Speeding Fines

[Daggers]

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

Full sex.

Booyah!

[Head Honcho]

When i passed a couple of years ago my teacher said to me something about requesting the calibration certificate of the speed camera, they have to prove it has been checked in I think 12 months. Might be worth a try.

I'm pretty sure it has to be calibrated before every use

[Edmund]

Full sex.

whilst driving?

[Daggers]

whilst driving?

Drunk.

And on drugs.

[Thracian]

How is it legalised theft? If you are driving at 0.2mph over the limit, you are breaking the law. If you are stupid enough to drive over the limit and get caught, you only have yourself to blame.

But we all know the limits are stupid for good parts of the day and it really is a calculated way of imposing unofficial taxation - and if that's seen as legalised theft I can't see much to disagree with.

Just because a law is made and imposed on us (often by provenly corrupt politicians and probably even by people who don't actually drive or own a car) doesn't mean that it is right or justified.

Sometimes I think driving slowly adds to the dangers rather than the other way around. You don't drive safely from an administrators desk. As I've said many times, some people are far greater liabilities on the road at 30mph or less than others who might be driving at 35/40 on the same stretch of road.

For me more money should be spent on improving driving standards than putting more signs and cameras up, which are themselves a distraction and therefore only add to the dangers. Especially with the speed they've been spreading!

You seem to see the law as sacrosanct. Something to be respected and obeyed whatever. But in fact the speeding laws make criminals of people who are driving perfectly safely and certainly as safely as is nececessary for the situation. So emphatic are you about this that I wonder if you'd even agree with the slaying of first born sons if that was the law as it supposedly was at the time when it said to have happened.

But I wouldn't, any more than I agree with freemasons being judges of fellow freemasons. Cos I think both are wrong just the same as I think 50mph on a deserted A-road in the middle of the night is often unnecessary, to the point of being wrong.

[AoWW]

Master Fox - Check carefully that everything on the paperwork is in order. I got off because they'd spelt my surname wrong! Slightly different scenario to a speed camera though. I got pulled over, traffic cop asked me to spell my name for him - which I did - but he wrote it down wrong - what was I to do? I do agree I was very lucky to get away with it though. As others have said, ask for calibration details too. As Lisa mentioned if you get pulled over ALWAYS say you know what speed you were doing / that you'd seen the police car etc - any suggestion that you were driving without due care and attention and they'll get you for that as well. End of the day, if you get caught speeding, it's a fair cop... promise yourself you'll drive far more responsibly in future and accept it (whether it's graciously or not doesn't really matter!) Oh, and buy a scanner!

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.

I've been in a car with him - this is all true!

[lou]

Like the advert says "its 30 for a reason" the injuries caused to a child are usually far less severe when hit by a car doing 30mph or less.

I drive for my job and hold my hand up....... consider myself a good driver and used to speed as a matter of course but having witnessed a child being killed on the roads several years ago and flying approx 40meters into the air I never never drive over 30 in a residential area now. I dont dawdle at 25 or at junctions etc so dont see how Im a danger to other road users by sticking to the limit. When Im on the motorway/dual carriageways etc its a different matter and I do put my foot down. (not so much when my kids are in the car) Not that Im driving at the mo anyway. <_<

The thing that scares me is sometimes I drive to work or back home and get there without even realising it! Total auto-pilot!

[Thracian]

Like the advert says "its 30 for a reason" the injuries caused to a child are usually far less severe when hit by a car doing 30mph or less.

I drive for my job and hold my hand up....... consider myself a good driver and used to speed as a matter of course but having witnessed a child being killed on the roads several years ago and flying approx 40meters into the air I never never drive over 30 in a residential area now. I dont dawdle at 25 or at junctions etc so dont see how Im a danger to other road users by sticking to the limit. When Im on the motorway/dual carriageways etc its a different matter and I do put my foot down. (not so much when my kids are in the car) Not that Im driving at the mo anyway. <_<

The thing that scares me is sometimes I drive to work or back home and get there without even realising it! Total auto-pilot!

The adverts are designed to prompt a reaction. I'd agree that injuries at 30mph are likely to be a lot less severe than when an advanced licence policeman hits a kid at 70 having supposedly braked down from 90-odd but really the idea of driving properly is about driving at a specific speed but about driving sensibly according to the situation and your ability with the idea of not hitting anyone at all.

You talk of 30 as being inconsequential but I wouldn't want to test it by standing in front of a car going that speed. A car moving at 10mph could do a lot of damage if it hit you - and would likely be less manoueverable too than a car moving faster and trying to avoid you.

The point I'd make is that any speed you want to call safe is lethal when a bad driving is involved. And so often it is bad driving rather than speed that causes accidents.

[AoWW]

[Guest Bilo]

The adverts are designed to prompt a reaction. I'd agree that injuries at 30mph are likely to be a lot less severe than when an advanced licence policeman hits a kid at 70 having supposedly braked down from 90-odd but really the idea of driving properly is about driving at a specific speed but about driving sensibly according to the situation and your ability with the idea of not hitting anyone at all.

You talk of 30 as being inconsequential but I wouldn't want to test it by standing in front of a car going that speed. A car moving at 10mph could do a lot of damage if it hit you - and would likely be less manoueverable too than a car moving faster and trying to avoid you.

The point I'd make is that any speed you want to call safe is lethal when a bad driving is involved. And so often it is bad driving rather than speed that causes accidents.

Pretty much the point I was trying to make. So often we see bad driving on the road, so often the speed has little to do with it. If you see someone weaving all over the road, they don't need to be speeding for you to realise they're driving badly.

[breadandcheese]

On what grounds?

On the grounds that it is a dual carriageway, with clear visibility, in an unbuilt up area, leading to a motorway. Usually these are 70 mph as it is safe to exert such speed. There is an argument that actually, the speed could be higher.

We should remember that we have far less fatalities on our roads than in the 1960s and 1970s, yet car ownership and usage is far far higher than then. Indeed, we have some of the safest roads in Europe. The question is whether this is down to more convictions, better cars, better road design, better drivers, or a myriad of other factors.

[lou]

The adverts are designed to prompt a reaction. I'd agree that injuries at 30mph are likely to be a lot less severe than when an advanced licence policeman hits a kid at 70 having supposedly braked down from 90-odd but really the idea of driving properly is about driving at a specific speed but about driving sensibly according to the situation and your ability with the idea of not hitting anyone at all.

You talk of 30 as being inconsequential but I wouldn't want to test it by standing in front of a car going that speed. A car moving at 10mph could do a lot of damage if it hit you - and would likely be less manoueverable too than a car moving faster and trying to avoid you.

The point I'd make is that any speed you want to call safe is lethal when a bad driving is involved. And so often it is bad driving rather than speed that causes accidents.

Its a hell of a lot easier to stop at 30mph than 50mph and you might be the best driver in the world but cannot allow for other people doing stupid things like stepping out in front of you while listenin to an ipod for example. I cant condone speeding in a 30 mph limit - sorry, I just think its wrong. That goes for Police and anyone else.

If I got caught speeding then I would accept its my fault and take the punishment.

[lou]

Pretty much the point I was trying to make. So often we see bad driving on the road, so often the speed has little to do with it. If you see someone weaving all over the road, they don't need to be speeding for you to realise they're driving badly.

Yes but at higher speeds it takes longer to brake, you have less time to react and the injuries to anyone involved are likely to be worse

[Guest]

But we all know the limits are stupid for good parts of the day and it really is a calculated way of imposing unofficial taxation - and if that's seen as legalised theft I can't see much to disagree with.

Just because a law is made and imposed on us (often by provenly corrupt politicians and probably even by people who don't actually drive or own a car) doesn't mean that it is right or justified.

Sometimes I think driving slowly adds to the dangers rather than the other way around. You don't drive safely from an administrators desk and it's no good pretending that you do. As I've said many times, some people are far greater liabilities on the road at 30mph or less than others who might be driving at 35/40 on the same stretch of road.

For me more money should be spent on improving driving standards than putting more signs and cameras up, which are themselves a distraction and therefore only add to the dangers. Especially with the speed they've been spreading!

You seem to see the law as sacrosanct. Something to be respected and obeyed whatever. But in fact the speeding laws make criminals of people who are driving perfectly safely and certainly as safely as is nececessary for the situation. So emphatic are you about this that I wonder if you'd even agree with the slaying of first born sons if that was the law.

But I wouldn't, any more than I agree with freemasons being judges of fellow freemasons. Cos I think both are wrong just the same as I think 50mph on a deserted A-road in the middle of the night is often unnecessary, to the point of being wrong.

You really do spout some guff at times, Tony. Your whole argument smacks of someone who wants his own way and can't have it.

Where have I said that speed limits are right or wrong? All I have done is state the current position, and pointed out the blindingly obvious way that one can avoid getting a speeding ticket. You do this every time there is a legal argument that you don't like and can't win; you start accusing me of blindly following, when all I do is tell it how it is.

For the record, I do think that there need to be speed limits, and I do believe in one objective standard for all drivers, and not this, "well I think I'm a better driver than everyone else and should be able to drive at whatever speed I choose, and with as much alcohol in my system as I like". You know a system like this cannot operate. As you keep on pointing out, there are some very poor motorists out there, and if you start giving people the choice as to what speeds they feel they should be driving at, then you also have to give the crap drivers the same discretion. If you are happy to do that, I suggest that you stand for Parliament at the next election, and use the proper procedures to get the rules changed. I'm sure you'll get loads of support for your proposals......

And talking of changing rules, it may surprise you to know that I sometimes wonder why certain roads have low speed limits. To be honest, I can't be bothered to challenge it, but if you feel so strongly, perhaps you should start a campaign on getting the limit raised, contacting the necessary people on the council or writing to your MP, rather than whinging on an internet forum about how hard done by you are. If you put as much effort into such a campaign as you do moaning on here, I can see it being a great success.

[Edmund]

On the grounds that it is a dual carriageway, with clear visibility, in an unbuilt up area, leading to a motorway. Usually these are 70 mph as it is safe to exert such speed. There is an argument that actually, the speed could be higher.

We should remember that we have far less fatalities on our roads than in the 1960s and 1970s, yet car ownership and usage is far far higher than then. Indeed, we have some of the safest roads in Europe. The question is whether this is down to more convictions, better cars, better road design, better drivers, or a myriad of other factors.

I thought national speed limit was standard for any road accept moterways.

I can undertsand the point your trying to make but you stated that you had to exceed the speed limit of 60mph to overtake another driver. Say the limit becomes 70mph and you are driving a fast car, all it will do is encourage people to exceed the speed limit of 70 mph to overtake. You have to draw a line at somewhere on dual carriageways or the speed freaks will just keep exceeding the limit no matter what it is set at.

[Thracian]

a) You really do spout some guff at times, Tony. Your whole argument smacks of someone who wants his own way and can't have it.

b) Where have I said that speed limits are right or wrong? All I have done is state the current position, and pointed out the blindingly obvious way that one can avoid getting a speeding ticket. You do this every time there is a legal argument that you don't like and can't win; you start accusing me of blindly following, when all I do is tell it how it is.

c) For the record, I do think that there need to be speed limits, and I do believe in one objective standard for all drivers, and not this, "well I think I'm a better driver than everyone else and should be able to drive at whatever speed I choose, and with as much alcohol in my system as I like". You know a system like this cannot operate. As you keep on pointing out, there are some very poor motorists out there, and if you start giving people the choice as to what speeds they feel they should be driving at, then you also have to give the crap drivers the same discretion. If you are happy to do that, I suggest that you stand for Parliament at the next election, and use the proper procedures to get the rules changed. I'm sure you'll get loads of support for your proposals......

d) And talking of changing rules, it may surprise you to know that I sometimes wonder why certain roads have low speed limits. To be honest, I can't be bothered to challenge it, but if you feel so strongly, perhaps you should start a campaign on getting the limit raised, contacting the necessary people on the council or writing to your MP, rather than whinging on an internet forum about how hard done by you are. If you put as much effort into such a campaign as you do moaning on here, I can see it being a great success.

a) Wanting my own way? Despite holding positions of considerable authority at various times in my life I've never been a rule-maker. Too limiting when it comes to decision-making. It is other people continually imposing their's on me that brasses me off and particularly when it's unnecessary.

b) In the section marked c (and at some times and in some case I'd agree with you).

c) You often grumble about me using rhetoric. Where have I ever claimed to be a "better driver than everyone else" or even implied that I thought as much? Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have never believed in taking driving down to its lowest common denominator (or education for that matter but that's a different matter altogether).

I don't think anyone should drive unless they are capable of of doing so to a reasonable standard, at various speeds, in various conditions and with due consideration for the circumstances.

And I certainly resent having to drive like a funeral director because some people cannot meet those standards and legislators consider they have to make allowance for them. Imagine putting some of those people in the pilot seats of passenger aircraft. It wouldn't happen so why should it happen on the roads? People should be properly trained.

d) I make my comments on here for no other reason than I like to prompt debate within a forum that I've tried, with good reason, to support for several years.

With any luck I get people to think about what they say and whatever, if it prompts keystrokes, then it won't do any harm to Mark who took the trouble to set up the site with the main aim, I believe, of fostering debate.

As for canvassing people and MPs I found that at 20-40 it was relatively easy to get people backing a viewpoint and various courses of action and, as a result, served in many areas of leadership and for long periods.

But at 60 I have no such illusions.

When I talk about lifting standards of driving rather than lowering speed limits it is not really for my benefit.

I'll doubtless cope anyway and why should anyone care if I didn't at my time of life? But those bad drivers you mention are costing lives every day and are likely to cost more in the future if there are not better and more extensive driving tests and there is not more education about what constitutes bad driving.

And I think it far more important to work on those than to grab easy taxes by penalising people who might be breaking the law marginally but who were driving perfectly safely, nevertheless.

But it is for young people to take up the gauntlet and to mould the sort of country they want to live in. I did my share of leading long ago and believe, rightly or wrongly, that I got a lot of things done and changed for the better during that time.

Now I'm content to simply offer my views and acknowledge that others, like your good self, will hold a different view. It's no big deal.

[Webbo]

d) I make my comments on here for no other reason than I like to prompt debate within a forum that I've tried, with good reason, to support for several years.

With any luck I get people to think about what they say and whatever, if it prompts keystrokes, then it won't do any harm to Mark who took the trouble to set up the site with the main aim, I believe, of fostering debate.

Too true. If people came up with their own ideas on here instead of just repeating the approved dogma this place would be a lot more interesting.

[Guest]

a) Wanting my own way? Despite holding positions of considerable authority at various times in my life I've never been a rule-maker. Too limiting when it comes to decision-making. It is other people continually imposing their's on me that brasses me off and particularly when it's unnecessary.

b) In the section marked c (and at some times and in some case I'd agree with you).

c) You often grumble about me using rhetoric. Where have I ever claimed to be a "better driver than everyone else" or even implied that I thought as much? Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have never believed in taking driving down to its lowest common denominator (or education for that matter but that's a different matter altogether).

I don't think anyone should drive unless they are capable of of doing so to a reasonable standard, at various speeds, in various conditions and with due consideration for the circumstances.

And I certainly resent having to drive like a funeral director because some people cannot meet those standards and legislators consider they have to make allowance for them. Imagine putting some of those people in the pilot seats of passenger aircraft. It wouldn't happen so why should it happen on the roads? People should be properly trained.

d) I make my comments on here for no other reason than I like to prompt debate within a forum that I've tried, with good reason, to support for several years.

With any luck I get people to think about what they say and whatever, if it prompts keystrokes, then it won't do any harm to Mark who took the trouble to set up the site with the main aim, I believe, of fostering debate.

As for canvassing people and MPs I found that at 20-40 it was relatively easy to get people backing a viewpoint and various courses of action and, as a result, served in many areas of leadership and for long periods.

But at 60 I have no such illusions.

When I talk about lifting standards of driving rather than lowering speed limits it is not really for my benefit.

I'll doubtless cope anyway and why should anyone care if I didn't at my time of life? But those bad drivers you mention are costing lives every day and are likely to cost more in the future if there are not better and more extensive driving tests and there is not more education about what constitutes bad driving.

And I think it far more important to work on those than to grab easy taxes by penalising people who might be breaking the law marginally but who were driving perfectly safely, nevertheless.

But it is for young people to take up the gauntlet and to mould the sort of country they want to live in. I did my share of leading long ago and believe, rightly or wrongly, that I got a lot of things done and changed for the better during that time.

Now I'm content to simply offer my views and acknowledge that others, like your good self, will hold a different view. It's no big deal.

I actually agree that driving standards are poor, and almost every time I get into my car, I ended up being wound up by someone who either can't drive, or doesn't care who else is on the road. I agree that standards are low, and whilst those on here who have just passed their tests will curse me for saying this, but it is far too easy to get a full driving licence. There are far too many cars on the roads, and I may be cynical, but isn't it in any government's interests to have people buying cars?

If I had my way, I would make it tougher to get a driving licence. I would even go as far as making people retake their test every 5yrs, as an example, to retain their licence. But to do this would need major improvements in public transport to make it fairer.

It still doesn't alter the fact that we have speed limits, and for the time being, we're stuck with them.

[Edmund]

People should be properly trained.

I agree that the pass plus scheme should be compulsory because with todays standard driving tests you rarely exceed 30mph.

How are people suppose to drive on motorways when they have had no practice? It's asking for an accident, very much in the same sense people who learn how to drive don't practice on country roads and drive at night.

It seems to be a big flaw in the dvla. I know they say once you pass your test you are still learning but surely they should teach people every aspect of driving and only pass them once they are satisfied that they can drive comfortably on there own accord in any given situation.

I for one am glad I did the pass plus as it made me a better driver.

[Sparky]

I agree that the pass plus scheme should be compulsory because with todays standard driving tests you rarely exceed 30mph.

How are people suppose to drive on motorways when they have had no practice? It's asking for an accident, very much in the same sense people who learn how to drive don't practice on country roads and drive at night.

It seems to be a big flaw in the dvla. I know they say once you pass your test you are still learning but surely they should teach people every aspect of driving and only pass them once they are satisfied that they can drive comfortably on there own accord in any given situation.

I for one am glad I did the pass plus as it made me a better driver.

Just debating whether or not to do mine , i ve only been passed 2 weeks but am trying to get as much experience under my belt as possible . I go on the A46 a fair bit just so i can get used to driving at high speeds before i tackle the motorway.

[Edmund]

Just debating whether or not to do mine , i ve only been passed 2 weeks but am trying to get as much experience under my belt as possible . I go on the A46 a fair bit just so i can get used to driving at high speeds before i tackle the motorway.

Mate do it, you will be glad that you did afterwards. Gives you that extra confidence. Also it is not a test, just a few lessons with the instructor who passes you once he is happy that you have completed it satisfactory.

The biggest bonus is that insurers give you about 30% off your premium in your first year so it more than pays for itself and makes you a better driver at the same time.

[Thracian]

I actually agree that driving standards are poor, and almost every time I get into my car, I ended up being wound up by someone who either can't drive, or doesn't care who else is on the road. I agree that standards are low, and whilst those on here who have just passed their tests will curse me for saying this, but it is far too easy to get a full driving licence. There are far too many cars on the roads, and I may be cynical, but isn't it in any government's interests to have people buying cars?

If I had my way, I would make it tougher to get a driving licence. I would even go as far as making people retake their test every 5yrs, as an example, to retain their licence. But to do this would need major improvements in public transport to make it fairer.

It still doesn't alter the fact that we have speed limits, and for the time being, we're stuck with them.

If used sanely the idea of having an average speed system could be brilliant.

a) Everyone would have to slow down reducing the irritation of finding you are left at the back of a longer traffic jam because of all the people who've ignored the limits and dashed in front of you.

b) The system would be variable at the touch of a switch. While the average speed could be 50mph during periods of heavy use it could be faster at quiet times which would irritate people far less.

Whether sanity will prevail I have my doubts though.

[Guest Bilo]

I've been considering doing my Pass Plus ever since I passed my test. Six years later and I still haven't got round to it though.

If it really can reduce your premium by 30% though, I'm well and truly up for it.

[Edmund]

If it really can reduce your premium by 30% though, I'm well and truly up for it.

Im sure it can only be done within a year of passing your test.

[Sir Fynwy]

If used sanely the idea of having an average speed system could be brilliant.

a) Everyone would have to slow down reducing the irritation of finding you are left at the back of a longer traffic jam because of all the people who've ignored the limits and dashed in front of you.

b) The system would be variable at the touch of a switch. While the average speed could be 50mph during periods of heavy use it could be faster at quiet times which would irritate people far less.

Whether sanity will prevail I have my doubts though.

Have you driven in Germany? It's amazing the way they all filter sanely in when roadworks are coming up, even the autobahn stormers in their Ferraris and Porsches slow down from 150mph+ and pull in early rather than jumping the lines. It's the morons on our roads that cause the problems not the rules we apply. The UK has got to a point where everyone seems to want to follow only the rules they like (including the Police) but it's OK we'll all just end up with little black boxes in our cars which monitor and control every aspect of driving.