Speeding Fines

[Guest Bilo]

So, let me get this straight - your argument basically runs to: It is unfair I get caught breaking the law when other law breakers doing worse stuff get away with it.

Correct?

What I'm saying is that there are better ways of improving road safety than targeting speeders. Speed is a major factor in accidents, that's obvious. But so are inexperience, alcohol and drugs. The trouble is that the latter three are harder to detect than speed and therefore warrant less attention from the police. I'm not saying that we should free to speed when and where we like, I just feel that the amount of money dedicated to catching speeding motorists is a waste when there are so many other factors in accidents. The fastest roads are motorways, yet they are statistically the safest. Surely going by the logic of the authorities, this should not be the case. Bad driving is the biggest factor in accidents, and excessive speed is but one of many contributory factors to that.

EDIT: Going off topic ever so slightly, where have I seen your sig before?

[Corky]

So, let me get this straight - your argument basically runs to: It is unfair I get caught breaking the law when other law breakers doing worse stuff get away with it.

Correct?

It seems so, yes.

[Guest]

What I'm saying is that there are better ways of improving road safety than targeting speeders. Speed is a major factor in accidents, that's obvious. But so are inexperience, alcohol and drugs. The trouble is that the latter three are harder to detect than speed and therefore warrant less attention from the police. I'm not saying that we should free to speed when and where we like, I just feel that the amount of money dedicated to catching speeding motorists is a waste when there are so many other factors in accidents. The fastest roads are motorways, yet they are statistically the safest. Surely going by the logic of the authorities, this should not be the case. Bad driving is the biggest factor in accidents, and excessive speed is but one of many contributory factors to that.

Inexperience? Most of the dangerous drivers I see appear to be old enough and wise enough to know better, and if they were inexperienced would struggle to get insurance for the cars that they drive in.

[Alexikokopops]

The amount of resources dedicated to catching people committing this crime show us that their concern is not upholding the law but making money. Speed cameras are everywhere and are horribly flawed as a road safety device. The police know full well that the vast majority of motorists creep over the speed limit from time to time, and 4mph over the limit definitely falls into the category of 'creeping.' There is also the fact that speed cameras can detect only one type of motoring offence, they cannot detect uninsured, drunk or drugged-up drivers. Somebody who is stone cold sober driving at 34 is a damn sight safer than a uninsured drunk with no licence bumbling along at 30 yet the police would appear to be more concerned with prosecuting with the former given their obsession with Gatsos.

4mph is "creeping over the limit" in a 70mph zone, not in a 30mph zone

[Guest Bilo]

Inexperience? Most of the dangerous drivers I see appear to be old enough and wise enough to know better, and if they were inexperienced would struggle to get insurance for the cars that they drive in.

When I say inexperience, I mean the 17 year old chavs who think their 1.2 Corsa will become a Lamborghini if they buy an air filter from Halfords. Speed is a problem with drivers like these, but the worst problem is their poor decision making, coming through a poor knowledge of the road. At the other end of the scale, some elderly drivers can be downright lethal in spite of the fact that they are less likely to speed. Not their fault of course, deterioration of sight, hearing and reaction time will come to us all but it doesn't change the fact that they can be dangerous.

[Guest]

Thracian's reading this thread........

[Master Fox]

4mph is "creeping over the limit" in a 70mph zone, not in a 30mph zone

I disagree

I know the road i was caught on so well. The speed camera there was usually switched off. But i just forgot to slam the breaks on early enough

[Guest Bilo]

I disagree

I know the road i was caught on so well. The speed camera there was usually switched off. But i just forgot to slam the breaks on early enough

Another thing that speed cameras don't take into account! Poor knowledge of the road can mean that the driver is not concentrating on the road fully as they are too busy thinking about how to get to their destination. Lack of concentration = dangerous.

So you, knowing the road well, will probably safer at 34 as somebody who's looking for Aunt Mabel's new bungalow at 30mph.

Sorry guys, I am opinionated on this subject.

[Guest]

Another thing that speed cameras don't take into account! Poor knowledge of the road can mean that the driver is not concentrating on the road fully as they are too busy thinking about how to get to their destination. Lack of concentration = dangerous.

So you, knowing the road well, will probably safer at 34 as somebody who's looking for Aunt Mabel's new bungalow at 30mph.

Sorry guys, I am opinionated on this subject.

So you are admitting to driving without due care and attention then.

You need your licence taking off of you.

[Corky]

Another thing that speed cameras don't take into account! Poor knowledge of the road can mean that the driver is not concentrating on the road fully as they are too busy thinking about how to get to their destination. Lack of concentration = dangerous.

So you, knowing the road well, will probably safer at 34 as somebody who's looking for Aunt Mabel's new bungalow at 30mph.

Sorry guys, I am opinionated on this subject.

Surely if you have a poor knowledge of the road you would need your full concentration on it?

So a lack of concentration is dangerous and your fault in any case.

[Alexikokopops]

Another thing that speed cameras don't take into account! Poor knowledge of the road can mean that the driver is not concentrating on the road fully as they are too busy thinking about how to get to their destination. Lack of concentration = dangerous.

So you, knowing the road well, will probably safer at 34 as somebody who's looking for Aunt Mabel's new bungalow at 30mph.

Sorry guys, I am opinionated on this subject.

What do you propose then? That we have different speed limits for different drivers based on their knowledge of the road they're on?

I know the roads around my parents village in Lincolnshire like the back of my hand. The whole reason an area is 30mph though is generally becausei t's a residential area. You may know it as well as you know your own ball sack but you still don't know when a kid's going to run out in front of you. I can understand your argument in, say, a 50mph zone but not a 30mph area.

[The People's Hero]

I do some of my best thinking, day-dreaming and singing loudly to music when I'm driving.

Very rarely am I looking at or concentrating on the road. Hell, you're lucky if I'm driving on the right side of it.

[Guest Bilo]

So you are admitting to driving without due care and attention then.

You need your licence taking off of you.

This is entirely theoretical. Having said that, I'm sure that many on this forum have been hopelessly lost on unfamiliar roads and they would admit that their concentration would not have been what it was on roads closer to home. I'm not for a minute suggesting that it makes one a crap driver all of a sudden, just that it is one of many factors that can lead to mistakes.

[Master Fox]

Another thing that speed cameras don't take into account! Poor knowledge of the road can mean that the driver is not concentrating on the road fully as they are too busy thinking about how to get to their destination. Lack of concentration = dangerous.

So you, knowing the road well, will probably safer at 34 as somebody who's looking for Aunt Mabel's new bungalow at 30mph.

Sorry guys, I am opinionated on this subject.

I totally agree with you 100%

[The People's Hero]

Anyone ever had their plums sucked whilst they drive/drove/drave/druve/dreve?

[Guest]

This is entirely theoretical. Having said that, I'm sure that many on this forum have been hopelessly lost on unfamiliar roads and they would admit that their concentration would not have been what it was on roads closer to home. I'm not for a minute suggesting that it makes one a crap driver all of a sudden, just that it is one of many factors that can lead to mistakes.

In all seriousness though, driving requires multi-tasking, and if you can't cope with it, you really shouldn't be on the roads.

[Craig]

I got pulled over by an unmarked Police car for speeding a few weeks back, it's my own fault so i've no complaints with the punishment.

It's really calmed me down when driving now though, which can only be a good thing.

If you're exceeding the limit, you're breaking the law. It's that simple.

[General Smuts]

Anyone ever had their plums sucked whilst they drive/drove/drave/druve/dreve?

Hand shandy but no plum suckage

[Guest Bilo]

What do you propose then? That we have different speed limits for different drivers based on their knowledge of the road they're on?

I know the roads around my parents village in Lincolnshire like the back of my hand. The whole reason an area is 30mph though is generally becausei t's a residential area. You may know it as well as you know your own ball sack but you still don't know when a kid's going to run out in front of you. I can understand your argument in, say, a 50mph zone but not a 30mph area.

As I say, I'm not saying that we should be allowed to drive at any speed we see fit. That would be monumentally thick. I actually think that speed limits should be adhered to, but speeding is one of a multitude of factors in bad driving. You could hit somebody without speeding because you're drunk, stoned or changing a CD in the radio. All are examples of bad driving that a speed camera would not pick up.

[Guest]

As I say, I'm not saying that we should be allowed to drive at any speed we see fit. That would be monumentally thick. I actually think that speed limits should be adhered to, but speeding is one of a multitude of factors in bad driving. You could hit somebody without speeding because you're drunk, stoned or changing a CD in the radio. All are examples of bad driving that a speed camera would not pick up.

Which is why cameras are used, so that traffic officers can go out and catch the above in action.

[Edmund]

You could hit somebody without speeding because you're drunk, stoned or changing a CD in the radio. All are examples of bad driving that a speed camera would not pick up.

You could hit somebody without speeding whilst jacking yourself off.

I can't see your argument. It's simple, a speed limit is a speed limit.

If someone uses the excuse that it is an extra chore to think about what speed they are doing whilst driving then they shouldn't be driving.

[Master Fox]

Anyone ever had their plums sucked whilst they drive/drove/drave/druve/dreve?

handjob, yes.

[Guest]

If someone uses the excuse that it is an extra chore to think about what speed they are doing whilst driving then they shouldn't be driving.

True story - when Sir Fynwy was pulled over for speeding, the first thing he was asked was "do you know what speed you were doing?" SF said "yes", and the copper said if he'd said "no" he would be also done for driving without due care and attention.

The lesson is:

1 - Don't speed.

2 - If you do speed, don't get caught.

3 - If you are caught, and questioned at the time, hold up your hands and admit it's a fair cop otherwise the consequences will be far greater.

[breadandcheese]

The law is the law, but there is a very real question as to wether the speed limit is correct for the road or circumstance. I got done by an average speed camera doing 69 mph in a 60 zone on a dual carriageway. There was only one other car on the road (in the left hand lane) and it was a clear sunny day. In this instance, I would argue that the speed limit should have been 70 mph as this road was clearly safe enough for this.

[Edmund]

The law is the law, but there is a very real question as to wether the speed limit is correct for the road or circumstance. I got done by an average speed camera doing 69 mph in a 60 zone on a dual carriageway. There was only one other car on the road (in the left hand lane) and it was a clear sunny day. In this instance, I would argue that the speed limit should have been 70 mph as this road was clearly safe enough for this.

On what grounds?