Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Speeding fine may get £15 surcharge

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    Nobody complains about planes travelling a couple of hundred miles per hour!


    Slight difference between Planes and Cars - for instance there are fewer planes in the sky than there are cars on roads in most cases. The plane doesn't keep contact with the ground either and has much better technology, including AWS and ILS, whereas cars are based on the operator.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In the meantime I recommend this http://www.drivershandbook.co.uk/

    It's helped me out once or twice....
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In the meantime I recommend this http://www.drivershandbook.co.uk/

    It's helped me out once or twice....
    Without fail, a full page advert for this book appears on the Mail on Sunday week in, week out.

    I have to say it makes me laugh how the very people who always go on about being law abiding citizens and would like to see drug users to be prosecuted for their crimes, are always speaking about the ''war on the motorist'' (translated as: "we're not being allowed to break the law!") and buy books specifically designed to cheat the law and allow them to get away with their offences.

    Like that darling of the Right Richard Littlecunt would say, you couldn't make it up :D

    p.s. not directed at you Glenn... I'm talking about the Daily Mail readeship and ownership.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No offence taken btw ;)

    You're missing the point though, that book isn't really about how to break the rules. If every speeding/parking ticket or fixed penalty was given correctly then there'd be no reason for that book.

    What it does is show you (for example) how GATSOs work and what can go wrong in them - so if you do find yourself with a fine you can look in to whether the camera was faulty and snapped you incorrectly.

    I used this very technique when I was accused of doing 85mph on a 70 stretch. I had a letter through the door asking who was driving etc and I know there was something wrong as I was driving my father's old Metro which I knew for a fact could not do more than 65mph.

    I followed the advice in that book and I had a letter from the local Superintendent saying no further action would be taken.

    Most people when accused of speeding just pay the fine in order not to get any trouble. Asking for clarification of the evidence is not an admission of a not-guilty plea. This is what the book is about.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've looked at the website and it does seem to have lots of legal and useful advice. However there can be little doubt about the intentions of some other sections:


    - How far over the speed limit you can go without even risking being stopped. The answer may surprise you.

    - The little known truth about MOT certificates, and what it really means if you don't have one.

    - Eight dirty tricks Dutch drivers use to stay one step ahead of the police and their cameras. Strictly illegal and for information only! (LOL at this one!)

    - The 'inside track' on radar detectors, reflective number plates and other commonly used avoidance devices.

    - How to combat radar and other speed traps. They're far from infallible.


    Actually, I might order a copy... :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Granted if you only go on the advertising it looks like a great source of breaking-the-law information ;)

    But to be fair the information they give on those subject is very limited and wouldn't work in reality - the stuff about what Dutch drivers do is hopelessly outdated.

    It doesn't tell you anything about getting around having an MOT, only what to do if you get caught without one. Radar detectors have long since been outlawed and what it says about radar and speed traps equally applies for instances like my own, above. If you get a fine through the post there are things you should do first before paying up as the devices (and the people using them ;)) can make errors.

    I agree some of the contents is a 'grey area' but the majority is straightforward stuff that applies to the average bloke in the street.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    FCUK it wrote: »
    Therefore even if you cut the braking distance, you'd still be looking at between 25% to 50% of the stopping distance being thinking time.

    At 30mph 66% of the total braking distance is the actual physical distance it takes to stop once you've hit the brake pedal. At 70mph the physical braking distance is nearly 80% of the total braking distance. That, last time I checked, was a pretty healthy majority of the braking distance.

    As Skive's said, a normal driver in a normal car can now stop 20m before the Highway Code says they can. That's a cut of around 25%. With ABS you're looking at bigger savings, and most cars now have ABS fitted as standard. My car does and it cost £8000 brand new.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But the other thing to consider is the roads, look at our motorways. How many times on the motorway do you think that someone travelling at 70, 80mph hits a lampost? Almost never.

    There would be nothing to stop you travelling faster as long as you left a safety gap between you and the car in front, because motorways are nicely designed in that you have lots and lots and lots of clear road to stop. It's not like in town if you try to beat the lights at 40mph and then have to slam on the brakes because it's red and end up going straight through them / into the car in front.

    And where visibility is poor or other circumstances are in effect a variable speed limit is appropriate just like they have on many roads already.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's down to common sense, ability, and confidence.

    If you're driving at a higher speed, you need to be more aware of road conditions (and their changeability), the affect such conditions are likely to have on your car's handling and response time - and indeed your response time.

    At the end of the day, you need to be careful and pay attention 100% of the time. Provided you do this and stay within the limits of yourself and your car, you shouldn't have problems over and above what you would if you stuck to 70MPH
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    At 30mph 66% of the total braking distance is the actual physical distance it takes to stop once you've hit the brake pedal. At 70mph the physical braking distance is nearly 80% of the total braking distance. That, last time I checked, was a pretty healthy majority of the braking distance.

    As Skive's said, a normal driver in a normal car can now stop 20m before the Highway Code says they can. That's a cut of around 25%. With ABS you're looking at bigger savings, and most cars now have ABS fitted as standard. My car does and it cost £8000 brand new.

    Ok, so that cuts the 70mph braking distance to 55m - that still doesn't change the thinking time of actually braking though does it.

    I'm unsure what you mean about pretty healthy majorities of braking distance? I've never come across an unhealthy one. Do you mean the ability to brake and not come into contact with an object as a healthy majority? It's just never a term i've come into contact with when discussing speed limits and braking distances. Furthermore, as already mentioned - my posts have mainly been about the fact that thinking time will not reduce, even if physical braking distance does.

    Shyboy - hardly anyone hits a lampost on a motorway, as they have crash barriers around them and plus people don't leave big enough gaps as it is, never mind increasing the speed.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    FCUK it wrote: »
    Ok, so that cuts the 70mph braking distance to 55m - that still doesn't change the thinking time of actually braking though does it.

    No it doesn't. But it deos cut down the OVERALL breaking distance which when it comes down to it is the most important thing. Are you trying to argue that technological advances in saftey shouldn't have a bearing on our speed limits?
    Weekender Offender 
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    FCUK it wrote: »
    Shyboy - hardly anyone hits a lampost on a motorway, as they have crash barriers around them and plus people don't leave big enough gaps as it is, never mind increasing the speed.

    Motorways are the safest roads in the country. There is not reason why in good conditions and light traffic we shouldb't be able to have unlimited speed motorways as they have in Germany.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    FCUK it wrote: »
    Shyboy - hardly anyone hits a lampost on a motorway, as they have crash barriers around them and plus people don't leave big enough gaps as it is, never mind increasing the speed.

    That's my point! If we're talking about speed as a simple magnitude in relation to a stationary object then we must consider the risk of crashing into that stationary object. Then we are drawn to the conclusion that that particular risk is actually quite small, so maybe the risk factors of increased speed are more complicated and it's not just a "faster = more dangerous" calculation.

    There are good arguments that if you enforce a speed limit less than the 85th percentile speed then lots of people will speed anyway, so there is potentially more danger as the relative speed difference between cars (and I would contest that that car-to-car collisions are the vast majority of accidents on the motorway) increases as some speed and some stick to the speed limit.

    I think if you had a maximum speed limit of 130mph and a minimum speed limit of 120mph and assuming all the cars could do that, then the roads would still be safe.

    I looked up the 70mph speed limit, it was cooked up in 1965 as there were lots of accidents happening in foggy conditions on the main roads. Consider then they drivers had nowhere near the basic education they do now about driving for the conditions and also that cars now are far superior then suddenly the 70mph speed limit seems incredibly arbitrary.

    This doesn't solve the problem of people having accidents, as most accidents occur when you are pulling out of a junction and a SMIDSY follows.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    No it doesn't. But it deos cut down the OVERALL breaking distance which when it comes down to it is the most important thing. Are you trying to argue that technological advances in saftey shouldn't have a bearing on our speed limits?

    Hmm, how does knocking 20m off 75m not make 55m?

    I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying...i've even stated that cars are safer...What I AM saying is that yes, the cars may be safer, many having ABS, DSC, DTC etc, but the actual THINKING distance has not changed. A large proportion of all total braking distances have a section of THINKING distance, which unfortunately, ABS, DSC and DTC can't make any quicker. Plus, I'm not sure what the thinking distance is based on, I know quite a few people who would take much LONGER than the stated times.

    What's yours?

    http://getyourwebsitehere.com/jswb/rttest01.html

    Furthermore, Motorways are the second highest road of where people speed, apart from 30mph areas.

    "Increasing the limit to 80 mph was found to lead to increases in both casualties and greenhouse gas emissions, and the benefits of increasing compliance with the existing 70 mph limit did not justify the extra costs of enforcement." (DfT http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/roadsafetyconsultation/roadsafetyconsultation.pdf)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Motorways are the safest roads in the country. There is not reason why in good conditions and light traffic we shouldb't be able to have unlimited speed motorways as they have in Germany.

    And your definition of light traffic and good conditions is?

    What may be classed as light traffic for one area of the country may be classed as heavy traffic elsewhere.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think it's safe to say that comment was aimed at major roads.

    Light traffic on one motorway is pretty light traffic on any motorway. For stretches with frequent junctions, localised limits would be sensible to keep in place, for example from the Second Severn Crossing pretty much all the way into Cardiff on the M4, there are a lot of junctions that would make it dangerous to have an uncapped limit.
    Sadly, they've put in place a limit of 50MPH, which is - in my opinion - far too restrictive, but it plays to the stupidity of drivers which is always what causes problems.

    There are a set of tunnels, which drivers - for some reason - slam their brakes on before entering. There's no good reason for this that I've ever been able to see, and the amount of accidents that have occured purely because of that is crazy.

    [EDIT]
    Yeah, that comment was aimed at motorways.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    FCUK it wrote: »
    the actual THINKING distance has not changed.

    No but OVERALL (the bit that counts), the actual breaking distance has. Cars that stop in a shorter distance with more control are safer, and road laws should reflect that surely?

    The variables on which our speed laws are absed have changed so surely the law should?
    FCUK it wrote: »
    And your definition of light traffic and good conditions is?

    Not very many cars on the road on a dry clear day. Obvious I would think.

    We already have variable speed limits on our motorways that come into force based on these variables but with a ceiling of 70mph. If it's clear enough and quiet enough there is very little reason why this ceiling could not increase. Germany's proof that it works.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Light traffic on the M25 might be heavy traffic on the M1 in Yorkshire though, it's swings and roundabouts. You can't apply a 'light traffic' speed limit, as different people will have different views on what light traffic is defined as.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    We already have variable speed limits on our motorways that come into force based on these variables but with a ceiling of 70mph. If it's clear enough and quiet enough there is very little reason why this ceiling could not increase. Germany's proof that it works.

    Not quite, as we have safer roads than Germany, who coincidentally have higher speed limits
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    FCUK it wrote: »
    Light traffic on the M25 might be heavy traffic on the M1 in Yorkshire though, it's swings and roundabouts.

    Vaiable speed limits are the fairest speed limits there are. They're based on locations, conditions and traffic density. Hard to argue with that.
    70mph in foggy conditions and heavy traffic is far too fast. 70mph in clear conditions with little traffic is harldy any safer than 100mph in the same conditions.
    FCUK it wrote: »
    You can't apply a 'light traffic' speed limit, as different people will have different views on what light traffic is defined as.

    You can and they already do. We have variable speed limits on many stretches of our roads. Not enough though.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    FCUK it wrote: »
    Light traffic on the M25 might be heavy traffic on the M1 in Yorkshire though, it's swings and roundabouts. You can't apply a 'light traffic' speed limit, as different people will have different views on what light traffic is defined as.

    I think how it would work is there would be road signs with LED lit speed limits like there already are, and traffic controllers would be permitted to change them up to 80, 90mph if the traffic was light and then back down to 70, 50 when traffic gets heavy. At the minute they can't go any higher than 70 even if the conditions and traffic density are fine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    FCUK it wrote: »
    What I AM saying is that yes, the cars may be safer, many having ABS, DSC, DTC etc, but the actual THINKING distance has not changed. A large proportion of all total braking distances have a section of THINKING distance.

    :banghead:

    About 20% of the total braking distance at 70mph is the reaction time, i.e. the distance it takes for you to see the hazard and hit the brake pedal. The other 80% of the total braking distance is the amount of time it takes your car to slow down from 70mph to 0mph. Due to improvements in car design, tyre design and things such as ABS, this distance can be up to 30m less than it was in the 1960s.

    This means that the total braking distance is up to 30m less than it was in 1965. Therefore having a Highway Code using these distances, and legislation taking these distances as gospel, is wrong.

    As for German roads, could you provide evidence that German roads have more casualties per passenger km than on UK roads? My understanding is that safety is pretty similar, meaning that derestricted motorways in the UK would have no material difference on safety.

    But to add about the autobahnen, they have variable limits; in heavy rain or fog I've seen limits as low as 70km/h (about 40mph), which is something we should have in the UK.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :banghead:

    I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm simply stating that the reaction time is still a large proportion of stopping time. And last time i checked, DTC, ABS and DSC don't make you react any quicker. Ergo, your reaction time doesn't change.

    Say you have a braking distance of 100metres, set in 1965.

    20% of this is thinking time (20 metres) - the other 80% is actual stopping distance.

    The total braking distance has now been dropped to say 80m due to advances in technology. The reaction time is now 25% of the total braking distance (25% - 20m reaction time and 75% - 60m physical braking distance), even though the figure has reduced.

    Yes, I can provide evidence thank you - i direct you to the DfT website.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,269 Skive's The Limit
    FCUK it wrote: »
    :banghead:

    I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm simply stating that the reaction time is still a large proportion of stopping time. And last time i checked, DTC, ABS and DSC don't make you react any quicker. Ergo, your reaction time doesn't change.

    But overall stopping distance have come down - is the point we're making. You're talking about only only one half of the equation. Do you not think our speed laws should reflect that or shoudl they still be based on data collected in the 1960s?


    It's not all about breaking distance anyway. Cars are safer in every department. And variable conditions on our roads mean that there are times that 100mph on our roads is goign to be safer than 60mph at other times.
    Variable speed limits are the way forward.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I refer you to my earlier posts, when i stated that i was personally in favour of increasing the limit.

    However, no-one has considered the environmental cost either.

    Regarding 'variable' speed limits - there's quite a lot of ignorance regarding these, as the amount of times i've been on the motorway and seen signs saying 40 or 50 and people are bombing past them at 80 or 90mph, even in the left hand lane.

    Although they are a good idea, people need to be educated on them first.
Sign In or Register to comment.