do 70 or 80?

(I am not one of the latter, I hasten to add.)

 

I have been driving HGV's for nearly 32 years, and am quite proud of the fact that I have got only one speeding conviction in that time. But, sadly, I think that the attitude nowadays is completely different. Points on your licence seem to be some sort of 'Badge of Honour'. I find this a strange way of looking at things, after all, more points on your licence inevitably means more money coming out of your pocket for the fine and increase in insurance premiums etc.

 

Education is, I think the way forward, but do you not think that you are banging your head against a brick wall sometimes TD27?

jed

 

Yep, you definitely have those days. But that comes with the territory really.

 

I'm sure we'll reach the stage soon enough with the current improvements in technology from GPS and number plate reading to a point where speed enforcement will be done essentially via SPECS on a nationwide scale.

 

I still think the investment would be better spent on more officers educating and reducing collisions. Equally society must plays its part in encouraging our younger generation, though not solely them, to take responsibility for their actions, good or bad. I'm far more likely to give a warning to a driver who holds their hands up than someone who plays the grey man at the roadside.

Edited July 9, 2009 by TD27
could have been misleading

[Al27]

Yes, there are plenty of speed limits all over the place that are pointlessly slow for the road, also there are those that are dangerously fast - I'm thinking of the A5 through Snowdonia, a very bendy mountain road with hairpin bends and drops of hundreds of metres by the side of the road, but this road has a 60mph limit except through villages, even though in places you can only safely go 25-30 max. But this is all opinion and just because I think it's too fast/slow, doesn't mean it is, I'm not a perfect driver.

 

Depends what you think is dangerously fast - if it was truly dangerous people would be flying off every day, but they don't. Most people are actually very good drivers and can judge speed well.

 

The three problems tend to be young male drivers showing off, the inexperienced, those who don't pay attention and certain older drivers.

Yet I wonder why the government concentrate on speed to the detriment of everything else?

 

But - and a big but - our opinion of speed limits doesn't matter: they are there and it is our legal requirement to obey them, and if we don't, we can be punished. Everyone knows that and thus there is no excuse for speeding.

 

Well they do, because most of us don't get punished. Everybody speeds and some speed more than others. There is usually no 'excuse', but that doesn't mean there has to be. You've speeded - life isn't fair - but you'll get in the car the next day and do it all over again. And so what? Chances are you'll never be caught again, or it'll be some years before you do.

 

What miffs me if people who try to wriggle out of a speeding charge with groundless claims that the technology was faulty and other such desperate excuses. Also those who get caught and act as victims. That is intolerable and I have no sympathy for those people.

 

I agree with you about acting like victims, but I have no problems with the attitude of "I got caught, but I don't feel like I've done anything wrong" and said person tries everything to 'wriggle out of it'. It's between you and your conscience - if you feel genuinely guilty and take your punishment meekly, then that's fine. If you don't give a stuff, I'm fine with that.

 

Speed cameras: yes, dangers are caused by drivers suddenly braking at the last minute, but it is the drivers who are to blame for this, not the cameras. If the drivers had been obeying the speed limit in the first place they would not need to brake. Also I'm not sure if the revenue argument washes - those who habitually speed know if they didn't speed, no revenue would be made, but the same people continue to speed and voluntarily fund these cameras they claim to disdain so much. They are paying their worst enemies to stay put.

 

I'm in the third category - I speed, I haven't been caught and I do think cameras are revenue raisers.

 

I recommend a really good book to everybody - it's called 'Scared to Death' by Richard North and Christopher Booker: Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth: Amazon.co.uk: Christopher Booker, Richard North: Books

 

There's a whole chapter on speeding and one thing that springs to mind is the government's claims that cameras reduce deaths. Road X has 3 deaths in year 1, 2 in year 2 and then 10 in year 3. Due to those 10 deaths, a camera is put up and the next year there are 2 deaths.

 

Government claims camera has cut road deaths by 80% yet conveniently forget that there are 1, 2 or 3 deaths every year and that the year with 10 was just an anomaly. The deaths returning to the mean is not a reduction of 80%, but you can see how the government's spin machine deals with these things.

[TD27]

Depends what you think is dangerously fast - if it was truly dangerous people would be flying off every day, but they don't. Most people are actually very good drivers and can judge speed well.

 

The challenge here is that as speed increases peoples judgement of it actually tales off and it can become a bit of a lottery.

 

The three problems tend to be young male drivers showing off, the inexperienced, those who don't pay attention and certain older drivers.

Yet I wonder why the government concentrate on speed to the detriment of everything else?

 

To be fair we don't concentrate on speed to the detriment of everything else. We do focus on speed, and in particular inappropriate speed. Equally however we also focus on some of the groups you mention above. Our priorities are around people using mobile phones, not wearing seatbelts and yes, speed. Within that, of particular interest to us are vulnerable road users who include young drivers and the elderly and motorcyclists among others.

 

 

Well they do, because most of us don't get punished. Everybody speeds and some speed more than others. There is usually no 'excuse', but that doesn't mean there has to be. You've speeded - life isn't fair - but you'll get in the car the next day and do it all over again. And so what? Chances are you'll never be caught again, or it'll be some years before you do.

 

Fair point, the so what is you reduce your reaction time if something unexpected happens. All very well you may say, its your life, your car etc, but if the unexpected happens to you causing you to do something unexpected to someone else and changing their life for ever?? Of course its all what if. But I haven't met someone alive or dead yet in the course of my day at an accident scene or hospital that thought they might be in a collision. It depends on what your definition of being caught is.

 

 

I agree with you about acting like victims, but I have no problems with the attitude of "I got caught, but I don't feel like I've done anything wrong" and said person tries everything to 'wriggle out of it'. It's between you and your conscience - if you feel genuinely guilty and take your punishment meekly, then that's fine. If you don't give a stuff, I'm fine with that.

 

 

 

I'm in the third category - I speed, I haven't been caught and I do think cameras are revenue raisers.

 

I recommend a really good book to everybody - it's called 'Scared to Death' by Richard North and Christopher Booker: Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth: Amazon.co.uk: Christopher Booker, Richard North: Books

 

There's a whole chapter on speeding and one thing that springs to mind is the government's claims that cameras reduce deaths. Road X has 3 deaths in year 1, 2 in year 2 and then 10 in year 3. Due to those 10 deaths, a camera is put up and the next year there are 2 deaths.

 

Government claims camera has cut road deaths by 80% yet conveniently forget that there are 1, 2 or 3 deaths every year and that the year with 10 was just an anomaly. The deaths returning to the mean is not a reduction of 80%, but you can see how the government's spin machine deals with these things.

 

Agree with the stats piece entirely.

[Al27]

To be fair we don't concentrate on speed to the detriment of everything else. We do focus on speed, and in particular inappropriate speed.

 

Fair enough. For example though, is 35mph in a 30 inappropriate speed though? A camera might catch you, but how many people will then spend the entire of their lives driving at 28mph or 29mph in a 30 zone? There is a clash between 'inappropriate speed' and the fixed limit on the road - they are often not compatible. Why are there so many dual carriageways with absurd 30 and 40 limits? I actually failed my first driving test for going 40 along long, straight dual carriageway because no way on earth did I think it could be 30!

 

Fair point, the so what is you reduce your reaction time if something unexpected happens. All very well you may say, its your life, your car etc, but if the unexpected happens to you causing you to do something unexpected to someone else and changing their life for ever?? Of course its all what if. But I haven't met someone alive or dead yet in the course of my day at an accident scene or hospital that thought they might be in a collision. It depends on what your definition of being caught is.

 

Which is why it would be madness to charge about at 50mph in a 30 zone in a built up area. But you're not immune from accidents and killing others from doing 50mph in a 50 zone.

[TD27]

Fair enough. For example though, is 35mph in a 30 inappropriate speed though? A camera might catch you, but how many people will then spend the entire of their lives driving at 28mph or 29mph in a 30 zone? There is a clash between 'inappropriate speed' and the fixed limit on the road - they are often not compatible. Why are there so many dual carriageways with absurd 30 and 40 limits? I actually failed my first driving test for going 40 along long, straight dual carriageway because no way on earth did I think it could be 30!

 

Al I do agree that there are times when 35 in a 30 or faster may be safe. Sadly they are only ever OUR best guess or judgement. Most members of the public are not on the roads, ie the same places 24 hours a day. However, the emergency services do respond 24 hours a day, hence, and I don't know this, you may well find areas where accidents have occured that you / members of the public are unaware of, thus necessitating the speed limit posted. Of course when you then see that limit it seems absurd and an over reaction. To answer your first question, 30 in a 35 may well be an inappropriate speed depending on the cirumstances, everything from time of day, school kids, proximity of elderly residents, riding stables, road conditions, weather, traffic flow etc. We want the government to set limits that are safe 24 hrs, in all conditions based on all driving mindsets and abilities. Yet we measure them based on our driving ability, mindset and time of use of the road and all that goes with it. The most overused phrase in accidents / crash's is 'suddenly'. I'm not trying to lecture here, just indicate the size of the task in doing something which on the face of it appears simple - setting a speed limit.

 

Which is why it would be madness to charge about at 50mph in a 30 zone in a built up area. But you're not immune from accidents and killing others from doing 50mph in a 50 zone.

 

At the same time Al, you also said that you were on piece of dual carriageway that was a 30mph limit, could that have safely taken 50mph?? This is my point - its all subjective.

No we're not immune, but we have to start somewhere and we also have to protect some parts of society from themselves. I'm sure where you live there is a road with a speed limit you feel is appropriate for it. If someone were to drive down there exceeding the speed limit and collide with your loved ones (god forbid) causing serious injury, and their answer was that in their opinion the limit was too low I'm sure you'd expect them to be dealt with by the law. Of course that accident could happen if they were travelling at the speed limit, but the likelyhood is reduced (all things being equal)

[Al27]

Yep, it's all subjective. However, when it comes to roads that have been 60mph since the 1960's and then the council reduces them to 40mph despite there never been any accident problems - that's what I find irritating.

 

Regarding your example, every case is different and excessive speed for the conditions is only the main factor in a small proportion of accidents. Bear in mind the average impact speed in a 30 zone is 11mph because people brake. If they were going 40 in a 30, the impact speed may be 20mph instead of 11. The issue would be if they hit someone at 40, and then I'd be surprised if drink or drugs weren't involved.

[Tom87]

Agreed, speed is the MAIN factor in a minority of accidents. However, it is A factor in all accidents (sorry, collisions...). The speed of the vehicle at the time of impact dictates the seriousness of the damage and injuries caused to the vehicle/people. Even if the main factor is drink, mobile phone, lack of control, bad observation, etc., speed is still a factor in the collision - the faster you are going, the worse the damage/injuries.

 

There are too many people who use the "but speed is only the main factor in a small proporition of accidents" excuse to justify them going inappropriately fast...I say inappropriate because of course a large amount of accidents happen below the speed limit but still when the vehicle has been going too fast for the conditions. I lay part of the blame on the DSA on this mentality of having to go at the maximum posted limit, because on the driving test you have to go at the very maximum limit if possible, otherwise you are failed for failure to make adequate progress. This part of the test encourages impatient and dangerous driving as it implies to impressionable young/new drivers that they must drive at the absolute limit. Yes of course you shouldn't drive at 40 on a clear, straight 60 road, but there is nothing wrong with going at 57 or something.

 

Basically what I meant to say is people use this "main factor in very few accidents" mantra to make themselves feel justified/less guilty about speeding even though they know deep down that what they are doing is wrong and potentially dangerous, which I find a bit cowardly to be honest.

 

As well as because it's illegal, I prefer not to speed as it makes my life easier and saves me from losing sleep over "I wonder if I got caught by that camera I saw today", etc.

[TD27]

All fair comment. I think we could 'what if' all day long on here!

[lamma]

factor may be over egging it. it is an element in all RTAs - unless someone knows of an RTA where two stationary objects collided. relative velocity plus much other stuff factors into the 'damage'. though results at higher speeds will be more dramatic aren't most RTAs relatively low speed affairs ?

[pin1onu]

I recommend a really good book to everybody - it's called 'Scared to Death' by Richard North and Christopher Booker: Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth: Amazon.co.uk: Christopher Booker, Richard North: Books

 

There's a whole chapter on speeding and one thing that springs to mind is the government's claims that cameras reduce deaths. Road X has 3 deaths in year 1, 2 in year 2 and then 10 in year 3. Due to those 10 deaths, a camera is put up and the next year there are 2 deaths.

 

Government claims camera has cut road deaths by 80% yet conveniently forget that there are 1, 2 or 3 deaths every year and that the year with 10 was just an anomaly. The deaths returning to the mean is not a reduction of 80%, but you can see how the government's spin machine deals with these things.

 

The work of the late Paul Smith (Welcome to Safe Speed) demonstrated the very same thing - it's a mathematical concept known as regression to the mean.

 

Incidentally it is worth going to the safespeed site and having a look as it covers a lot of the points covered in the thread about the wrongs of speed camera's and the false assumptions being made.

[crem]

I lay part of the blame on the DSA on this mentality of having to go at the maximum posted limit, because on the driving test you have to go at the very maximum limit if possible, otherwise you are failed for failure to make adequate progress. This part of the test encourages impatient and dangerous driving as it implies to impressionable young/new drivers that they must drive at the absolute limit. Yes of course you shouldn't drive at 40 on a clear, straight 60 road, but there is nothing wrong with going at 57 or something.

 

I've never heard that acusation laid at the door of the DSA before!

 

Saying they want you to go at "the very maximum limit" is a bit overstating it really. The phrase I use, and I'm sure many instructors use, is "to be going at a speed towards the speed limit if safe". "If safe" is very important in that sentence and you should also notice I imply not quite up to the limit, i.e. at around 57, 58 on a 60 road just as you suggested. This allows for a "little bit of creep" on the speed, for example if the road starts to go slightly downhill, without the pupil picking up a speeding fault.