Reliant Robin driver angry at receiving speeding ticket from police van parked on "safe" road

SPEED TRAP: Reliant Robin owner Harley Monk and friend Ayub Bhatti, who are angry at being caught by a mobile speed camera in Catterick Garrison.

SPEED TRAP: Reliant Robin owner Harley Monk and friend Ayub Bhatti, who are angry at being caught by a mobile speed camera in Catterick Garrison.

First published in News Darlington and Stockton Times: Photograph of the Author by , Regional Chief Reporter

A THREE-wheeled Reliant Robin driver is among a group of residents angry at being caught speeding by a police camera van parked on a “safe” road.

Harley Monk, 74, had a clean driving licence for more than 50 years until he was photographed by the van travelling at 35mph in a 30mph zone in Scotton Road, Catterick Garrison, earlier this year.

His friend, Ayub Bhatti, 60, from Scotton, who was also caught out by the North Yorkshire Police vehicle, said every second person he talked to had received a ticket.

He said: “It’s just a money-making ploy and they’re taking the mickey.

“We are law abiding people but we’re being targeted when there must be more important things for them to be doing.”

Mr Bhatti’s daughter, Sima Younis, 28, of Catterick Village, also received a ticket from the van for travelling five miles an hour over the speed limit.

She said: “We’re not doing 50, 60 or 70mph yet we’re getting these massive £100 fines when people are driving around without tax and insurance.

“They park around a corner just as you’re about to speed up to go up the hill.

“It would be a different matter if it was a residential area or there were schools but there aren’t.”

Mr Monk, also from Scotton, said it was a safe road, adding: “I’ve lived here for 21 years and I’ve never seen an accident on this road.”

The retired farmer drives the three-wheeler on a motorbike licence.

He revealed that he had overturned Reliants three times, including once when he ran over a beer bottle and the front tyre got a puncture, but he had never had a speeding ticket before.

North Yorkshire Police said the camera van manager was unable to comment on the van’s use in Scotton Road until next week.

A spokeswoman added: “All our safety camera routes are based on intelligence and analysis of statistics.

“The best way to avoid a fine is to adhere to the speed limits.”

Comments (98)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:30am Sat 29 Mar 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Anger is surely the wrong word - 'surprise' that a reliant can do over 30 would seem more apposite, that it can do over 35 is even more news worthy.
Anger is surely the wrong word - 'surprise' that a reliant can do over 30 would seem more apposite, that it can do over 35 is even more news worthy. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 44

12:48am Sat 29 Mar 14

Grafter1986 says...

The speed limit is 30, he was caught doing 35. If he was a pedestrian and was hit by another vehicle doing 35 then he would also complain. What if you were to hit a child or another person?
I actually can't believe this has made the news, someone caught speeding complains! Ridiculous.
The speed limit is 30, he was caught doing 35. If he was a pedestrian and was hit by another vehicle doing 35 then he would also complain. What if you were to hit a child or another person? I actually can't believe this has made the news, someone caught speeding complains! Ridiculous. Grafter1986
  • Score: 60

1:15am Sat 29 Mar 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Intelligence?

(rofl)
Intelligence? (rofl) Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 9

7:33am Sat 29 Mar 14

Davy Crocket says...

A thug got a £100 fine recently for headbutting an old lady in broad daylight.
A thug got a £100 fine recently for headbutting an old lady in broad daylight. Davy Crocket
  • Score: 17

7:42am Sat 29 Mar 14

diga says...

If they stuck to the speed limit they wouldn't be angry now!
If they stuck to the speed limit they wouldn't be angry now! diga
  • Score: 47

7:58am Sat 29 Mar 14

maw.si says...

Its 30mph for a reason,If you were to knock a person over in the road then that 5mph could be the difference to whether they live or die.I just don't understand people moaning,You know the limit,stick to it and you wont get a speeding ticket.doh!
Its 30mph for a reason,If you were to knock a person over in the road then that 5mph could be the difference to whether they live or die.I just don't understand people moaning,You know the limit,stick to it and you wont get a speeding ticket.doh! maw.si
  • Score: 57

8:03am Sat 29 Mar 14

jps101 says...

They should be angry, with themselves!
They should be angry, with themselves! jps101
  • Score: 32

8:34am Sat 29 Mar 14

Butafly says...

roads have speed limits for a reason, it states 30 not 35, they only angry that they were caught. Might make those and other morons aware of their speed from now on. Yes it was only 5 over,but each 1 over makes a difference, it is why roads have limits.
roads have speed limits for a reason, it states 30 not 35, they only angry that they were caught. Might make those and other morons aware of their speed from now on. Yes it was only 5 over,but each 1 over makes a difference, it is why roads have limits. Butafly
  • Score: 45

9:22am Sat 29 Mar 14

plain-man says...

Does the road sighn behind them in the background not warn of pedestrians in the road ahead and a 30mph sighn
Does the road sighn behind them in the background not warn of pedestrians in the road ahead and a 30mph sighn plain-man
  • Score: 36

9:28am Sat 29 Mar 14

reasoned view says...

The fine for a speeding offence is correct, I just wish the courts would give "correct" fines to thugs, burglars and drink drivers.
The fine for a speeding offence is correct, I just wish the courts would give "correct" fines to thugs, burglars and drink drivers. reasoned view
  • Score: 41

11:09am Sat 29 Mar 14

Darkroom Devil says...

Durham and parts of Yorkshire do not have camera partnerships – speed being enforced traditionally by the police.

LOCATION, SITING AND VISIBILITY OF CAMERAS
Mounting a challenge on these grounds requires a knowledge of relevant rules. When fixed cameras were first set up, public pressure led to their being confined to areas of accident history and the fact that they are to be visible. Whether this is a reality of course, is a different kettle of fish!
Location Rules:

The site length must be between 400 and 1500 metres.
There must have been at least 4 KSICOLLS (killed or serious injuries) per km in the last 3 calendar years.
At least 8 PIC’s (personal injury collisions – less serious/slight) must have been occasioned per km in the last 3 years.
There must be evidence that speed was relevant in some or all of the cases.
Excluding periods of congestion, there must be evidence that at least 20% of motorists are exceeding the speed limit.
Excess driving speed must be at least 10% over the limit + 2mph (ie 35mph in a 30mph limit/46 mph in a 40mph limit) – for free flowing traffic – excluding rush hour.
Collisions must be clustered in one place.
No other available entry nearing solutions must be available for safety improvement.
The location must be visible, legal and safe.
The above rules apply both to fixed and mobile cameras with the following variations in respect of mobiles:-
Only two KSICOLLS
Only 4 PIC’s
Collisions should be evenly distributed (not clustered)
Please note that the above rules do not apply to police enforcement – only to camera partnership cases. Also, camera partnerships can be devote 15% of their time to mobile operations in any area. Speed camera vehicles should not operate where it would be illegal (eg double yellow lines).
Durham and parts of Yorkshire do not have camera partnerships – speed being enforced traditionally by the police. LOCATION, SITING AND VISIBILITY OF CAMERAS Mounting a challenge on these grounds requires a knowledge of relevant rules. When fixed cameras were first set up, public pressure led to their being confined to areas of accident history and the fact that they are to be visible. Whether this is a reality of course, is a different kettle of fish! Location Rules: The site length must be between 400 and 1500 metres. There must have been at least 4 KSICOLLS (killed or serious injuries) per km in the last 3 calendar years. At least 8 PIC’s (personal injury collisions – less serious/slight) must have been occasioned per km in the last 3 years. There must be evidence that speed was relevant in some or all of the cases. Excluding periods of congestion, there must be evidence that at least 20% of motorists are exceeding the speed limit. Excess driving speed must be at least 10% over the limit + 2mph (ie 35mph in a 30mph limit/46 mph in a 40mph limit) – for free flowing traffic – excluding rush hour. Collisions must be clustered in one place. No other available entry nearing solutions must be available for safety improvement. The location must be visible, legal and safe. The above rules apply both to fixed and mobile cameras with the following variations in respect of mobiles:- Only two KSICOLLS Only 4 PIC’s Collisions should be evenly distributed (not clustered) Please note that the above rules do not apply to police enforcement – only to camera partnership cases. Also, camera partnerships can be devote 15% of their time to mobile operations in any area. Speed camera vehicles should not operate where it would be illegal (eg double yellow lines). Darkroom Devil
  • Score: 1

11:10am Sat 29 Mar 14

Darkroom Devil says...

So basically slow down or cough up.
So basically slow down or cough up. Darkroom Devil
  • Score: 22

11:15am Sat 29 Mar 14

Edmondsley says...

Of course they are breaking the law.I believe they feel disappointed because by doing 35 mph they are making an effort to stick to the speed limit.Cycling on the footpath is also an offence.Interesting to find out how many prosecutions there have been for that.We have made repeated complaints about speeding through our village.( not 35mph but 50s and 60s). The police told the parish council they could not enforce the limit.( health &safety).
Of course they are breaking the law.I believe they feel disappointed because by doing 35 mph they are making an effort to stick to the speed limit.Cycling on the footpath is also an offence.Interesting to find out how many prosecutions there have been for that.We have made repeated complaints about speeding through our village.( not 35mph but 50s and 60s). The police told the parish council they could not enforce the limit.( health &safety). Edmondsley
  • Score: 14

11:19am Sat 29 Mar 14

Edmondsley says...

The speed sign in the background of the photo is i believe 20mph.
The speed sign in the background of the photo is i believe 20mph. Edmondsley
  • Score: 13

11:44am Sat 29 Mar 14

behonest says...

There was a story on here yesterday about a thug in Hartlepool who was found guilty of attacking someone in a pub; this thug had 15 previous convictions (including breaking a man's jaw, and escaping from custody) and so he of course must have received a much more severe sentence than the £100 fine you get for doing 35 in a 30, right? Wrong, he walked free from court.

Minor motoring transgressions are a very easy tax-collection opportunity for local authorities. So collect the tax they will, and we're stuck with it. £100 for a little over the speed limit is too harsh, but it's easy money - that's why it keeps being increased. Fairness has nothing to do with it.
There was a story on here yesterday about a thug in Hartlepool who was found guilty of attacking someone in a pub; this thug had 15 previous convictions (including breaking a man's jaw, and escaping from custody) and so he of course must have received a much more severe sentence than the £100 fine you get for doing 35 in a 30, right? Wrong, he walked free from court. Minor motoring transgressions are a very easy tax-collection opportunity for local authorities. So collect the tax they will, and we're stuck with it. £100 for a little over the speed limit is too harsh, but it's easy money - that's why it keeps being increased. Fairness has nothing to do with it. behonest
  • Score: 3

11:53am Sat 29 Mar 14

jps101 says...

Edmondsley wrote:
Of course they are breaking the law.I believe they feel disappointed because by doing 35 mph they are making an effort to stick to the speed limit.Cycling on the footpath is also an offence.Interesting to find out how many prosecutions there have been for that.We have made repeated complaints about speeding through our village.( not 35mph but 50s and 60s). The police told the parish council they could not enforce the limit.( health &safety).
And its for the very reason you state "speeding through our village.( not 35mph but 50s and 60s)." that some cyclists cycle on the footpath, they'd rather risk a fine than death! who wouldn't?
[quote][p][bold]Edmondsley[/bold] wrote: Of course they are breaking the law.I believe they feel disappointed because by doing 35 mph they are making an effort to stick to the speed limit.Cycling on the footpath is also an offence.Interesting to find out how many prosecutions there have been for that.We have made repeated complaints about speeding through our village.( not 35mph but 50s and 60s). The police told the parish council they could not enforce the limit.( health &safety).[/p][/quote]And its for the very reason you state "speeding through our village.( not 35mph but 50s and 60s)." that some cyclists cycle on the footpath, they'd rather risk a fine than death! who wouldn't? jps101
  • Score: 8

12:25pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Flower2014 says...

It's the particular road that the camera is on which I feel is the point being made here. Obviously the 30mph limit is essential is certain places, however this camera is strategically placed on top of a hill where motorists generally need to accelerate a little more. 35mph is a very easy speed to reach at this point.
It's the particular road that the camera is on which I feel is the point being made here. Obviously the 30mph limit is essential is certain places, however this camera is strategically placed on top of a hill where motorists generally need to accelerate a little more. 35mph is a very easy speed to reach at this point. Flower2014
  • Score: -15

12:59pm Sat 29 Mar 14

jps101 says...

Flower2014 wrote:
It's the particular road that the camera is on which I feel is the point being made here. Obviously the 30mph limit is essential is certain places, however this camera is strategically placed on top of a hill where motorists generally need to accelerate a little more. 35mph is a very easy speed to reach at this point.
Not quite sure I understand what you're saying here Flower.
Is it that you think it is necessary to go faster where there are hills (regardless of the speed limit)?
I agree you probably need to accelerate to climb a hill but to ensure you don't exceed the speed limit you stay in a low gear.
[quote][p][bold]Flower2014[/bold] wrote: It's the particular road that the camera is on which I feel is the point being made here. Obviously the 30mph limit is essential is certain places, however this camera is strategically placed on top of a hill where motorists generally need to accelerate a little more. 35mph is a very easy speed to reach at this point.[/p][/quote]Not quite sure I understand what you're saying here Flower. Is it that you think it is necessary to go faster where there are hills (regardless of the speed limit)? I agree you probably need to accelerate to climb a hill but to ensure you don't exceed the speed limit you stay in a low gear. jps101
  • Score: 17

1:11pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Butafly says...

@behonest, in my opinion £100 was not harsh....what was wrong is the thug u were on about who got the same amount fine,who broke a mans jaw, escaped custody,has previous convictions,should have got alot more chucked at him than that, im sure u could agree on that.
Its why people have countless previous convictions,because they are given a pat on their back saying their ya go son go and do it again(lad or lass may i add).
@behonest, in my opinion £100 was not harsh....what was wrong is the thug u were on about who got the same amount fine,who broke a mans jaw, escaped custody,has previous convictions,should have got alot more chucked at him than that, im sure u could agree on that. Its why people have countless previous convictions,because they are given a pat on their back saying their ya go son go and do it again(lad or lass may i add). Butafly
  • Score: 8

1:24pm Sat 29 Mar 14

tomtopper says...

jps101 wrote:
Flower2014 wrote:
It's the particular road that the camera is on which I feel is the point being made here. Obviously the 30mph limit is essential is certain places, however this camera is strategically placed on top of a hill where motorists generally need to accelerate a little more. 35mph is a very easy speed to reach at this point.
Not quite sure I understand what you're saying here Flower.
Is it that you think it is necessary to go faster where there are hills (regardless of the speed limit)?
I agree you probably need to accelerate to climb a hill but to ensure you don't exceed the speed limit you stay in a low gear.
What he's saying is that rather than being about safety, the cameras are about revenue, which they are.. Road safety is about observation and knowing when to go slow..It's not about a numeric limit
[quote][p][bold]jps101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Flower2014[/bold] wrote: It's the particular road that the camera is on which I feel is the point being made here. Obviously the 30mph limit is essential is certain places, however this camera is strategically placed on top of a hill where motorists generally need to accelerate a little more. 35mph is a very easy speed to reach at this point.[/p][/quote]Not quite sure I understand what you're saying here Flower. Is it that you think it is necessary to go faster where there are hills (regardless of the speed limit)? I agree you probably need to accelerate to climb a hill but to ensure you don't exceed the speed limit you stay in a low gear.[/p][/quote]What he's saying is that rather than being about safety, the cameras are about revenue, which they are.. Road safety is about observation and knowing when to go slow..It's not about a numeric limit tomtopper
  • Score: -5

1:43pm Sat 29 Mar 14

tomtopper says...

North Yorks Police made a big song and dance about needing a Camera van to try and stop biker deaths on the regions roads and inevitably they are now sneakily chasing revenue...
North Yorks Police made a big song and dance about needing a Camera van to try and stop biker deaths on the regions roads and inevitably they are now sneakily chasing revenue... tomtopper
  • Score: -3

1:53pm Sat 29 Mar 14

tomtopper says...

behonest wrote:
There was a story on here yesterday about a thug in Hartlepool who was found guilty of attacking someone in a pub; this thug had 15 previous convictions (including breaking a man's jaw, and escaping from custody) and so he of course must have received a much more severe sentence than the £100 fine you get for doing 35 in a 30, right? Wrong, he walked free from court.

Minor motoring transgressions are a very easy tax-collection opportunity for local authorities. So collect the tax they will, and we're stuck with it. £100 for a little over the speed limit is too harsh, but it's easy money - that's why it keeps being increased. Fairness has nothing to do with it.
This is what irks me also.. All about revenue, not justice .. A man has his wallet emptied and insurance increased and 3 points for accidentally exceeding a numeric limit regardless of whether he was driving safely.. Hadn't hurt anyone, just going about his daily business, yet some violent lowlife, who damaged (possibly long term)and could've quite easily killed someone is given a slap on the wrist... Sick really
[quote][p][bold]behonest[/bold] wrote: There was a story on here yesterday about a thug in Hartlepool who was found guilty of attacking someone in a pub; this thug had 15 previous convictions (including breaking a man's jaw, and escaping from custody) and so he of course must have received a much more severe sentence than the £100 fine you get for doing 35 in a 30, right? Wrong, he walked free from court. Minor motoring transgressions are a very easy tax-collection opportunity for local authorities. So collect the tax they will, and we're stuck with it. £100 for a little over the speed limit is too harsh, but it's easy money - that's why it keeps being increased. Fairness has nothing to do with it.[/p][/quote]This is what irks me also.. All about revenue, not justice .. A man has his wallet emptied and insurance increased and 3 points for accidentally exceeding a numeric limit regardless of whether he was driving safely.. Hadn't hurt anyone, just going about his daily business, yet some violent lowlife, who damaged (possibly long term)and could've quite easily killed someone is given a slap on the wrist... Sick really tomtopper
  • Score: 7

4:04pm Sat 29 Mar 14

jps101 says...

tomtopper wrote:
jps101 wrote:
Flower2014 wrote:
It's the particular road that the camera is on which I feel is the point being made here. Obviously the 30mph limit is essential is certain places, however this camera is strategically placed on top of a hill where motorists generally need to accelerate a little more. 35mph is a very easy speed to reach at this point.
Not quite sure I understand what you're saying here Flower.
Is it that you think it is necessary to go faster where there are hills (regardless of the speed limit)?
I agree you probably need to accelerate to climb a hill but to ensure you don't exceed the speed limit you stay in a low gear.
What he's saying is that rather than being about safety, the cameras are about revenue, which they are.. Road safety is about observation and knowing when to go slow..It's not about a numeric limit
I can't believe what I'm reading here.

Flower thinks the 30 mile an hour limit is essential in certain areas but not in others, since when did we get to pick and choose.
So if you're a pedestrian who gets hit at the brow of the hill, tough! motorists need to go faster there.

Tomtopper thinks road safety is about observation, yes he's right you observe the "three zero" numeric on the road sign and you know its there for some reason you don't know about so you don't exceed it.

If you know how to control a motor vehicle, you don't give them any revenue.
[quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jps101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Flower2014[/bold] wrote: It's the particular road that the camera is on which I feel is the point being made here. Obviously the 30mph limit is essential is certain places, however this camera is strategically placed on top of a hill where motorists generally need to accelerate a little more. 35mph is a very easy speed to reach at this point.[/p][/quote]Not quite sure I understand what you're saying here Flower. Is it that you think it is necessary to go faster where there are hills (regardless of the speed limit)? I agree you probably need to accelerate to climb a hill but to ensure you don't exceed the speed limit you stay in a low gear.[/p][/quote]What he's saying is that rather than being about safety, the cameras are about revenue, which they are.. Road safety is about observation and knowing when to go slow..It's not about a numeric limit[/p][/quote]I can't believe what I'm reading here. Flower thinks the 30 mile an hour limit is essential in certain areas but not in others, since when did we get to pick and choose. So if you're a pedestrian who gets hit at the brow of the hill, tough! motorists need to go faster there. Tomtopper thinks road safety is about observation, yes he's right you observe the "three zero" numeric on the road sign and you know its there for some reason you don't know about so you don't exceed it. If you know how to control a motor vehicle, you don't give them any revenue. jps101
  • Score: 19

4:20pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Edmondsley says...

Jps I am not questioning the reason for cycling on the pavement, just wondering how many people have been caught and fined for it compared to speeding motorists.
Jps I am not questioning the reason for cycling on the pavement, just wondering how many people have been caught and fined for it compared to speeding motorists. Edmondsley
  • Score: 3

4:35pm Sat 29 Mar 14

jps101 says...

Edmondsley wrote:
Jps I am not questioning the reason for cycling on the pavement, just wondering how many people have been caught and fined for it compared to speeding motorists.
I would say very few if not any, for the simple reason the Police use their discretion when they see it.
They were told recently to use a bit of common sense in this matter as someone else has said on other anti cycling rants on here.
The Cycling issue is a little bit off subject for this news item really though.
[quote][p][bold]Edmondsley[/bold] wrote: Jps I am not questioning the reason for cycling on the pavement, just wondering how many people have been caught and fined for it compared to speeding motorists.[/p][/quote]I would say very few if not any, for the simple reason the Police use their discretion when they see it. They were told recently to use a bit of common sense in this matter as someone else has said on other anti cycling rants on here. The Cycling issue is a little bit off subject for this news item really though. jps101
  • Score: 0

6:17pm Sat 29 Mar 14

miketually says...

jps101 wrote:
Edmondsley wrote:
Of course they are breaking the law.I believe they feel disappointed because by doing 35 mph they are making an effort to stick to the speed limit.Cycling on the footpath is also an offence.Interesting to find out how many prosecutions there have been for that.We have made repeated complaints about speeding through our village.( not 35mph but 50s and 60s). The police told the parish council they could not enforce the limit.( health &safety).
And its for the very reason you state "speeding through our village.( not 35mph but 50s and 60s)." that some cyclists cycle on the footpath, they'd rather risk a fine than death! who wouldn't?
The advice from the Home Office is for police not to issue fixed penalty notices to people cycling on the footpath sensibly and for safety reasons. A look at accident statistics would easily explain the reason for this.
[quote][p][bold]jps101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edmondsley[/bold] wrote: Of course they are breaking the law.I believe they feel disappointed because by doing 35 mph they are making an effort to stick to the speed limit.Cycling on the footpath is also an offence.Interesting to find out how many prosecutions there have been for that.We have made repeated complaints about speeding through our village.( not 35mph but 50s and 60s). The police told the parish council they could not enforce the limit.( health &safety).[/p][/quote]And its for the very reason you state "speeding through our village.( not 35mph but 50s and 60s)." that some cyclists cycle on the footpath, they'd rather risk a fine than death! who wouldn't?[/p][/quote]The advice from the Home Office is for police not to issue fixed penalty notices to people cycling on the footpath sensibly and for safety reasons. A look at accident statistics would easily explain the reason for this. miketually
  • Score: 3

7:08pm Sat 29 Mar 14

DL5opinion says...

35 in a 30 zone.
Stop twisting. You were speeding. You were caught.
No story here.
35 in a 30 zone. Stop twisting. You were speeding. You were caught. No story here. DL5opinion
  • Score: 16

7:11pm Sat 29 Mar 14

tomtopper says...

jps101 wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
jps101 wrote:
Flower2014 wrote:
It's the particular road that the camera is on which I feel is the point being made here. Obviously the 30mph limit is essential is certain places, however this camera is strategically placed on top of a hill where motorists generally need to accelerate a little more. 35mph is a very easy speed to reach at this point.
Not quite sure I understand what you're saying here Flower.
Is it that you think it is necessary to go faster where there are hills (regardless of the speed limit)?
I agree you probably need to accelerate to climb a hill but to ensure you don't exceed the speed limit you stay in a low gear.
What he's saying is that rather than being about safety, the cameras are about revenue, which they are.. Road safety is about observation and knowing when to go slow..It's not about a numeric limit
I can't believe what I'm reading here.

Flower thinks the 30 mile an hour limit is essential in certain areas but not in others, since when did we get to pick and choose.
So if you're a pedestrian who gets hit at the brow of the hill, tough! motorists need to go faster there.

Tomtopper thinks road safety is about observation, yes he's right you observe the "three zero" numeric on the road sign and you know its there for some reason you don't know about so you don't exceed it.

If you know how to control a motor vehicle, you don't give them any revenue.
And jps101 obviously thinks you're safe as long as you drive at 30.. A dangerous mindset indeed.. But I suppose it's one way of keeping a lid on uneducated and ignorant motorists such as what you appear to be..

It's all about driving to conditions, not speed, thus each 'speeding' offence should be judged according to conditions at the time.. Indeed the focus on speed has coincided with a worse trend in road deaths as rates have remained flat as vehicle safety, medical care and speed reduction measures have all advanced..

Driving situations are far too varied to expect an actual speed limit to reflect the level of danger and most serious crashes occur under the posted limits not above them..

The point is, driving at a speed limit is not a skill whereas deciding on a safe speed most definitely is..

There is also a powerful suggestion that rigid speed enforcement has transferred responsibility from the driver to the speed limit .. This inevitably creates drivers who are less skilled at deciding what is actually safe for the situation, especially if a speed lower than the limit is required..

It is not realistic to brand all drivers who exceed the speed limit as reckless and irresponsible..There are just too many of them, it is indeed most of us.. And the public are generally not reckless, on the contrary, we are becoming more risk averse, to the extent of losing ability to cope with it..

Uniquely in the justice system, speed limits are broken every day by probably more people than vote in a general election...Such a vast disrespect carries weight and people should not be criminalised on that scale..

Millions of people drive every day at speeds they deem to be safe yet over the posted limit and yet crashes are quite rare in comparison, this casts doubt over a simple cause and effect connection...

Cameras detect only the numeric speed, not the danger and thus alienates the driver and the law..
[quote][p][bold]jps101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jps101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Flower2014[/bold] wrote: It's the particular road that the camera is on which I feel is the point being made here. Obviously the 30mph limit is essential is certain places, however this camera is strategically placed on top of a hill where motorists generally need to accelerate a little more. 35mph is a very easy speed to reach at this point.[/p][/quote]Not quite sure I understand what you're saying here Flower. Is it that you think it is necessary to go faster where there are hills (regardless of the speed limit)? I agree you probably need to accelerate to climb a hill but to ensure you don't exceed the speed limit you stay in a low gear.[/p][/quote]What he's saying is that rather than being about safety, the cameras are about revenue, which they are.. Road safety is about observation and knowing when to go slow..It's not about a numeric limit[/p][/quote]I can't believe what I'm reading here. Flower thinks the 30 mile an hour limit is essential in certain areas but not in others, since when did we get to pick and choose. So if you're a pedestrian who gets hit at the brow of the hill, tough! motorists need to go faster there. Tomtopper thinks road safety is about observation, yes he's right you observe the "three zero" numeric on the road sign and you know its there for some reason you don't know about so you don't exceed it. If you know how to control a motor vehicle, you don't give them any revenue.[/p][/quote]And jps101 obviously thinks you're safe as long as you drive at 30.. A dangerous mindset indeed.. But I suppose it's one way of keeping a lid on uneducated and ignorant motorists such as what you appear to be.. It's all about driving to conditions, not speed, thus each 'speeding' offence should be judged according to conditions at the time.. Indeed the focus on speed has coincided with a worse trend in road deaths as rates have remained flat as vehicle safety, medical care and speed reduction measures have all advanced.. Driving situations are far too varied to expect an actual speed limit to reflect the level of danger and most serious crashes occur under the posted limits not above them.. The point is, driving at a speed limit is not a skill whereas deciding on a safe speed most definitely is.. There is also a powerful suggestion that rigid speed enforcement has transferred responsibility from the driver to the speed limit .. This inevitably creates drivers who are less skilled at deciding what is actually safe for the situation, especially if a speed lower than the limit is required.. It is not realistic to brand all drivers who exceed the speed limit as reckless and irresponsible..There are just too many of them, it is indeed most of us.. And the public are generally not reckless, on the contrary, we are becoming more risk averse, to the extent of losing ability to cope with it.. Uniquely in the justice system, speed limits are broken every day by probably more people than vote in a general election...Such a vast disrespect carries weight and people should not be criminalised on that scale.. Millions of people drive every day at speeds they deem to be safe yet over the posted limit and yet crashes are quite rare in comparison, this casts doubt over a simple cause and effect connection... Cameras detect only the numeric speed, not the danger and thus alienates the driver and the law.. tomtopper
  • Score: -3

7:17pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Robert_ says...

I tend to avoid being fined, gaining points and being a law breaker by driving within the speed limit. If I do get caught speeding I wouldn't whinge about it to the papers. And what is the fact he drives a Reliant Robin got to do with anything/? If he drove a Mondeo would that be in the headline?
I tend to avoid being fined, gaining points and being a law breaker by driving within the speed limit. If I do get caught speeding I wouldn't whinge about it to the papers. And what is the fact he drives a Reliant Robin got to do with anything/? If he drove a Mondeo would that be in the headline? Robert_
  • Score: 19

7:21pm Sat 29 Mar 14

cushybutterfield says...

About One percent of British Motorists have NOT speeded. 99 per cent HAVE at one time or another including Batman and ROBIN. Pay up like most others or buy a pedal-assisted RICKSHAW.
About One percent of British Motorists have NOT speeded. 99 per cent HAVE at one time or another including Batman and ROBIN. Pay up like most others or buy a pedal-assisted RICKSHAW. cushybutterfield
  • Score: 9

7:32pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Robert_ says...

I have been caught, my fault, fair cop. They will get you where the road goes into a village.. down from 60 to 30... Or 30 to 60 if you boot it before the sign..!
I have been caught, my fault, fair cop. They will get you where the road goes into a village.. down from 60 to 30... Or 30 to 60 if you boot it before the sign..! Robert_
  • Score: 6

8:12pm Sat 29 Mar 14

behonest says...

And when 20mph speed limits become more common and you're caught doing 22mph, and the tax fine is increased to £150, then just pay up. You don't agree with it, didn't vote for it, haven't hurt anyone, but just pay the tax.
And when 20mph speed limits become more common and you're caught doing 22mph, and the tax fine is increased to £150, then just pay up. You don't agree with it, didn't vote for it, haven't hurt anyone, but just pay the tax. behonest
  • Score: -2

8:14pm Sat 29 Mar 14

mixxer says...

"Safety cameras" are primarily a revenue raising device and that is why they are always placed in areas where it is easy to inadvertently break the speed limit. It is also why they are never placed outside schools because the aren't enough idiots who speed past schools to make it profitable.
When the amount of speeders diminishes to a non-profitable level they'll lower the speed limits to continue their income, hence the "twenty is plenty" campaign. The majority of serious accidents in 30mph zones are caused by drink/drug influenced drivers in uninsured cars often with false number plates. "Safety cameras" are totally ineffective in such cases.
"Safety cameras" are primarily a revenue raising device and that is why they are always placed in areas where it is easy to inadvertently break the speed limit. It is also why they are never placed outside schools because the aren't enough idiots who speed past schools to make it profitable. When the amount of speeders diminishes to a non-profitable level they'll lower the speed limits to continue their income, hence the "twenty is plenty" campaign. The majority of serious accidents in 30mph zones are caused by drink/drug influenced drivers in uninsured cars often with false number plates. "Safety cameras" are totally ineffective in such cases. mixxer
  • Score: -7

8:18pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Robert_ says...

Everyone has to pay tax. Its not a tax, you can choose to not pay it. By sticking to the speed limit.. :/
Everyone has to pay tax. Its not a tax, you can choose to not pay it. By sticking to the speed limit.. :/ Robert_
  • Score: 15

8:20pm Sat 29 Mar 14

behonest says...

miketually wrote:
jps101 wrote:
Edmondsley wrote:
Of course they are breaking the law.I believe they feel disappointed because by doing 35 mph they are making an effort to stick to the speed limit.Cycling on the footpath is also an offence.Interesting to find out how many prosecutions there have been for that.We have made repeated complaints about speeding through our village.( not 35mph but 50s and 60s). The police told the parish council they could not enforce the limit.( health &safety).
And its for the very reason you state "speeding through our village.( not 35mph but 50s and 60s)." that some cyclists cycle on the footpath, they'd rather risk a fine than death! who wouldn't?
The advice from the Home Office is for police not to issue fixed penalty notices to people cycling on the footpath sensibly and for safety reasons. A look at accident statistics would easily explain the reason for this.
So why are motorists driving sensibly at just over 30mph hit with such tax fines? Surely the law is the law and if tax can be raised from motorists for minor transgressions, then cyclists riding on pavements should also be taxed.

Accident statistics. How many of these motorists fined for driving a little over the limit on Scotton Road, caused, or were involved in, accidents - I'll bet none of them were. But they were all hit with these excessive tax fines.

If the argument is that they could have caused an accident, then the same argument can be applied to cyclists on pavements.
[quote][p][bold]miketually[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jps101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Edmondsley[/bold] wrote: Of course they are breaking the law.I believe they feel disappointed because by doing 35 mph they are making an effort to stick to the speed limit.Cycling on the footpath is also an offence.Interesting to find out how many prosecutions there have been for that.We have made repeated complaints about speeding through our village.( not 35mph but 50s and 60s). The police told the parish council they could not enforce the limit.( health &safety).[/p][/quote]And its for the very reason you state "speeding through our village.( not 35mph but 50s and 60s)." that some cyclists cycle on the footpath, they'd rather risk a fine than death! who wouldn't?[/p][/quote]The advice from the Home Office is for police not to issue fixed penalty notices to people cycling on the footpath sensibly and for safety reasons. A look at accident statistics would easily explain the reason for this.[/p][/quote]So why are motorists driving sensibly at just over 30mph hit with such tax fines? Surely the law is the law and if tax can be raised from motorists for minor transgressions, then cyclists riding on pavements should also be taxed. Accident statistics. How many of these motorists fined for driving a little over the limit on Scotton Road, caused, or were involved in, accidents - I'll bet none of them were. But they were all hit with these excessive tax fines. If the argument is that they could have caused an accident, then the same argument can be applied to cyclists on pavements. behonest
  • Score: -2

8:37pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Robert_ says...

Tax is not optional.. fines are... they are not the same. You are like people who call the TV licence a 'tax'. It isn't.

You are obviously angry about something....
Tax is not optional.. fines are... they are not the same. You are like people who call the TV licence a 'tax'. It isn't. You are obviously angry about something.... Robert_
  • Score: 5

8:37pm Sat 29 Mar 14

tomtopper says...

mixxer wrote:
"Safety cameras" are primarily a revenue raising device and that is why they are always placed in areas where it is easy to inadvertently break the speed limit. It is also why they are never placed outside schools because the aren't enough idiots who speed past schools to make it profitable.
When the amount of speeders diminishes to a non-profitable level they'll lower the speed limits to continue their income, hence the "twenty is plenty" campaign. The majority of serious accidents in 30mph zones are caused by drink/drug influenced drivers in uninsured cars often with false number plates. "Safety cameras" are totally ineffective in such cases.
Excellent post..
[quote][p][bold]mixxer[/bold] wrote: "Safety cameras" are primarily a revenue raising device and that is why they are always placed in areas where it is easy to inadvertently break the speed limit. It is also why they are never placed outside schools because the aren't enough idiots who speed past schools to make it profitable. When the amount of speeders diminishes to a non-profitable level they'll lower the speed limits to continue their income, hence the "twenty is plenty" campaign. The majority of serious accidents in 30mph zones are caused by drink/drug influenced drivers in uninsured cars often with false number plates. "Safety cameras" are totally ineffective in such cases.[/p][/quote]Excellent post.. tomtopper
  • Score: -3

8:56pm Sat 29 Mar 14

tomtopper says...

The current use of speed enforcement using mobile cameras is quite simply a callous tax on motorists..

1)Exceeding the posted limit is illegal and the basis of prosecuting a motorist and MAY be unsafe ...

2)Driving too fast for the situation but within the speed limit is ALWAYS dangerous though not illegal as a speed in itself..

The first of these is deemed 'excessive' speed and the second is called 'inappropriate' speed, which sounds quite innocent yet is responsible for more carnage on the road..

It's these treacherous elements that lead to an illusion of safety with people saying " it wasn't dangerous, i wasn't even speeding"..

Camera vans..revenue raisers pure and simple.. Which is why you never see one outside a school..
The current use of speed enforcement using mobile cameras is quite simply a callous tax on motorists.. 1)Exceeding the posted limit is illegal and the basis of prosecuting a motorist and MAY be unsafe ... 2)Driving too fast for the situation but within the speed limit is ALWAYS dangerous though not illegal as a speed in itself.. The first of these is deemed 'excessive' speed and the second is called 'inappropriate' speed, which sounds quite innocent yet is responsible for more carnage on the road.. It's these treacherous elements that lead to an illusion of safety with people saying " it wasn't dangerous, i wasn't even speeding".. Camera vans..revenue raisers pure and simple.. Which is why you never see one outside a school.. tomtopper
  • Score: -5

8:57pm Sat 29 Mar 14

jps101 says...

tomtopper wrote:
jps101 wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
jps101 wrote:
Flower2014 wrote:
It's the particular road that the camera is on which I feel is the point being made here. Obviously the 30mph limit is essential is certain places, however this camera is strategically placed on top of a hill where motorists generally need to accelerate a little more. 35mph is a very easy speed to reach at this point.
Not quite sure I understand what you're saying here Flower.
Is it that you think it is necessary to go faster where there are hills (regardless of the speed limit)?
I agree you probably need to accelerate to climb a hill but to ensure you don't exceed the speed limit you stay in a low gear.
What he's saying is that rather than being about safety, the cameras are about revenue, which they are.. Road safety is about observation and knowing when to go slow..It's not about a numeric limit
I can't believe what I'm reading here.

Flower thinks the 30 mile an hour limit is essential in certain areas but not in others, since when did we get to pick and choose.
So if you're a pedestrian who gets hit at the brow of the hill, tough! motorists need to go faster there.

Tomtopper thinks road safety is about observation, yes he's right you observe the "three zero" numeric on the road sign and you know its there for some reason you don't know about so you don't exceed it.

If you know how to control a motor vehicle, you don't give them any revenue.
And jps101 obviously thinks you're safe as long as you drive at 30.. A dangerous mindset indeed.. But I suppose it's one way of keeping a lid on uneducated and ignorant motorists such as what you appear to be..

It's all about driving to conditions, not speed, thus each 'speeding' offence should be judged according to conditions at the time.. Indeed the focus on speed has coincided with a worse trend in road deaths as rates have remained flat as vehicle safety, medical care and speed reduction measures have all advanced..

Driving situations are far too varied to expect an actual speed limit to reflect the level of danger and most serious crashes occur under the posted limits not above them..

The point is, driving at a speed limit is not a skill whereas deciding on a safe speed most definitely is..

There is also a powerful suggestion that rigid speed enforcement has transferred responsibility from the driver to the speed limit .. This inevitably creates drivers who are less skilled at deciding what is actually safe for the situation, especially if a speed lower than the limit is required..

It is not realistic to brand all drivers who exceed the speed limit as reckless and irresponsible..There are just too many of them, it is indeed most of us.. And the public are generally not reckless, on the contrary, we are becoming more risk averse, to the extent of losing ability to cope with it..

Uniquely in the justice system, speed limits are broken every day by probably more people than vote in a general election...Such a vast disrespect carries weight and people should not be criminalised on that scale..

Millions of people drive every day at speeds they deem to be safe yet over the posted limit and yet crashes are quite rare in comparison, this casts doubt over a simple cause and effect connection...

Cameras detect only the numeric speed, not the danger and thus alienates the driver and the law..
And jps101 obviously thinks you're safe as long as you drive at 30.. A dangerous mindset indeed.. But I suppose it's one way of keeping a lid on uneducated and ignorant motorists such as what you appear to be..

Well no I don't think you are safe as long as you drive at 30, just for the record.

I don't know why some people have to resort to personal abuse the way you just have we are having a otherwise reasonable debate.

You'd do well to remember the speed limits are there to protect you from others as well, there has to be rules like it or not, or else it would be complete carnage every day.
[quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jps101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jps101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Flower2014[/bold] wrote: It's the particular road that the camera is on which I feel is the point being made here. Obviously the 30mph limit is essential is certain places, however this camera is strategically placed on top of a hill where motorists generally need to accelerate a little more. 35mph is a very easy speed to reach at this point.[/p][/quote]Not quite sure I understand what you're saying here Flower. Is it that you think it is necessary to go faster where there are hills (regardless of the speed limit)? I agree you probably need to accelerate to climb a hill but to ensure you don't exceed the speed limit you stay in a low gear.[/p][/quote]What he's saying is that rather than being about safety, the cameras are about revenue, which they are.. Road safety is about observation and knowing when to go slow..It's not about a numeric limit[/p][/quote]I can't believe what I'm reading here. Flower thinks the 30 mile an hour limit is essential in certain areas but not in others, since when did we get to pick and choose. So if you're a pedestrian who gets hit at the brow of the hill, tough! motorists need to go faster there. Tomtopper thinks road safety is about observation, yes he's right you observe the "three zero" numeric on the road sign and you know its there for some reason you don't know about so you don't exceed it. If you know how to control a motor vehicle, you don't give them any revenue.[/p][/quote]And jps101 obviously thinks you're safe as long as you drive at 30.. A dangerous mindset indeed.. But I suppose it's one way of keeping a lid on uneducated and ignorant motorists such as what you appear to be.. It's all about driving to conditions, not speed, thus each 'speeding' offence should be judged according to conditions at the time.. Indeed the focus on speed has coincided with a worse trend in road deaths as rates have remained flat as vehicle safety, medical care and speed reduction measures have all advanced.. Driving situations are far too varied to expect an actual speed limit to reflect the level of danger and most serious crashes occur under the posted limits not above them.. The point is, driving at a speed limit is not a skill whereas deciding on a safe speed most definitely is.. There is also a powerful suggestion that rigid speed enforcement has transferred responsibility from the driver to the speed limit .. This inevitably creates drivers who are less skilled at deciding what is actually safe for the situation, especially if a speed lower than the limit is required.. It is not realistic to brand all drivers who exceed the speed limit as reckless and irresponsible..There are just too many of them, it is indeed most of us.. And the public are generally not reckless, on the contrary, we are becoming more risk averse, to the extent of losing ability to cope with it.. Uniquely in the justice system, speed limits are broken every day by probably more people than vote in a general election...Such a vast disrespect carries weight and people should not be criminalised on that scale.. Millions of people drive every day at speeds they deem to be safe yet over the posted limit and yet crashes are quite rare in comparison, this casts doubt over a simple cause and effect connection... Cameras detect only the numeric speed, not the danger and thus alienates the driver and the law..[/p][/quote]And jps101 obviously thinks you're safe as long as you drive at 30.. A dangerous mindset indeed.. But I suppose it's one way of keeping a lid on uneducated and ignorant motorists such as what you appear to be.. Well no I don't think you are safe as long as you drive at 30, just for the record. I don't know why some people have to resort to personal abuse the way you just have we are having a otherwise reasonable debate. You'd do well to remember the speed limits are there to protect you from others as well, there has to be rules like it or not, or else it would be complete carnage every day. jps101
  • Score: 5

9:10pm Sat 29 Mar 14

behonest says...

Robert_ wrote:
Tax is not optional.. fines are... they are not the same. You are like people who call the TV licence a 'tax'. It isn't.

You are obviously angry about something....
Wrong. VAT is a tax, but it's optional. Insurance premium tax is a tax, but it's optional. I could go on.
The vast majority of people want to watch a TV, so they are forced to pay the licence tax - for the benefit of only one organisation.

Angry? Well, perhaps irritated. By the fact, as mentioned earlier, that these tax-raising camera's are placed where they are best able to raise the maximum amount of tax, not where they are best placed to improve safety. The old chestnut of 'a child could run across the road' is often used by those who support these tax camera's, but children are most likely to run across the road when they come out of school, or out of a playground, where you will never see these camera's. You see them on the outskirts of a village, just before the speed limit changes, and it's for one reason only - to raise tax. They call them 'fines' though, and some people fall for it.
[quote][p][bold]Robert_[/bold] wrote: Tax is not optional.. fines are... they are not the same. You are like people who call the TV licence a 'tax'. It isn't. You are obviously angry about something....[/p][/quote]Wrong. VAT is a tax, but it's optional. Insurance premium tax is a tax, but it's optional. I could go on. The vast majority of people want to watch a TV, so they are forced to pay the licence tax - for the benefit of only one organisation. Angry? Well, perhaps irritated. By the fact, as mentioned earlier, that these tax-raising camera's are placed where they are best able to raise the maximum amount of tax, not where they are best placed to improve safety. The old chestnut of 'a child could run across the road' is often used by those who support these tax camera's, but children are most likely to run across the road when they come out of school, or out of a playground, where you will never see these camera's. You see them on the outskirts of a village, just before the speed limit changes, and it's for one reason only - to raise tax. They call them 'fines' though, and some people fall for it. behonest
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Robert_ says...

"You see them on the outskirts of a village, just before the speed limit changes"

Just what I have said... slow down then.
"You see them on the outskirts of a village, just before the speed limit changes" Just what I have said... slow down then. Robert_
  • Score: 6

9:16pm Sat 29 Mar 14

behonest says...

jps101 says:
"You'd do well to remember the speed limits are there to protect you from others as well .................or else it would be complete carnage every day."

I'm not convinced a Reliant Robin driven at 35mph on the outskirts of a village is going to cause 'complete carnage'. But it's driver still has to pay the tax.
jps101 says: "You'd do well to remember the speed limits are there to protect you from others as well .................or else it would be complete carnage every day." I'm not convinced a Reliant Robin driven at 35mph on the outskirts of a village is going to cause 'complete carnage'. But it's driver still has to pay the tax. behonest
  • Score: -1

9:19pm Sat 29 Mar 14

behonest says...

Robert_ wrote:
"You see them on the outskirts of a village, just before the speed limit changes"

Just what I have said... slow down then.
'Cos if you don't...£100 tax. Which is why they are there.
[quote][p][bold]Robert_[/bold] wrote: "You see them on the outskirts of a village, just before the speed limit changes" Just what I have said... slow down then.[/p][/quote]'Cos if you don't...£100 tax. Which is why they are there. behonest
  • Score: -1

9:20pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Robert_ says...

Nope.. avoid the tax by choosing to pay a 'fine'
Nope.. avoid the tax by choosing to pay a 'fine' Robert_
  • Score: -2

9:31pm Sat 29 Mar 14

behonest says...

If you're fined, there is no choice. And it's just a tax anyway.
If you're fined, there is no choice. And it's just a tax anyway. behonest
  • Score: -2

9:31pm Sat 29 Mar 14

tomtopper says...

jps101 wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
jps101 wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
jps101 wrote:
Flower2014 wrote:
It's the particular road that the camera is on which I feel is the point being made here. Obviously the 30mph limit is essential is certain places, however this camera is strategically placed on top of a hill where motorists generally need to accelerate a little more. 35mph is a very easy speed to reach at this point.
Not quite sure I understand what you're saying here Flower.
Is it that you think it is necessary to go faster where there are hills (regardless of the speed limit)?
I agree you probably need to accelerate to climb a hill but to ensure you don't exceed the speed limit you stay in a low gear.
What he's saying is that rather than being about safety, the cameras are about revenue, which they are.. Road safety is about observation and knowing when to go slow..It's not about a numeric limit
I can't believe what I'm reading here.

Flower thinks the 30 mile an hour limit is essential in certain areas but not in others, since when did we get to pick and choose.
So if you're a pedestrian who gets hit at the brow of the hill, tough! motorists need to go faster there.

Tomtopper thinks road safety is about observation, yes he's right you observe the "three zero" numeric on the road sign and you know its there for some reason you don't know about so you don't exceed it.

If you know how to control a motor vehicle, you don't give them any revenue.
And jps101 obviously thinks you're safe as long as you drive at 30.. A dangerous mindset indeed.. But I suppose it's one way of keeping a lid on uneducated and ignorant motorists such as what you appear to be..

It's all about driving to conditions, not speed, thus each 'speeding' offence should be judged according to conditions at the time.. Indeed the focus on speed has coincided with a worse trend in road deaths as rates have remained flat as vehicle safety, medical care and speed reduction measures have all advanced..

Driving situations are far too varied to expect an actual speed limit to reflect the level of danger and most serious crashes occur under the posted limits not above them..

The point is, driving at a speed limit is not a skill whereas deciding on a safe speed most definitely is..

There is also a powerful suggestion that rigid speed enforcement has transferred responsibility from the driver to the speed limit .. This inevitably creates drivers who are less skilled at deciding what is actually safe for the situation, especially if a speed lower than the limit is required..

It is not realistic to brand all drivers who exceed the speed limit as reckless and irresponsible..There are just too many of them, it is indeed most of us.. And the public are generally not reckless, on the contrary, we are becoming more risk averse, to the extent of losing ability to cope with it..

Uniquely in the justice system, speed limits are broken every day by probably more people than vote in a general election...Such a vast disrespect carries weight and people should not be criminalised on that scale..

Millions of people drive every day at speeds they deem to be safe yet over the posted limit and yet crashes are quite rare in comparison, this casts doubt over a simple cause and effect connection...

Cameras detect only the numeric speed, not the danger and thus alienates the driver and the law..
And jps101 obviously thinks you're safe as long as you drive at 30.. A dangerous mindset indeed.. But I suppose it's one way of keeping a lid on uneducated and ignorant motorists such as what you appear to be..

Well no I don't think you are safe as long as you drive at 30, just for the record.

I don't know why some people have to resort to personal abuse the way you just have we are having a otherwise reasonable debate.

You'd do well to remember the speed limits are there to protect you from others as well, there has to be rules like it or not, or else it would be complete carnage every day.
I apologise for the acerbic comment and agree that it was uncalled for...

I do tend to get a little irate on this issue as i believe it's a counter-productive measure to good driving and anticipation.. It's all about driving to the conditions, simple as that.. A speed limit doesn't protect you if someone is driving too fast for the conditions but within the limit.. More casualties happen at legal speeds than illegal ones, and this illusion of safety doesn't help..

A van which looks more like a construction workers van with amber beacons etc sitting away in a layby will do nothing to stop someone who is driving too fast for the conditions, (even if below the speed limit) from hitting someone further down the road.. whereas a fully visual traffic car most probably would, and would certainly pull the vehicle and take action based on the situation in hand..

In the case of these camera vans, If speed is such a bad crime which warrants the zero tolerance they mete out, then why isn't it acted upon immediately when first observed, with an instant connection through to the police rather than through the post two weeks later? Hardly preventing 'carnage' in the meantime is it?

And like i've already said, more people exceed the posted limits daily than vote in a general election, and there is no mass daily carnage..

Getting those with drugs in their system and those with no insurance or defective vehicles and those whom are permanently switched off, and the reckless 'racers' off the road is more desirable than throwing the book at someone whom accidentally (and it mostly is accidental) strays over the limit ...
[quote][p][bold]jps101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jps101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jps101[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Flower2014[/bold] wrote: It's the particular road that the camera is on which I feel is the point being made here. Obviously the 30mph limit is essential is certain places, however this camera is strategically placed on top of a hill where motorists generally need to accelerate a little more. 35mph is a very easy speed to reach at this point.[/p][/quote]Not quite sure I understand what you're saying here Flower. Is it that you think it is necessary to go faster where there are hills (regardless of the speed limit)? I agree you probably need to accelerate to climb a hill but to ensure you don't exceed the speed limit you stay in a low gear.[/p][/quote]What he's saying is that rather than being about safety, the cameras are about revenue, which they are.. Road safety is about observation and knowing when to go slow..It's not about a numeric limit[/p][/quote]I can't believe what I'm reading here. Flower thinks the 30 mile an hour limit is essential in certain areas but not in others, since when did we get to pick and choose. So if you're a pedestrian who gets hit at the brow of the hill, tough! motorists need to go faster there. Tomtopper thinks road safety is about observation, yes he's right you observe the "three zero" numeric on the road sign and you know its there for some reason you don't know about so you don't exceed it. If you know how to control a motor vehicle, you don't give them any revenue.[/p][/quote]And jps101 obviously thinks you're safe as long as you drive at 30.. A dangerous mindset indeed.. But I suppose it's one way of keeping a lid on uneducated and ignorant motorists such as what you appear to be.. It's all about driving to conditions, not speed, thus each 'speeding' offence should be judged according to conditions at the time.. Indeed the focus on speed has coincided with a worse trend in road deaths as rates have remained flat as vehicle safety, medical care and speed reduction measures have all advanced.. Driving situations are far too varied to expect an actual speed limit to reflect the level of danger and most serious crashes occur under the posted limits not above them.. The point is, driving at a speed limit is not a skill whereas deciding on a safe speed most definitely is.. There is also a powerful suggestion that rigid speed enforcement has transferred responsibility from the driver to the speed limit .. This inevitably creates drivers who are less skilled at deciding what is actually safe for the situation, especially if a speed lower than the limit is required.. It is not realistic to brand all drivers who exceed the speed limit as reckless and irresponsible..There are just too many of them, it is indeed most of us.. And the public are generally not reckless, on the contrary, we are becoming more risk averse, to the extent of losing ability to cope with it.. Uniquely in the justice system, speed limits are broken every day by probably more people than vote in a general election...Such a vast disrespect carries weight and people should not be criminalised on that scale.. Millions of people drive every day at speeds they deem to be safe yet over the posted limit and yet crashes are quite rare in comparison, this casts doubt over a simple cause and effect connection... Cameras detect only the numeric speed, not the danger and thus alienates the driver and the law..[/p][/quote]And jps101 obviously thinks you're safe as long as you drive at 30.. A dangerous mindset indeed.. But I suppose it's one way of keeping a lid on uneducated and ignorant motorists such as what you appear to be.. Well no I don't think you are safe as long as you drive at 30, just for the record. I don't know why some people have to resort to personal abuse the way you just have we are having a otherwise reasonable debate. You'd do well to remember the speed limits are there to protect you from others as well, there has to be rules like it or not, or else it would be complete carnage every day.[/p][/quote]I apologise for the acerbic comment and agree that it was uncalled for... I do tend to get a little irate on this issue as i believe it's a counter-productive measure to good driving and anticipation.. It's all about driving to the conditions, simple as that.. A speed limit doesn't protect you if someone is driving too fast for the conditions but within the limit.. More casualties happen at legal speeds than illegal ones, and this illusion of safety doesn't help.. A van which looks more like a construction workers van with amber beacons etc sitting away in a layby will do nothing to stop someone who is driving too fast for the conditions, (even if below the speed limit) from hitting someone further down the road.. whereas a fully visual traffic car most probably would, and would certainly pull the vehicle and take action based on the situation in hand.. In the case of these camera vans, If speed is such a bad crime which warrants the zero tolerance they mete out, then why isn't it acted upon immediately when first observed, with an instant connection through to the police rather than through the post two weeks later? Hardly preventing 'carnage' in the meantime is it? And like i've already said, more people exceed the posted limits daily than vote in a general election, and there is no mass daily carnage.. Getting those with drugs in their system and those with no insurance or defective vehicles and those whom are permanently switched off, and the reckless 'racers' off the road is more desirable than throwing the book at someone whom accidentally (and it mostly is accidental) strays over the limit ... tomtopper
  • Score: 4

9:39pm Sat 29 Mar 14

behonest says...

tomtopper - you're quite right. However, if the authorities followed your advice it would result in a significant loss of tax revenue. So they won't.
tomtopper - you're quite right. However, if the authorities followed your advice it would result in a significant loss of tax revenue. So they won't. behonest
  • Score: -1

9:40pm Sat 29 Mar 14

tomtopper says...

It's the same with all this simplistic 'speed kills ' rubbish.. Just promoting a raft of ignorant motorists..
It's the same with all this simplistic 'speed kills ' rubbish.. Just promoting a raft of ignorant motorists.. tomtopper
  • Score: -2

10:47pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Edmondsley says...

The point about comparisons with cycling on the pavement or such like is that writers here say, basically, "you have broken the law, pay up".this does not seem to apply to all laws.The use of common sense should apply to all.I understand that in Northumbria £40 is earned by them for every driver caught and who then attends a speed awareness course.
The point about comparisons with cycling on the pavement or such like is that writers here say, basically, "you have broken the law, pay up".this does not seem to apply to all laws.The use of common sense should apply to all.I understand that in Northumbria £40 is earned by them for every driver caught and who then attends a speed awareness course. Edmondsley
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Sat 29 Mar 14

tomtopper says...

Edmondsley wrote:
The point about comparisons with cycling on the pavement or such like is that writers here say, basically, "you have broken the law, pay up".this does not seem to apply to all laws.The use of common sense should apply to all.I understand that in Northumbria £40 is earned by them for every driver caught and who then attends a speed awareness course.
It's all a big con...
Years ago, one was give a percentage over before being prosecuted, now they get you with an offer of a speed awareness course in what appears to be that same margin, thus making a tidy sum.. The course isn't offered to those who are around 8mph over the posted limit...
Wouldn't you think it was those that needed an awareness course more than the former?

It's just an easy way to extract money out of those they know will pay it..
[quote][p][bold]Edmondsley[/bold] wrote: The point about comparisons with cycling on the pavement or such like is that writers here say, basically, "you have broken the law, pay up".this does not seem to apply to all laws.The use of common sense should apply to all.I understand that in Northumbria £40 is earned by them for every driver caught and who then attends a speed awareness course.[/p][/quote]It's all a big con... Years ago, one was give a percentage over before being prosecuted, now they get you with an offer of a speed awareness course in what appears to be that same margin, thus making a tidy sum.. The course isn't offered to those who are around 8mph over the posted limit... Wouldn't you think it was those that needed an awareness course more than the former? It's just an easy way to extract money out of those they know will pay it.. tomtopper
  • Score: 0

11:12pm Sat 29 Mar 14

behonest says...

Edmondsley wrote:
The point about comparisons with cycling on the pavement or such like is that writers here say, basically, "you have broken the law, pay up".this does not seem to apply to all laws.The use of common sense should apply to all.I understand that in Northumbria £40 is earned by them for every driver caught and who then attends a speed awareness course.
What? You mean it's just a money-making scam? Surely not, I mean who would have thought it....?
[quote][p][bold]Edmondsley[/bold] wrote: The point about comparisons with cycling on the pavement or such like is that writers here say, basically, "you have broken the law, pay up".this does not seem to apply to all laws.The use of common sense should apply to all.I understand that in Northumbria £40 is earned by them for every driver caught and who then attends a speed awareness course.[/p][/quote]What? You mean it's just a money-making scam? Surely not, I mean who would have thought it....? behonest
  • Score: -1

11:48pm Sat 29 Mar 14

darlojade says...

I recently attended a speed awareness course and saw the damage going 5mph over the limit can cause... it's right that they should receive a ticket! Speed limits are there for a reason....
I recently attended a speed awareness course and saw the damage going 5mph over the limit can cause... it's right that they should receive a ticket! Speed limits are there for a reason.... darlojade
  • Score: 12

12:33am Sun 30 Mar 14

willum08 says...

You broke the speed limit - You broke the law - pay the fine and stop griping... I'm amazed that a Robin Reliant is actually capable of exceeding any speed limits - other than possibly 20 mph !! LOL!
You broke the speed limit - You broke the law - pay the fine and stop griping... I'm amazed that a Robin Reliant is actually capable of exceeding any speed limits - other than possibly 20 mph !! LOL! willum08
  • Score: 3

3:57am Sun 30 Mar 14

johnny_p says...

The police put mobile speed cameras in places where they are going to catch people, not where it is necessarily dangerous to go a few miles an hour over the limit. Hence there is often a sneaky little trap on Yarm Lane just before you get to Egglescliffe- a big wide open road with no cars parked at the side. And yet if I do 30mph squeezing down between parked cars in a residential area they can't touch me.

And here's the other philosophy from sanctimonious motorists that as long as I'm not "speeding", over the drink drive limit, using a mobile phone and have my seat belt on etc, etc I must be a perfectly good driver?

The Police have just hoodwinked us into thinking they care about road safety, when really all they care about is taking our money.
The police put mobile speed cameras in places where they are going to catch people, not where it is necessarily dangerous to go a few miles an hour over the limit. Hence there is often a sneaky little trap on Yarm Lane just before you get to Egglescliffe- a big wide open road with no cars parked at the side. And yet if I do 30mph squeezing down between parked cars in a residential area they can't touch me. And here's the other philosophy from sanctimonious motorists that as long as I'm not "speeding", over the drink drive limit, using a mobile phone and have my seat belt on etc, etc I must be a perfectly good driver? The Police have just hoodwinked us into thinking they care about road safety, when really all they care about is taking our money. johnny_p
  • Score: 0

10:23am Sun 30 Mar 14

jps101 says...

There may be places, well there is places where I've thought to myself this surely doesn't warrant the speed limit its been given.

Whether you disagree with the speed limit or not that's your choice.

It's your choice whether to pay them revenue or not.

I hold my hand up and admit I got a speeding fine in 2003 but I was only angry with one person that was myself, 1. for missing the 30mph sign and not being aware I was on a 30mph road and 2. for not spotting the speed camera.
But I vowed at that time that they wouldn't get another penny out of me, and they haven't its easy really don't get caught over the limit as said before you've even got 10% + 2mph leeway to play with.

And as for comparisons with People up for GBH (breaking someones jaw)
if I was given a choice I'd rather be hit with a fist than a Reliant Robin at 35mph.
Get on a bike and find a downhill (because its hard to do on the flat unless you're quite fit) and do 30mph then you'll get some idea what 30mph is really like.

Then combine that with a tonne of metal and imagine your flesh and bone getting hit by it.

A motor vehicle is a lethal weapon.

But anyway if you want to keep paying them revenue its your choice I certainly don't.
There may be places, well there is places where I've thought to myself this surely doesn't warrant the speed limit its been given. Whether you disagree with the speed limit or not that's your choice. It's your choice whether to pay them revenue or not. I hold my hand up and admit I got a speeding fine in 2003 but I was only angry with one person that was myself, 1. for missing the 30mph sign and not being aware I was on a 30mph road and 2. for not spotting the speed camera. But I vowed at that time that they wouldn't get another penny out of me, and they haven't its easy really don't get caught over the limit as said before you've even got 10% + 2mph leeway to play with. And as for comparisons with People up for GBH (breaking someones jaw) if I was given a choice I'd rather be hit with a fist than a Reliant Robin at 35mph. Get on a bike and find a downhill (because its hard to do on the flat unless you're quite fit) and do 30mph then you'll get some idea what 30mph is really like. Then combine that with a tonne of metal and imagine your flesh and bone getting hit by it. A motor vehicle is a lethal weapon. But anyway if you want to keep paying them revenue its your choice I certainly don't. jps101
  • Score: 9

10:34am Sun 30 Mar 14

Edmondsley says...

Speaking to retired motor patrol officers they tell me that in the past no one doing under 40 mph in a 30 limit would be prosecuted.I understand that a collision with a pedestrian is less damaging at 30 mph instead of 35 mph.I would assume this applies to 20 or even 10 mph.Why dont they cut injuries by making the speed limit 10mph? where do you stop.Maybe some more effort could be put into checking lights on vehicles, as driving around at night I wonder if there are a record number of motorcycles on the road until I see it is just a record number of cars with only one ( usually high beam) headlamp.But that needs more effort than sitting in a camera van.
Speaking to retired motor patrol officers they tell me that in the past no one doing under 40 mph in a 30 limit would be prosecuted.I understand that a collision with a pedestrian is less damaging at 30 mph instead of 35 mph.I would assume this applies to 20 or even 10 mph.Why dont they cut injuries by making the speed limit 10mph? where do you stop.Maybe some more effort could be put into checking lights on vehicles, as driving around at night I wonder if there are a record number of motorcycles on the road until I see it is just a record number of cars with only one ( usually high beam) headlamp.But that needs more effort than sitting in a camera van. Edmondsley
  • Score: 2

10:36am Sun 30 Mar 14

rat man says...

North Yorks CC should follow the lead of Durham County Council who have announced the introduction of new traffic calming measures, called pot holes throughout their administrative area. The County Highways Engineer has assured all Council Tax Payers that the new speed reducing measures will have no cost implications whatsoever. He added that this new hole istic approach to road safety has proved very popular in a number of other third world countries, and will have a particularly positive effect in reducing the current problem of excessive speeding by drivers of three wheeled vehicles!
North Yorks CC should follow the lead of Durham County Council who have announced the introduction of new traffic calming measures, called pot holes throughout their administrative area. The County Highways Engineer has assured all Council Tax Payers that the new speed reducing measures will have no cost implications whatsoever. He added that this new hole istic approach to road safety has proved very popular in a number of other third world countries, and will have a particularly positive effect in reducing the current problem of excessive speeding by drivers of three wheeled vehicles! rat man
  • Score: 7

11:11am Sun 30 Mar 14

jps101 says...

rat man wrote:
North Yorks CC should follow the lead of Durham County Council who have announced the introduction of new traffic calming measures, called pot holes throughout their administrative area. The County Highways Engineer has assured all Council Tax Payers that the new speed reducing measures will have no cost implications whatsoever. He added that this new hole istic approach to road safety has proved very popular in a number of other third world countries, and will have a particularly positive effect in reducing the current problem of excessive speeding by drivers of three wheeled vehicles!
HaHa Good one
I did a 30 mile bike ride last weekend and the B6275 from the A68 to Piercebridge (Co Durham) was atrocious, but same road south of Piercebridge to A1m underpass (N Yorks) a lot better.
[quote][p][bold]rat man[/bold] wrote: North Yorks CC should follow the lead of Durham County Council who have announced the introduction of new traffic calming measures, called pot holes throughout their administrative area. The County Highways Engineer has assured all Council Tax Payers that the new speed reducing measures will have no cost implications whatsoever. He added that this new hole istic approach to road safety has proved very popular in a number of other third world countries, and will have a particularly positive effect in reducing the current problem of excessive speeding by drivers of three wheeled vehicles![/p][/quote]HaHa Good one I did a 30 mile bike ride last weekend and the B6275 from the A68 to Piercebridge (Co Durham) was atrocious, but same road south of Piercebridge to A1m underpass (N Yorks) a lot better. jps101
  • Score: 1

12:28pm Sun 30 Mar 14

think twice says...

Motorists are targeted as "criminals" simply because they are traceable by their number plates, and will continue to be a prime source of revenue until the rest of the population have an identification "chip" inserted into their foreheads.
Then they can be fined for not waiting for the "green man " at pedestrian crossings etc. etc.
Motorists are targeted as "criminals" simply because they are traceable by their number plates, and will continue to be a prime source of revenue until the rest of the population have an identification "chip" inserted into their foreheads. Then they can be fined for not waiting for the "green man " at pedestrian crossings etc. etc. think twice
  • Score: -1

1:17pm Sun 30 Mar 14

tomtopper says...

The guy who broke someone's jaw actually did do that, the reliant robin driver has hit no-one..

You illustrate the problem I'm trying to point out.. The tendency to think it's ok to hit someone in a vehicle as long as you're under the posted limit..

If you're driving to the conditions rather than the posted limit, you won't hit anyone, whether you're doing 20,40,60,80 mph or whatever.. simple as that..

Someone who hits someone at 25 in a 30 is driving too fast for the conditions and can't stop in the distance he can see to be clear.. Effectively, he's 'legally speeding'.. People need to understand that driving slowly is not automatically safe, and the rigid enforcement of speed limits in a black and white manner does nothing to help this..

Simply telling someone to stick to the speed limits doesn't stop people being knocked over and killed.. Making sure people drive to the conditions present at the time does..
The guy who broke someone's jaw actually did do that, the reliant robin driver has hit no-one.. You illustrate the problem I'm trying to point out.. The tendency to think it's ok to hit someone in a vehicle as long as you're under the posted limit.. If you're driving to the conditions rather than the posted limit, you won't hit anyone, whether you're doing 20,40,60,80 mph or whatever.. simple as that.. Someone who hits someone at 25 in a 30 is driving too fast for the conditions and can't stop in the distance he can see to be clear.. Effectively, he's 'legally speeding'.. People need to understand that driving slowly is not automatically safe, and the rigid enforcement of speed limits in a black and white manner does nothing to help this.. Simply telling someone to stick to the speed limits doesn't stop people being knocked over and killed.. Making sure people drive to the conditions present at the time does.. tomtopper
  • Score: 3

2:18pm Sun 30 Mar 14

jps101 says...

tomtopper wrote:
The guy who broke someone's jaw actually did do that, the reliant robin driver has hit no-one..

You illustrate the problem I'm trying to point out.. The tendency to think it's ok to hit someone in a vehicle as long as you're under the posted limit..

If you're driving to the conditions rather than the posted limit, you won't hit anyone, whether you're doing 20,40,60,80 mph or whatever.. simple as that..

Someone who hits someone at 25 in a 30 is driving too fast for the conditions and can't stop in the distance he can see to be clear.. Effectively, he's 'legally speeding'.. People need to understand that driving slowly is not automatically safe, and the rigid enforcement of speed limits in a black and white manner does nothing to help this..

Simply telling someone to stick to the speed limits doesn't stop people being knocked over and killed.. Making sure people drive to the conditions present at the time does..
Ok Point taken.
Trouble is we don't have a "drive to the conditions present at the time" Road sign, I don't think it would all fit on.

Speed limit signs are the best we have at the moment, unless you can suggest something better.
[quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: The guy who broke someone's jaw actually did do that, the reliant robin driver has hit no-one.. You illustrate the problem I'm trying to point out.. The tendency to think it's ok to hit someone in a vehicle as long as you're under the posted limit.. If you're driving to the conditions rather than the posted limit, you won't hit anyone, whether you're doing 20,40,60,80 mph or whatever.. simple as that.. Someone who hits someone at 25 in a 30 is driving too fast for the conditions and can't stop in the distance he can see to be clear.. Effectively, he's 'legally speeding'.. People need to understand that driving slowly is not automatically safe, and the rigid enforcement of speed limits in a black and white manner does nothing to help this.. Simply telling someone to stick to the speed limits doesn't stop people being knocked over and killed.. Making sure people drive to the conditions present at the time does..[/p][/quote]Ok Point taken. Trouble is we don't have a "drive to the conditions present at the time" Road sign, I don't think it would all fit on. Speed limit signs are the best we have at the moment, unless you can suggest something better. jps101
  • Score: 3

2:40pm Sun 30 Mar 14

jps101 says...

We've had speed limits for about 100 years now, in that time there must have been countless arguments for and against but nobody's come up with an alternative.
I believe there was a period when there was no speed limits and it was just left up to each drivers own judgement, I think I'm right in saying in ended up in lots of crashes and casualities and the limits had to be re-indroduced.
We've had speed limits for about 100 years now, in that time there must have been countless arguments for and against but nobody's come up with an alternative. I believe there was a period when there was no speed limits and it was just left up to each drivers own judgement, I think I'm right in saying in ended up in lots of crashes and casualities and the limits had to be re-indroduced. jps101
  • Score: 4

3:00pm Sun 30 Mar 14

tomtopper says...

jps101 wrote:
We've had speed limits for about 100 years now, in that time there must have been countless arguments for and against but nobody's come up with an alternative.
I believe there was a period when there was no speed limits and it was just left up to each drivers own judgement, I think I'm right in saying in ended up in lots of crashes and casualities and the limits had to be re-indroduced.
Of course we need limits.. It's the rigid enforcement of such which is the issue ... A traffic car showing presence, pulling over and lecturing any wayward drivers would be more effective than a camera van thinly disguised as a works van posting out fines a fortnight later.. The latter being little more than a numeric based tax...

Taking into account the amount of motorists on the road, I think the majority of drivers are relatively sensible..
[quote][p][bold]jps101[/bold] wrote: We've had speed limits for about 100 years now, in that time there must have been countless arguments for and against but nobody's come up with an alternative. I believe there was a period when there was no speed limits and it was just left up to each drivers own judgement, I think I'm right in saying in ended up in lots of crashes and casualities and the limits had to be re-indroduced.[/p][/quote]Of course we need limits.. It's the rigid enforcement of such which is the issue ... A traffic car showing presence, pulling over and lecturing any wayward drivers would be more effective than a camera van thinly disguised as a works van posting out fines a fortnight later.. The latter being little more than a numeric based tax... Taking into account the amount of motorists on the road, I think the majority of drivers are relatively sensible.. tomtopper
  • Score: 5

3:28pm Sun 30 Mar 14

bishop1 says...

5mph over the speed limit is not inherently dangerous , as already posted it is inappropriate speed ( sometimes within the speed limit ) that is dangerous .
is 90mph down an empty motorway in good clear conditions at 3 am particularly dangerous ? I wouldn't think so .
how about 70mph down the same stretch at rush hour or during a heavy downpour ? quite possibly dangerous ( although perfectly legal ) .
30 past a school at 3 am (legal & safe ) 30 past the same school at 3 pm on a school day ( not safe but perfectly legal ).
common sense is something that a traffic copper would use but a camera doesn't come with this program installed .
5mph over the speed limit is not inherently dangerous , as already posted it is inappropriate speed ( sometimes within the speed limit ) that is dangerous . is 90mph down an empty motorway in good clear conditions at 3 am particularly dangerous ? I wouldn't think so . how about 70mph down the same stretch at rush hour or during a heavy downpour ? quite possibly dangerous ( although perfectly legal ) . 30 past a school at 3 am (legal & safe ) 30 past the same school at 3 pm on a school day ( not safe but perfectly legal ). common sense is something that a traffic copper would use but a camera doesn't come with this program installed . bishop1
  • Score: 2

4:38pm Sun 30 Mar 14

David Lacey says...

A massive dose of common sense from Bishop. The problem is that far too many motorists do not adjust their driving style to reflect road/weather/time of day conditions. Hence the need for limits.
A massive dose of common sense from Bishop. The problem is that far too many motorists do not adjust their driving style to reflect road/weather/time of day conditions. Hence the need for limits. David Lacey
  • Score: 6

5:02pm Sun 30 Mar 14

cushybutterfield says...

Some elderly law-abiding people in Britain get fine £2OO for submitting one late tax return,......... yet 'handbag druggie snatchers' and others robbing and assaulting 8O and 9O Year old defenceless old ladies get 2O Hours so called pathetic (Workshy orientated) Community Service........... (A shocking utter disgrace and nonsense), This is a result of ***Liberal Clegg like, ** liberal policies forced, over the decades on 'decent working class law-abiding people AND woe betide if you drive a heinous 32 Mile an hour in a thirty mile zone, what a pathetic 'cockeyed brainwashed politically correct' so called criminal justice system.
Some elderly law-abiding people in Britain get fine £2OO for submitting one late tax return,......... yet 'handbag druggie snatchers' and others robbing and assaulting 8O and 9O Year old defenceless old ladies get 2O Hours so called pathetic (Workshy orientated) Community Service........... (A shocking utter disgrace and nonsense), This is a result of ***Liberal Clegg like, ** liberal policies forced, over the decades on 'decent working class law-abiding people AND woe betide if you drive a heinous 32 Mile an hour in a thirty mile zone, what a pathetic 'cockeyed brainwashed politically correct' so called criminal justice system. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -3

7:04pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Robert_ says...

tomtopper wrote:
The guy who broke someone's jaw actually did do that, the reliant robin driver has hit no-one..

You illustrate the problem I'm trying to point out.. The tendency to think it's ok to hit someone in a vehicle as long as you're under the posted limit..

If you're driving to the conditions rather than the posted limit, you won't hit anyone, whether you're doing 20,40,60,80 mph or whatever.. simple as that..

Someone who hits someone at 25 in a 30 is driving too fast for the conditions and can't stop in the distance he can see to be clear.. Effectively, he's 'legally speeding'.. People need to understand that driving slowly is not automatically safe, and the rigid enforcement of speed limits in a black and white manner does nothing to help this..

Simply telling someone to stick to the speed limits doesn't stop people being knocked over and killed.. Making sure people drive to the conditions present at the time does..
tomtopper.. you keep going on about driving to the conditions.. all drivers are different, the law has to be black and white or it becomes completely unenforceable, the courts will be clogged by thousands of people arguing about their driving abilities.
[quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: The guy who broke someone's jaw actually did do that, the reliant robin driver has hit no-one.. You illustrate the problem I'm trying to point out.. The tendency to think it's ok to hit someone in a vehicle as long as you're under the posted limit.. If you're driving to the conditions rather than the posted limit, you won't hit anyone, whether you're doing 20,40,60,80 mph or whatever.. simple as that.. Someone who hits someone at 25 in a 30 is driving too fast for the conditions and can't stop in the distance he can see to be clear.. Effectively, he's 'legally speeding'.. People need to understand that driving slowly is not automatically safe, and the rigid enforcement of speed limits in a black and white manner does nothing to help this.. Simply telling someone to stick to the speed limits doesn't stop people being knocked over and killed.. Making sure people drive to the conditions present at the time does..[/p][/quote]tomtopper.. you keep going on about driving to the conditions.. all drivers are different, the law has to be black and white or it becomes completely unenforceable, the courts will be clogged by thousands of people arguing about their driving abilities. Robert_
  • Score: 0

7:23pm Sun 30 Mar 14

tomtopper says...

Robert_ wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
The guy who broke someone's jaw actually did do that, the reliant robin driver has hit no-one..

You illustrate the problem I'm trying to point out.. The tendency to think it's ok to hit someone in a vehicle as long as you're under the posted limit..

If you're driving to the conditions rather than the posted limit, you won't hit anyone, whether you're doing 20,40,60,80 mph or whatever.. simple as that..

Someone who hits someone at 25 in a 30 is driving too fast for the conditions and can't stop in the distance he can see to be clear.. Effectively, he's 'legally speeding'.. People need to understand that driving slowly is not automatically safe, and the rigid enforcement of speed limits in a black and white manner does nothing to help this..

Simply telling someone to stick to the speed limits doesn't stop people being knocked over and killed.. Making sure people drive to the conditions present at the time does..
tomtopper.. you keep going on about driving to the conditions.. all drivers are different, the law has to be black and white or it becomes completely unenforceable, the courts will be clogged by thousands of people arguing about their driving abilities.
Thus that tells you something is inherently wrong and the numeric rule is being enforced too rigidly... As i've explained before, have a traffic car there instead of a camera van thereby ruling out the black and white element of it all... Seeing as millions of drivers exceed the limit on a daily basis and we live in a democracy, criminalising the vast majority for nothing more than a brief accidental error is somewhat totalitarian...
[quote][p][bold]Robert_[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: The guy who broke someone's jaw actually did do that, the reliant robin driver has hit no-one.. You illustrate the problem I'm trying to point out.. The tendency to think it's ok to hit someone in a vehicle as long as you're under the posted limit.. If you're driving to the conditions rather than the posted limit, you won't hit anyone, whether you're doing 20,40,60,80 mph or whatever.. simple as that.. Someone who hits someone at 25 in a 30 is driving too fast for the conditions and can't stop in the distance he can see to be clear.. Effectively, he's 'legally speeding'.. People need to understand that driving slowly is not automatically safe, and the rigid enforcement of speed limits in a black and white manner does nothing to help this.. Simply telling someone to stick to the speed limits doesn't stop people being knocked over and killed.. Making sure people drive to the conditions present at the time does..[/p][/quote]tomtopper.. you keep going on about driving to the conditions.. all drivers are different, the law has to be black and white or it becomes completely unenforceable, the courts will be clogged by thousands of people arguing about their driving abilities.[/p][/quote]Thus that tells you something is inherently wrong and the numeric rule is being enforced too rigidly... As i've explained before, have a traffic car there instead of a camera van thereby ruling out the black and white element of it all... Seeing as millions of drivers exceed the limit on a daily basis and we live in a democracy, criminalising the vast majority for nothing more than a brief accidental error is somewhat totalitarian... tomtopper
  • Score: -1

9:26pm Sun 30 Mar 14

The Sleeper says...

behonest wrote:
tomtopper - you're quite right. However, if the authorities followed your advice it would result in a significant loss of tax revenue. So they won't.
Much depends on how you are being dealt with. Fixed Penalty or Speed Awareness.
Fixed Penalty fines does go to central government.
Speed awareness fees goes to the company running the course of which £30 has to be spent by the force on Road Safety.
[quote][p][bold]behonest[/bold] wrote: tomtopper - you're quite right. However, if the authorities followed your advice it would result in a significant loss of tax revenue. So they won't.[/p][/quote]Much depends on how you are being dealt with. Fixed Penalty or Speed Awareness. Fixed Penalty fines does go to central government. Speed awareness fees goes to the company running the course of which £30 has to be spent by the force on Road Safety. The Sleeper
  • Score: 0

9:44pm Sun 30 Mar 14

The Sleeper says...

Its good to see that most people who have commented agree that if you exceed the speed limit then just take your punishment. Camera vans do not just park up were they feel. The location has to of been identified due to the number of collisions within a certain distance and time. The other is due to local speed complaints were data has been collected (rubber strips across road) and this data confirmed there is a speeding problem. Only then will the camera van enforce a location. If this is the case then I would expect the complains would of come from the local residents or parish council. The Reliant Robin driver is obviously a local resident so has no excuse for not being aware of the speed limits. If he does not know then should he actually be on the road.
Its good to see that most people who have commented agree that if you exceed the speed limit then just take your punishment. Camera vans do not just park up were they feel. The location has to of been identified due to the number of collisions within a certain distance and time. The other is due to local speed complaints were data has been collected (rubber strips across road) and this data confirmed there is a speeding problem. Only then will the camera van enforce a location. If this is the case then I would expect the complains would of come from the local residents or parish council. The Reliant Robin driver is obviously a local resident so has no excuse for not being aware of the speed limits. If he does not know then should he actually be on the road. The Sleeper
  • Score: 7

1:26am Mon 31 Mar 14

hgvdriver says...

Should not even be doing 35 if you know the vehicle is more than capable of rolling over, and that said with roads in such a state of disrepair is more likely to happen I hope you have passed your driving test too as I believe you can drive a plastic pig on a provisional licence
Should not even be doing 35 if you know the vehicle is more than capable of rolling over, and that said with roads in such a state of disrepair is more likely to happen I hope you have passed your driving test too as I believe you can drive a plastic pig on a provisional licence hgvdriver
  • Score: 6

10:19am Mon 31 Mar 14

cushybutterfield says...

A significant minority have been racing around certain North East 'Sink' Council estates for years on end, 40, 50, 60 mph, with Cars and on motor and QUAD Bikes, some idiots have had four year old children 'sitting as passengers on the backs of these bikes.
A significant minority have been racing around certain North East 'Sink' Council estates for years on end, 40, 50, 60 mph, with Cars and on motor and QUAD Bikes, some idiots have had four year old children 'sitting as passengers on the backs of these bikes. cushybutterfield
  • Score: 0

11:19am Mon 31 Mar 14

cushybutterfield says...

If a guy wants to drive on *****three wheels or one or two wheels then Why shouldn't he. Too many laws, rules and regulations for the law-abiding but NOT enough for the Muggers, Robbers and Housebreakers.
If a guy wants to drive on *****three wheels or one or two wheels then Why shouldn't he. Too many laws, rules and regulations for the law-abiding but NOT enough for the Muggers, Robbers and Housebreakers. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -5

12:01pm Mon 31 Mar 14

studio says...

" I am a law abiding citizen " he says.

" He is a law abiding citizen " some say.

Owning up to driving 35 in a 30 zone?

The stupidity is priceless.
" I am a law abiding citizen " he says. " He is a law abiding citizen " some say. Owning up to driving 35 in a 30 zone? The stupidity is priceless. studio
  • Score: 1

1:56pm Mon 31 Mar 14

cushybutterfield says...

Studio..........99 per of the country have driven OVER 3Omph, 31, 32 MPH or otherwise, in a 3Omph zone,, so much then for ALL your 'Lilly white mega- perfect so called 'Law abiding' citizens. He or She **without any ****motoring ****sin cast the first stone .......(or 'Speed and/or Parking Ticket') in this case................
............
Studio..........99 per of the country have driven OVER 3Omph, 31, 32 MPH or otherwise, in a 3Omph zone,, so much then for ALL your 'Lilly white mega- perfect so called 'Law abiding' citizens. He or She **without any ****motoring ****sin cast the first stone .......(or 'Speed and/or Parking Ticket') in this case................ ............ cushybutterfield
  • Score: 0

7:30pm Mon 31 Mar 14

Robert_ says...

tomtopper wrote:
Robert_ wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
The guy who broke someone's jaw actually did do that, the reliant robin driver has hit no-one..

You illustrate the problem I'm trying to point out.. The tendency to think it's ok to hit someone in a vehicle as long as you're under the posted limit..

If you're driving to the conditions rather than the posted limit, you won't hit anyone, whether you're doing 20,40,60,80 mph or whatever.. simple as that..

Someone who hits someone at 25 in a 30 is driving too fast for the conditions and can't stop in the distance he can see to be clear.. Effectively, he's 'legally speeding'.. People need to understand that driving slowly is not automatically safe, and the rigid enforcement of speed limits in a black and white manner does nothing to help this..

Simply telling someone to stick to the speed limits doesn't stop people being knocked over and killed.. Making sure people drive to the conditions present at the time does..
tomtopper.. you keep going on about driving to the conditions.. all drivers are different, the law has to be black and white or it becomes completely unenforceable, the courts will be clogged by thousands of people arguing about their driving abilities.
Thus that tells you something is inherently wrong and the numeric rule is being enforced too rigidly... As i've explained before, have a traffic car there instead of a camera van thereby ruling out the black and white element of it all... Seeing as millions of drivers exceed the limit on a daily basis and we live in a democracy, criminalising the vast majority for nothing more than a brief accidental error is somewhat totalitarian...
So millions of drivers are making a brief accidental error every day? This shows a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. The way you would like it to be is completely unenforceable and I agree, speed cameras cannot spot dangerous or careless driving but I would much rather the cop sitting in his car all day was doing something more productive.
[quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robert_[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: The guy who broke someone's jaw actually did do that, the reliant robin driver has hit no-one.. You illustrate the problem I'm trying to point out.. The tendency to think it's ok to hit someone in a vehicle as long as you're under the posted limit.. If you're driving to the conditions rather than the posted limit, you won't hit anyone, whether you're doing 20,40,60,80 mph or whatever.. simple as that.. Someone who hits someone at 25 in a 30 is driving too fast for the conditions and can't stop in the distance he can see to be clear.. Effectively, he's 'legally speeding'.. People need to understand that driving slowly is not automatically safe, and the rigid enforcement of speed limits in a black and white manner does nothing to help this.. Simply telling someone to stick to the speed limits doesn't stop people being knocked over and killed.. Making sure people drive to the conditions present at the time does..[/p][/quote]tomtopper.. you keep going on about driving to the conditions.. all drivers are different, the law has to be black and white or it becomes completely unenforceable, the courts will be clogged by thousands of people arguing about their driving abilities.[/p][/quote]Thus that tells you something is inherently wrong and the numeric rule is being enforced too rigidly... As i've explained before, have a traffic car there instead of a camera van thereby ruling out the black and white element of it all... Seeing as millions of drivers exceed the limit on a daily basis and we live in a democracy, criminalising the vast majority for nothing more than a brief accidental error is somewhat totalitarian...[/p][/quote]So millions of drivers are making a brief accidental error every day? This shows a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. The way you would like it to be is completely unenforceable and I agree, speed cameras cannot spot dangerous or careless driving but I would much rather the cop sitting in his car all day was doing something more productive. Robert_
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Mon 31 Mar 14

cushybutterfield says...

Britain is top heavy with rules and regulations and Guess what ?, the mainly pointed at law-abiding people but never regularly focused on down and right daily lawbreakers. Clobber the people who are trying to keep on the **right side of the Law.
Britain is top heavy with rules and regulations and Guess what ?, the mainly pointed at law-abiding people but never regularly focused on down and right daily lawbreakers. Clobber the people who are trying to keep on the **right side of the Law. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -4

11:18pm Mon 31 Mar 14

behonest says...

Robert_ wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
Robert_ wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
The guy who broke someone's jaw actually did do that, the reliant robin driver has hit no-one..

You illustrate the problem I'm trying to point out.. The tendency to think it's ok to hit someone in a vehicle as long as you're under the posted limit..

If you're driving to the conditions rather than the posted limit, you won't hit anyone, whether you're doing 20,40,60,80 mph or whatever.. simple as that..

Someone who hits someone at 25 in a 30 is driving too fast for the conditions and can't stop in the distance he can see to be clear.. Effectively, he's 'legally speeding'.. People need to understand that driving slowly is not automatically safe, and the rigid enforcement of speed limits in a black and white manner does nothing to help this..

Simply telling someone to stick to the speed limits doesn't stop people being knocked over and killed.. Making sure people drive to the conditions present at the time does..
tomtopper.. you keep going on about driving to the conditions.. all drivers are different, the law has to be black and white or it becomes completely unenforceable, the courts will be clogged by thousands of people arguing about their driving abilities.
Thus that tells you something is inherently wrong and the numeric rule is being enforced too rigidly... As i've explained before, have a traffic car there instead of a camera van thereby ruling out the black and white element of it all... Seeing as millions of drivers exceed the limit on a daily basis and we live in a democracy, criminalising the vast majority for nothing more than a brief accidental error is somewhat totalitarian...
So millions of drivers are making a brief accidental error every day? This shows a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. The way you would like it to be is completely unenforceable and I agree, speed cameras cannot spot dangerous or careless driving but I would much rather the cop sitting in his car all day was doing something more productive.
A cop sitting in his car all day, just inside where the speed limit changes on the outskirts of a village, is producing nothing but a large amount of tax revenue for the authorities. I'd rather he was involved in promoting road safety.
[quote][p][bold]Robert_[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robert_[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: The guy who broke someone's jaw actually did do that, the reliant robin driver has hit no-one.. You illustrate the problem I'm trying to point out.. The tendency to think it's ok to hit someone in a vehicle as long as you're under the posted limit.. If you're driving to the conditions rather than the posted limit, you won't hit anyone, whether you're doing 20,40,60,80 mph or whatever.. simple as that.. Someone who hits someone at 25 in a 30 is driving too fast for the conditions and can't stop in the distance he can see to be clear.. Effectively, he's 'legally speeding'.. People need to understand that driving slowly is not automatically safe, and the rigid enforcement of speed limits in a black and white manner does nothing to help this.. Simply telling someone to stick to the speed limits doesn't stop people being knocked over and killed.. Making sure people drive to the conditions present at the time does..[/p][/quote]tomtopper.. you keep going on about driving to the conditions.. all drivers are different, the law has to be black and white or it becomes completely unenforceable, the courts will be clogged by thousands of people arguing about their driving abilities.[/p][/quote]Thus that tells you something is inherently wrong and the numeric rule is being enforced too rigidly... As i've explained before, have a traffic car there instead of a camera van thereby ruling out the black and white element of it all... Seeing as millions of drivers exceed the limit on a daily basis and we live in a democracy, criminalising the vast majority for nothing more than a brief accidental error is somewhat totalitarian...[/p][/quote]So millions of drivers are making a brief accidental error every day? This shows a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. The way you would like it to be is completely unenforceable and I agree, speed cameras cannot spot dangerous or careless driving but I would much rather the cop sitting in his car all day was doing something more productive.[/p][/quote]A cop sitting in his car all day, just inside where the speed limit changes on the outskirts of a village, is producing nothing but a large amount of tax revenue for the authorities. I'd rather he was involved in promoting road safety. behonest
  • Score: 1

11:22pm Mon 31 Mar 14

sophiejane says...

i can see their point, these fines are quite extortionate for small things, i recently had to pay £60 for parking somewhere that was advertised as free parking, providing you dont leave the leisure park, which i did. but i didnt realise because the sign stating you couldnt leave were so small. that is a money making scheme.
however speeding is breaking the law. that extra 5mph could be the difference between injuring a child and killing a child, did they think of that? they should accept that they have done wrong. speeding in a 30 is probably worse than speeding in a 60 as there will be more pedestrians and slow moving traffic. if you get caught speedig, accept youre wrong and face the consequences.
i can see their point, these fines are quite extortionate for small things, i recently had to pay £60 for parking somewhere that was advertised as free parking, providing you dont leave the leisure park, which i did. but i didnt realise because the sign stating you couldnt leave were so small. that is a money making scheme. however speeding is breaking the law. that extra 5mph could be the difference between injuring a child and killing a child, did they think of that? they should accept that they have done wrong. speeding in a 30 is probably worse than speeding in a 60 as there will be more pedestrians and slow moving traffic. if you get caught speedig, accept youre wrong and face the consequences. sophiejane
  • Score: 1

8:39am Tue 1 Apr 14

studio says...

cushybutterfield wrote:
Studio..........99 per of the country have driven OVER 3Omph, 31, 32 MPH or otherwise, in a 3Omph zone,, so much then for ALL your 'Lilly white mega- perfect so called 'Law abiding' citizens. He or She **without any ****motoring ****sin cast the first stone .......(or 'Speed and/or Parking Ticket') in this case................ ............
Idiot.

I probably drove at more than 30 in a 30 zone on my way to work this morning. but i wouldnt get myself in the paper claiming ive done nothing wrong if i got caught. That is clearly as stupid as your comment.
[quote][p][bold]cushybutterfield[/bold] wrote: Studio..........99 per of the country have driven OVER 3Omph, 31, 32 MPH or otherwise, in a 3Omph zone,, so much then for ALL your 'Lilly white mega- perfect so called 'Law abiding' citizens. He or She **without any ****motoring ****sin cast the first stone .......(or 'Speed and/or Parking Ticket') in this case................ ............[/p][/quote]Idiot. I probably drove at more than 30 in a 30 zone on my way to work this morning. but i wouldnt get myself in the paper claiming ive done nothing wrong if i got caught. That is clearly as stupid as your comment. studio
  • Score: 4

1:24pm Tue 1 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

Robert_ wrote:
Tax is not optional.. fines are... they are not the same. You are like people who call the TV licence a 'tax'. It isn't.

You are obviously angry about something....
They are all a form of taxation, with your reasoning then tax on money earnt is not a tax because you can choose not to pay it, by not working.

VAT (tax) on purchased items is not tax because you can choose not to buy the item.

You don't have to pay the VAT on work carried out by a mechanic by simply not having the repairs done.

Tax is nothing more than a fine for working and paying it is not optional.

In regards to the story though, they broke the law and where caught, pay up and shut up.

As for comments in regards to cyclist ect ect, yes many laws are broken but it all honestly, motorist are easier targets, thats why a lot more money and police activity is placed on and around the roads rather than policing resential and shopping areas. You stand a better chance of getting away with robbing a home but beware not to speed away from the scene of the crime as it may result in a fine.
[quote][p][bold]Robert_[/bold] wrote: Tax is not optional.. fines are... they are not the same. You are like people who call the TV licence a 'tax'. It isn't. You are obviously angry about something....[/p][/quote]They are all a form of taxation, with your reasoning then tax on money earnt is not a tax because you can choose not to pay it, by not working. VAT (tax) on purchased items is not tax because you can choose not to buy the item. You don't have to pay the VAT on work carried out by a mechanic by simply not having the repairs done. Tax is nothing more than a fine for working and paying it is not optional. In regards to the story though, they broke the law and where caught, pay up and shut up. As for comments in regards to cyclist ect ect, yes many laws are broken but it all honestly, motorist are easier targets, thats why a lot more money and police activity is placed on and around the roads rather than policing resential and shopping areas. You stand a better chance of getting away with robbing a home but beware not to speed away from the scene of the crime as it may result in a fine. MartinMo
  • Score: -1

2:50pm Tue 1 Apr 14

behonest says...

MartinMo says:
"In regards to the story though, they broke the law and where caught, pay up and shut up."

I agree with the pay up, there's no choice. But not the shut up. If we feel the fine is too harsh, or that enforcement is all about raising tax and not road safety, then it's reasonable to speak up and say so. May not get us anywhere, but we should at least have the right to complain.
MartinMo says: "In regards to the story though, they broke the law and where caught, pay up and shut up." I agree with the pay up, there's no choice. But not the shut up. If we feel the fine is too harsh, or that enforcement is all about raising tax and not road safety, then it's reasonable to speak up and say so. May not get us anywhere, but we should at least have the right to complain. behonest
  • Score: 2

7:19pm Tue 1 Apr 14

theWorkerScum says...

Of course it's a money making ploy. This is hardly an injustice though, try overtaking a parked speed van on left lane of a dual carriageway, only to get a ticket as I slightly went over the limit when I accelerated to get up to speed with rush hour traffic. The obstruction road law doesn't apply to the police. Northumbrian police for yer...
Of course it's a money making ploy. This is hardly an injustice though, try overtaking a parked speed van on left lane of a dual carriageway, only to get a ticket as I slightly went over the limit when I accelerated to get up to speed with rush hour traffic. The obstruction road law doesn't apply to the police. Northumbrian police for yer... theWorkerScum
  • Score: -1

3:20pm Wed 2 Apr 14

cushybutterfield says...

theworkersum.....Wha
t a sort sighted pathetic remark, it does not apply to Police because they ARE Police, often dealing with emergency situations and keeping the roads saver for law-abiding motorists. Just to keep everyone happy I parked in a near empty huge car park, years ago in Tynemouth on a Sunday morning, got a £3O Fine from an invisible Parking Warden Punter. *Never been or intend ever to go back to boring Tynemouth again.
theworkersum.....Wha t a sort sighted pathetic remark, it does not apply to Police because they ARE Police, often dealing with emergency situations and keeping the roads saver for law-abiding motorists. Just to keep everyone happy I parked in a near empty huge car park, years ago in Tynemouth on a Sunday morning, got a £3O Fine from an invisible Parking Warden Punter. *Never been or intend ever to go back to boring Tynemouth again. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -4

8:26am Thu 3 Apr 14

studio says...

cushybutterfield wrote:
theworkersum.....Wha t a sort sighted pathetic remark, it does not apply to Police because they ARE Police, often dealing with emergency situations and keeping the roads saver for law-abiding motorists. Just to keep everyone happy I parked in a near empty huge car park, years ago in Tynemouth on a Sunday morning, got a £3O Fine from an invisible Parking Warden Punter. *Never been or intend ever to go back to boring Tynemouth again.
You really need some education. Your attempts to provoke arguments are really quite pathetic.

Try getting out of the house a bit more.
[quote][p][bold]cushybutterfield[/bold] wrote: theworkersum.....Wha t a sort sighted pathetic remark, it does not apply to Police because they ARE Police, often dealing with emergency situations and keeping the roads saver for law-abiding motorists. Just to keep everyone happy I parked in a near empty huge car park, years ago in Tynemouth on a Sunday morning, got a £3O Fine from an invisible Parking Warden Punter. *Never been or intend ever to go back to boring Tynemouth again.[/p][/quote]You really need some education. Your attempts to provoke arguments are really quite pathetic. Try getting out of the house a bit more. studio
  • Score: 2

10:16am Thu 3 Apr 14

cushybutterfield says...

Previous comment smacks of 'Control Freak' negative attitude, 'Only listen to control freaks point of view and today I am oot and aboot again in Sunny Geordieland.
Previous comment smacks of 'Control Freak' negative attitude, 'Only listen to control freaks point of view and today I am oot and aboot again in Sunny Geordieland. cushybutterfield
  • Score: -2

10:57am Thu 3 Apr 14

studio says...

cushybutterfield wrote:
Previous comment smacks of 'Control Freak' negative attitude, 'Only listen to control freaks point of view and today I am oot and aboot again in Sunny Geordieland.
No negative attitude here, far from it! :) Enjoy the toon cushy!
[quote][p][bold]cushybutterfield[/bold] wrote: Previous comment smacks of 'Control Freak' negative attitude, 'Only listen to control freaks point of view and today I am oot and aboot again in Sunny Geordieland.[/p][/quote]No negative attitude here, far from it! :) Enjoy the toon cushy! studio
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Thu 3 Apr 14

MartinMo says...

I once got fined £60 and 3 points for being 2mph over the posted limit.

The road was 50mph road, the had an encline with a blind summit on a right bend, as I cleared the summit and bend I was instantly confronted with a men at work sign (speed limit 30mph), no prewarnings. I was lucky to drop my speed to 32mph before getting caught by the mobile speed camera. I tried to argue the point but was informed that although I was only 2mph over the limit at the time of the offence my punishment had to be severe due to risk to life of the workmen, oddly enough they must have all been on break and out of site because there was nothing but the sign, the speed camera, a few cones and an abandoned digger parked off road.

Once a fine is issued it is pointless attempting to argue the point.

Another occassion, more recent, was getting a parking ticket in Darlington for not paying and displaying. My reason for not paying and displaying was that a store appointed care park attendant was informing people it was christmas shopping, free after three, the time of my offence was 1630hrs. Store admitted fault as they had jumped the gun a little as to starting date for promotion but I was still forced to pay the fine for doing the crime.
I once got fined £60 and 3 points for being 2mph over the posted limit. The road was 50mph road, the had an encline with a blind summit on a right bend, as I cleared the summit and bend I was instantly confronted with a men at work sign (speed limit 30mph), no prewarnings. I was lucky to drop my speed to 32mph before getting caught by the mobile speed camera. I tried to argue the point but was informed that although I was only 2mph over the limit at the time of the offence my punishment had to be severe due to risk to life of the workmen, oddly enough they must have all been on break and out of site because there was nothing but the sign, the speed camera, a few cones and an abandoned digger parked off road. Once a fine is issued it is pointless attempting to argue the point. Another occassion, more recent, was getting a parking ticket in Darlington for not paying and displaying. My reason for not paying and displaying was that a store appointed care park attendant was informing people it was christmas shopping, free after three, the time of my offence was 1630hrs. Store admitted fault as they had jumped the gun a little as to starting date for promotion but I was still forced to pay the fine for doing the crime. MartinMo
  • Score: 1

7:06pm Thu 3 Apr 14

The Sleeper says...

I would just be interested to see how far over the speed limit people think should be allowed before the police take action...
i.e 30 limit, police should only prosecute say over 40mph, or 45mph, 50mph??
I would just be interested to see how far over the speed limit people think should be allowed before the police take action... i.e 30 limit, police should only prosecute say over 40mph, or 45mph, 50mph?? The Sleeper
  • Score: 0

8:04pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Jeff1234 says...

Playing the glad game, he now has written evidence that the vehicle is a veritable speed machine. Surely added value?
Playing the glad game, he now has written evidence that the vehicle is a veritable speed machine. Surely added value? Jeff1234
  • Score: 1

11:19pm Thu 3 Apr 14

tomtopper says...

The Sleeper wrote:
I would just be interested to see how far over the speed limit people think should be allowed before the police take action...
i.e 30 limit, police should only prosecute say over 40mph, or 45mph, 50mph??
Simple...When they drive too fast for the conditions of the road at the time irrespective of the numeric value
[quote][p][bold]The Sleeper[/bold] wrote: I would just be interested to see how far over the speed limit people think should be allowed before the police take action... i.e 30 limit, police should only prosecute say over 40mph, or 45mph, 50mph??[/p][/quote]Simple...When they drive too fast for the conditions of the road at the time irrespective of the numeric value tomtopper
  • Score: -1

11:25pm Thu 3 Apr 14

tomtopper says...

It's amazing & worrying how many folk are brainwashed by speed limits = safety rather than the manner of driving ..

People need to remember:
Exceeding posted limits: COULD be dangerous...
Exceeding the conditions within the limit: ALWAYS dangerous..
It's amazing & worrying how many folk are brainwashed by speed limits = safety rather than the manner of driving .. People need to remember: Exceeding posted limits: COULD be dangerous... Exceeding the conditions within the limit: ALWAYS dangerous.. tomtopper
  • Score: -2

11:43pm Thu 3 Apr 14

Grafter1986 says...

tomtopper wrote:
It's amazing & worrying how many folk are brainwashed by speed limits = safety rather than the manner of driving ..

People need to remember:
Exceeding posted limits: COULD be dangerous...
Exceeding the conditions within the limit: ALWAYS dangerous..
You are actually ridiculous. You repeatedly say about numeric figures, how can it be enforced if it is not numeric? One persons belief they are driving in a safe manner could be completely different to anothers. A speed limit is there because of safety-people lose lives everyday because of speeding drivers. If a sign said drive in a suitable manner, that is different to each person so it has to be numeric.
The driver admitted he was speeding yet still complains at the fine. Its simple-dont speed! He cant just decide that it is a safe road so he can do 35.
Lets hope that you are never hurt by anyone who thinks they are driving in a safe manner suitable to the conditions!
[quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: It's amazing & worrying how many folk are brainwashed by speed limits = safety rather than the manner of driving .. People need to remember: Exceeding posted limits: COULD be dangerous... Exceeding the conditions within the limit: ALWAYS dangerous..[/p][/quote]You are actually ridiculous. You repeatedly say about numeric figures, how can it be enforced if it is not numeric? One persons belief they are driving in a safe manner could be completely different to anothers. A speed limit is there because of safety-people lose lives everyday because of speeding drivers. If a sign said drive in a suitable manner, that is different to each person so it has to be numeric. The driver admitted he was speeding yet still complains at the fine. Its simple-dont speed! He cant just decide that it is a safe road so he can do 35. Lets hope that you are never hurt by anyone who thinks they are driving in a safe manner suitable to the conditions! Grafter1986
  • Score: 1

12:04am Fri 4 Apr 14

tomtopper says...

Grafter1986 wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
It's amazing & worrying how many folk are brainwashed by speed limits = safety rather than the manner of driving ..

People need to remember:
Exceeding posted limits: COULD be dangerous...
Exceeding the conditions within the limit: ALWAYS dangerous..
You are actually ridiculous. You repeatedly say about numeric figures, how can it be enforced if it is not numeric? One persons belief they are driving in a safe manner could be completely different to anothers. A speed limit is there because of safety-people lose lives everyday because of speeding drivers. If a sign said drive in a suitable manner, that is different to each person so it has to be numeric.
The driver admitted he was speeding yet still complains at the fine. Its simple-dont speed! He cant just decide that it is a safe road so he can do 35.
Lets hope that you are never hurt by anyone who thinks they are driving in a safe manner suitable to the conditions!
You're not understanding my point pal.. I'm not saying abolish the limit, far from it.. It should be used as a reasonable guide... It's the rigid enforcement of the limit and the 'speed kills' mantra rolled out at the expense of hazard awareness that does little to promote further safety on the roads.. The fact the casualty rate has remained flat since the introduction of camera vans etc bears this out.. Considering the huge advances in car design, trauma care and road engineering in the past decade or so, coupled with rigid speed enforcement, you would think the figures would reduce massively, but they haven't.... The reason? Most motorists are switched off, ignorant and uneducated to any type of road skills, using a numeric measure as an indicator of their perceived safety

People lose lives everyday because drivers were exceeding the conditions and most fatal causalities are within the speed limit..

Drink driving is not numeric either, so how is that enforced? Bad driving should be enforced the same way..

And what if I'm hurt by a driver that had passed a camera van 2 miles previously, but didn't notice it? How has that stopped his bad driving affecting me?
[quote][p][bold]Grafter1986[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: It's amazing & worrying how many folk are brainwashed by speed limits = safety rather than the manner of driving .. People need to remember: Exceeding posted limits: COULD be dangerous... Exceeding the conditions within the limit: ALWAYS dangerous..[/p][/quote]You are actually ridiculous. You repeatedly say about numeric figures, how can it be enforced if it is not numeric? One persons belief they are driving in a safe manner could be completely different to anothers. A speed limit is there because of safety-people lose lives everyday because of speeding drivers. If a sign said drive in a suitable manner, that is different to each person so it has to be numeric. The driver admitted he was speeding yet still complains at the fine. Its simple-dont speed! He cant just decide that it is a safe road so he can do 35. Lets hope that you are never hurt by anyone who thinks they are driving in a safe manner suitable to the conditions![/p][/quote]You're not understanding my point pal.. I'm not saying abolish the limit, far from it.. It should be used as a reasonable guide... It's the rigid enforcement of the limit and the 'speed kills' mantra rolled out at the expense of hazard awareness that does little to promote further safety on the roads.. The fact the casualty rate has remained flat since the introduction of camera vans etc bears this out.. Considering the huge advances in car design, trauma care and road engineering in the past decade or so, coupled with rigid speed enforcement, you would think the figures would reduce massively, but they haven't.... The reason? Most motorists are switched off, ignorant and uneducated to any type of road skills, using a numeric measure as an indicator of their perceived safety People lose lives everyday because drivers were exceeding the conditions and most fatal causalities are within the speed limit.. Drink driving is not numeric either, so how is that enforced? Bad driving should be enforced the same way.. And what if I'm hurt by a driver that had passed a camera van 2 miles previously, but didn't notice it? How has that stopped his bad driving affecting me? tomtopper
  • Score: -1

8:03am Fri 4 Apr 14

Grafter1986 says...

Firstly, im not your pal.

Secondly, i havent missed your point. You keep talking about exceeding the conditions but everyone has different opinions on the conditions and their ability to drive safely in tthem. Drink driving is measured numerically...

Ifts amazing anyone is still alive considering most road users are switched off, ignorant and uneducated to any type of road skill!
Firstly, im not your pal. Secondly, i havent missed your point. You keep talking about exceeding the conditions but everyone has different opinions on the conditions and their ability to drive safely in tthem. Drink driving is measured numerically... Ifts amazing anyone is still alive considering most road users are switched off, ignorant and uneducated to any type of road skill! Grafter1986
  • Score: 1

5:37pm Fri 4 Apr 14

tomtopper says...

Grafter1986 wrote:
Firstly, im not your pal.

Secondly, i havent missed your point. You keep talking about exceeding the conditions but everyone has different opinions on the conditions and their ability to drive safely in tthem. Drink driving is measured numerically...

Ifts amazing anyone is still alive considering most road users are switched off, ignorant and uneducated to any type of road skill!
Drink driving is measured numerically?? Does the drink driver not have to be stopped first? How is the stopping of a drink driver numeric? Yes everyone does have different opinions, and posted limits should exist but like i've already said but which you seem not to be grasping, it's about the rigid enforcement with cameras and the 'speed kills' mantra that make drivers think they're automatically safe because they're within the limit, when the opposite is true.. You're also suggesting that the only safe stretch of road is a one with a camera van on it...

The way you're talking is like the ignoramus's out there who are speed abiders, yet lethal .. You're getting confused between speed and danger..Pal
[quote][p][bold]Grafter1986[/bold] wrote: Firstly, im not your pal. Secondly, i havent missed your point. You keep talking about exceeding the conditions but everyone has different opinions on the conditions and their ability to drive safely in tthem. Drink driving is measured numerically... Ifts amazing anyone is still alive considering most road users are switched off, ignorant and uneducated to any type of road skill![/p][/quote]Drink driving is measured numerically?? Does the drink driver not have to be stopped first? How is the stopping of a drink driver numeric? Yes everyone does have different opinions, and posted limits should exist but like i've already said but which you seem not to be grasping, it's about the rigid enforcement with cameras and the 'speed kills' mantra that make drivers think they're automatically safe because they're within the limit, when the opposite is true.. You're also suggesting that the only safe stretch of road is a one with a camera van on it... The way you're talking is like the ignoramus's out there who are speed abiders, yet lethal .. You're getting confused between speed and danger..Pal tomtopper
  • Score: -2

7:33pm Fri 4 Apr 14

Grafter1986 says...

****, pal, you have sussed me!!

What i do is drive 29 miles per hour but i have my eyes closed, on my mobile phone, in 2nd gear with the music blaring!

Good luck to you, pal.
****, pal, you have sussed me!! What i do is drive 29 miles per hour but i have my eyes closed, on my mobile phone, in 2nd gear with the music blaring! Good luck to you, pal. Grafter1986
  • Score: 1

7:21am Tue 8 Apr 14

les26p says...

I had 2 friends stopped on the same day passing the Fire Station at Colburn. HE was given a fine and points on his license. SHE was asked to watch a video and asked not to do it again...... Double standards? Sexual discrimination?
I had 2 friends stopped on the same day passing the Fire Station at Colburn. HE was given a fine and points on his license. SHE was asked to watch a video and asked not to do it again...... Double standards? Sexual discrimination? les26p
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree