Hypocrisy and the Law

nation

I think that the reason people get so riled up about RLJing is that people are generally more annoyed by unpredictable behaviour on the roads than by behaviours that are rule-breaking.

It's the reason why, for example, on the motorway people will get angry about someone that can't stick to a lane and maintain some kind of constant speed (even though they may be within the rules at all times) but won't bat an eyelid at someone cruising past in the outside lane at 90mph.

Accidents on the road are, pretty much by definition, caused by unexpected things happening. Wilfully behaving in a way that means you're going to catch people by surprise will piss people off.

Yes, in theory people should be considering all possible actions of the people they are sharing the road with, but that's still no reason to try to catch them out.

Confusedboy

Gussio wrote:

Confusedboy wrote:

Just stand on the corner any busy urban junction, especially after dark

As I understand it, soliciting is also against the law....

It's a fair cop, guv.....

The Rookie

Clearly no longer confused boy but now full on rent boy?

31 in a 30 is a criminal offence and people have been convicted of it, notably one chap who got all righteous and proved a Gatso reading was wrong as it said 36 and he proved his wife was doing 31.....guilty, that went through 2 appeals.

Simon

mybreakfastconsisted

The Beginner wrote:

Clearly no longer confused boy but now full on rent boy?

31 in a 30 is a criminal offence and people have been convicted of it, notably one chap who got all righteous and proved a Gatso reading was wrong as it said 36 and he proved his wife was doing 31.....guilty, that went through 2 appeals.

Simon

Source please.

The Rookie

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7474277.stm

This is the last hearing where for simplicity of argument some of the facts that can be questioned have been left out of the arguments to bring it to points of law, there is no record of the magistrates or first appeal.

Simon

bigmat

W1 wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

dhope wrote:

Confusedboy wrote:

31mph in a 30 limit s not breaking the law, which gives you a margin for error of 10%, so you are not breaking the law at 33

31 in a 30 is breaking the law but I believe that a speedo was generally only accurate to 10% 'back in the day', hence cameras and police giving a little grace so as to avoid the "but my car told me I was doing 30" argument.

I've been told that its 10% +2mph. So:
20 = 24
30 = 35
40 = 46
50 = 57
60 = 68
70 = 79

But driving at the speeds I've listed would mean that your speedo would have to be 100% accurate for you to be able to lie confidently to the coppers about breaking the speed limit.

And just to stoke the fires of RLJing, I only jump red lights when my Airzound is wearing a hi-viz jacket and a helmet with two £9 MD80 clones mounted on it.

That's only about discretionary enforcement though - the police can legitimately prosecute you for 1mph over the limit, just to do so would be absurd as it's only an arbitrary number on a stick which reflects the lowest common denominator's driving skill.

What utter sh1te. So let me guess, you're a better than average driver, so you'd be fine driving faster, right? If a driver knocked over my family driving at 31 mph in a 30 zone, I would expect a prosecution. Half the time the speed limits are too high as it is, so to push it that little bit extra isn't really excusable. FWIW, if a red light jumping cyclist wiped out my family I'd be equally angry. But if a red light jumping cyclist had no immediate effect on me whatsoever, I wouldn't really give two hoots. Some people on here need to get their priorities in order.

SimonAH

You must have laws, and the laws must be clear and well publicised.

In an ideal world you would then have enforcement of the laws provided by even handed people with the power and judgement to apply a little latitude in their enforcement.

On the whole I think we're about right in this country (or at least better than most).

I've lived in utterly joyless countries where every rule is treated absolutely as a black and white issue. I've also stayed in countries where the difference between something being illegal or not is a small denomination note.

Neither is as good as here.

And no. There are no reflectors on my pedals. I'll come quietly officer.....

W1

BigMat wrote:

What utter sh1te. So let me guess, you're a better than average driver, so you'd be fine driving faster, right? If a driver knocked over my family driving at 31 mph in a 30 zone, I would expect a prosecution. Half the time the speed limits are too high as it is, so to push it that little bit extra isn't really excusable. FWIW, if a red light jumping cyclist wiped out my family I'd be equally angry. But if a red light jumping cyclist had no immediate effect on me whatsoever, I wouldn't really give two hoots. Some people on here need to get their priorities in order.

What's utter sh!te matt?

Who said anything about me? And who said anything about not prosecuting drivers who kill families? You do know you can be done for that without speeding, right?

Why is the limit 30 and not 29? Or 26.54mph? It's an arbitrary number, that's all. If it was 20, or 10, or 5 it would still be an arbitrary number. Sometimes it's not safe to drive at the limit, sometimes it's perfectly safe to drive significantly over it. But the speed limit itself is just a number on a stick, arrived at with a finger in the air, because whatever the speed there will be accidents, and there's no "safe" speed at all. And that's why it's enforced as it is, and rightly so - because the number on the stick is cannot be equally justified at all times, but cannot change itself - so the police use their discretion.

Presumably you wouldn't give two hoots about a speeding driver that had no immediate effect on you either?

mybreakfastconsisted

The Beginner wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7474277.stm

This is the last hearing where for simplicity of argument some of the facts that can be questioned have been left out of the arguments to bring it to points of law, there is no record of the magistrates or first appeal.

Simon

Trevor Hall, managing director of Road Safety Support, and secretary to the Association of Chief Police Officers' (ACPO) Road Policing Enforcement Technology Committee and National Safety Camera co-ordinator, said: "The evidence presented against Vikki Fielden in this case was compelling from the outset. Mrs Fielden in her defence of this case has presented taxpayers with a large cost.




"Most motorists would have simply accepted the penalty and learned from their mistake.






"I hope the large cost awarded in this case will urge other motorists to think carefully before mounting spurious challenges often spurred on by anti-speed camera website material."

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/aro ... _1_2504939

I'm afraid that's not proof of anything.

rhext

Had enough of this RLJ angst.

I sit there like a burk feeling smug and watching everyone else ignore them. Nobody notices, nobody cares. I'm going to start jumping them now: discuss :-)

mybreakfastconsisted

W1 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

What utter sh1te. So let me guess, you're a better than average driver, so you'd be fine driving faster, right? If a driver knocked over my family driving at 31 mph in a 30 zone, I would expect a prosecution. Half the time the speed limits are too high as it is, so to push it that little bit extra isn't really excusable. FWIW, if a red light jumping cyclist wiped out my family I'd be equally angry. But if a red light jumping cyclist had no immediate effect on me whatsoever, I wouldn't really give two hoots. Some people on here need to get their priorities in order.

What's utter sh!te matt?

Who said anything about me? And who said anything about not prosecuting drivers who kill families? You do know you can be done for that without speeding, right?

Why is the limit 30 and not 29? Or 26.54mph? It's an arbitrary number, that's all. Presumably you wouldn't give two hoots about a speeding driver that had no immediate effect on you either?

No, this is a profound misunderstanding of physics and the make up of the human body. The human body is designed to withstand collisions at maximum running speed. Above this speed the risk of serious injury and death rises dramatically. The difference between 20mph and 30mph is the difference between living and dying.

AndyManc

I don't condone RLJ because I despise motorists that do.

Of course motorists that do RLJ deserve to be hated, they are in a 1/2 ton - 40 ton killing machine.

I do sympathise with cyclists that do break the law because the infrastructure we have to deal with is not designed for cycling, there is one section of my commute where I will often jump on the pavement, (no pedestrians around) because of the outrageous behaviour from motorist, self preservation outweighs compliance of minor traffic laws.

Infrastructure (particular inner-city) MUST favour cyclists and pedestrians, there's NO EXCUSE not to.

At 5am this morning, I did a couple of RLJ's , no traffic , no peds anywhere, should I have waited at the lights for 5 minutes hoping the road sensors had seen me ? , legally (probably) yes , should the local council prioritise cycling , morally .. yes.


ALL CYCLISTS should be campaigning for better facilities and the prioritisation of cycling infrastructure over the system we have now, the tide should have turned decades ago.


.

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

W1 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

What utter sh1te. So let me guess, you're a better than average driver, so you'd be fine driving faster, right? If a driver knocked over my family driving at 31 mph in a 30 zone, I would expect a prosecution. Half the time the speed limits are too high as it is, so to push it that little bit extra isn't really excusable. FWIW, if a red light jumping cyclist wiped out my family I'd be equally angry. But if a red light jumping cyclist had no immediate effect on me whatsoever, I wouldn't really give two hoots. Some people on here need to get their priorities in order.

What's utter sh!te matt?

Who said anything about me? And who said anything about not prosecuting drivers who kill families? You do know you can be done for that without speeding, right?

Why is the limit 30 and not 29? Or 26.54mph? It's an arbitrary number, that's all. Presumably you wouldn't give two hoots about a speeding driver that had no immediate effect on you either?

No, this is a profound misunderstanding of physics and the make up of the human body. The human body is designed to withstand collisions at maximum running speed. Above this speed the risk of serious injury and death rises dramatically. The difference between 20mph and 30mph is the difference between living and dying.

So the speed limit should be about 8mph, except where there are people running, where it should be zero. Great.

It's still an arbitrary number though - what's the difference in damage between 16 and 18.93 MPH?

mybreakfastconsisted

So people should be allowed to drive at 80mph outside schools for colour blind ginger orphans, great.




Your constant straw mannery is tedious and grating, you know perfectly well I support and lobby for 20mph zones in all residential areas. 20mph zones safe lives, as in Hull:

Hansard:

Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[106] in injury accidents of:



— Total accidents -56 per cent

— Killed & seriously injured accidents -90 per cent

— Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent

— All pedestrian accidents -54 per cent

— Child pedestrian accidents -74 per cent.

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

So people should be allowed to drive at 80mph outside schools for colour blind ginger orphans, great.




Your constant straw mannery is tedious and grating, you know perfectly well I support and lobby for 20mph zones in all residential areas. 20mph zones safe lives, as in Hull:

Hansard:

Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[106] in injury accidents of:



— Total accidents -56 per cent

— Killed & seriously injured accidents -90 per cent

— Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent

— All pedestrian accidents -54 per cent

— Child pedestrian accidents -74 per cent.

yes yes yes, kill the ginger orphans and Copy and Paste to your hearts content whilst bleating on about straw men. Do you understand that even 20mph is still just a number? It's not a magic orphan saving blanket. It's still just a number.

bigmat

W1 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

What utter sh1te. So let me guess, you're a better than average driver, so you'd be fine driving faster, right? If a driver knocked over my family driving at 31 mph in a 30 zone, I would expect a prosecution. Half the time the speed limits are too high as it is, so to push it that little bit extra isn't really excusable. FWIW, if a red light jumping cyclist wiped out my family I'd be equally angry. But if a red light jumping cyclist had no immediate effect on me whatsoever, I wouldn't really give two hoots. Some people on here need to get their priorities in order.

What's utter sh!te matt?

Who said anything about me? And who said anything about not prosecuting drivers who kill families? You do know you can be done for that without speeding, right?

Why is the limit 30 and not 29? Or 26.54mph? It's an arbitrary number, that's all. If it was 20, or 10, or 5 it would still be an arbitrary number. Sometimes it's not safe to drive at the limit, sometimes it's perfectly safe to drive significantly over it. But the speed limit itself is just a number on a stick, arrived at with a finger in the air, because whatever the speed there will be accidents, and there's no "safe" speed at all. And that's why it's enforced as it is, and rightly so - because the number on the stick is cannot be equally justified at all times, but cannot change itself - so the police use their discretion.

Presumably you wouldn't give two hoots about a speeding driver that had no immediate effect on you either?

Just to clarify, the bit that I object to is:

"That's only about discretionary enforcement though - the police can legitimately prosecute you for 1mph over the limit, just to do so would be absurd as it's only an arbitrary number on a stick which reflects the lowest common denominator's driving skill."

To me, that implies that you consider yourself to have sufficient skill to exceed the "arbitrary" speed limits. I think speed limits in built up areas are generally too high, for the reason mybreakfastconsisted has already mentioned, so to suggest that its fine to speed for more "skilful" drivers is quite objectionable really. And generally I would give too hoots about a speeding driver that might affect me, which is why I'd be more concerned about somebody doing 35 in a busy 30 zone, than somebody doing 90 on a quiet motorway. Bringing it back to red light jumping bikes, in the majority of cases there is minimal risk of them having the potential to affect me in any way, certainly when I jump red lights it doesn't affect anyone else (putting the whole immeasurable "damage to the reputation of cyclists at large" issue to one side).

W1

BigMat wrote:

Just to clarify, the bit that I object to is:

"That's only about discretionary enforcement though - the police can legitimately prosecute you for 1mph over the limit, just to do so would be absurd as it's only an arbitrary number on a stick which reflects the lowest common denominator's driving skill."

To me, that implies that you consider yourself to have sufficient skill to exceed the "arbitrary" speed limits. I think speed limits in built up areas are generally too high, for the reason mybreakfastconsisted has already mentioned, so to suggest that its fine to speed for more "skilful" drivers is quite objectionable really. And generally I would give too hoots about a speeding driver that might affect me, which is why I'd be more concerned about somebody doing 35 in a busy 30 zone, than somebody doing 90 on a quiet motorway. Bringing it back to red light jumping bikes, in the majority of cases there is minimal risk of them having the potential to affect me in any way, certainly when I jump red lights it doesn't affect anyone else (putting the whole immeasurable "damage to the reputation of cyclists at large" issue to one side).

If we put elephants in the room to one side, it's not really a fair argument, is it? Because I see that is one of the worst impacts of RLJing. I think that affects all of "us".

But speed limits are arbitrary, and they are set to the lowest common denominator. The question that is asked is - what would a safe speed be for the worst driver, in the worst weather, outside this school at 3pm on a dark Thursday? That's because the limits don't change depending on all the myriad of factors that affect "safe" driving and speeds. Is the same speed limit required all the time? Well not really. It would be adequately safe for the limit to be higher outside the same school at 3am on a Sunday morning in the summer, because the risk is much lower.

As to whether a skilful driver should be allowed to speed - well, why not? If they can avoid the same accident as a terrible driver doing 10mph under the limit, what's the difference?

I wasn't speaking about mysellf, although I do take driving seriously and strive to improve - riding the bike so much has immesuarably helped that.

mybreakfastconsisted

That's another fallacy, that speeding is only dangerous if someone is hurt.

Speeding is ani social. It's aggressive. It sacres people and bullies vulnerable road users off the roads, it scares old people trying to cross.

There doesn't have to be a coffin for speeding to be unpleasant, bullying behaviour.


ROAD USERS who break the speed limit are committing "the worst kind of anti-social behaviour" - that's the view of one of Britain's top Police Chief Constables.

Julie Spence, head of Cambridgeshire Police, directed the accusation at a particular sector of the population when she told The Daily Telegraph speeding is "middle-class anti-social behaviour".

"People think we should be able to get away with it," said Ms Spence. "They wouldn't tolerate lawbreaking by somebody else but they do it themselves without thinking.


http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-new ... 13284.html

bigmat

W1 wrote:

But speed limits are arbitrary, and they are set to the lowest common denominator. The question that is asked is - what would a safe speed be for the worst driver, in the worst weather, outside this school at 3pm on a dark Thursday? That's because the limits don't change depending on all the myriad of factors that affect "safe" driving and speeds. Is the same speed limit required all the time? Well not really. It would be adequately safe for the limit to be higher outside the same school at 3am on a Sunday morning in the summer, because the risk is much lower.

Is that really the case? Genuine question. I would have thought that setting the limit would be a more complex process, taking into account competing interests of different groups. I certainly don't get the sense that speed limits are set as low as possible to take into account the worst driver in the worst conditions, and that as a result it is safe to break those limits if you are a better than average driver in good conditions.

greg66_tri_v2.0

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

That's another fallacy, that speeding is only dangerous if someone is hurt.

Speeding is ani social. It's aggressive. It sacres people and bullies vulnerable road users off the roads, it scares old people trying to cross.

There doesn't have to be a coffin for speeding to be unpleasant, bullying behaviour.


ROAD USERS who break the speed limit are committing "the worst kind of anti-social behaviour" - that's the view of one of Britain's top Police Chief Constables.

Julie Spence, head of Cambridgeshire Police, directed the accusation at a particular sector of the population when she told The Daily Telegraph speeding is "middle-class anti-social behaviour".

"People think we should be able to get away with it," said Ms Spence. "They wouldn't tolerate lawbreaking by somebody else but they do it themselves without thinking.


http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-new ... 13284.html

Not this old nonsense again.

If your objection to speeding is that it is anti-social, you must necessarily not object to speeding on empty roads with no pedestrians around.

Driving a car at almost any speed is potentially dangerous, just as walking down the stairs is potentially dangerous. But it is partcularly silly to assert that driving at 31mph in a built up area is dangerous per se, and that driving at 30 is safe.

notsoblue

AndyManc wrote:

I don't condone RLJ because I despise motorists that do.

Of course motorists that do RLJ deserve to be hated, they are in a 1/2 ton - 40 ton killing machine.

I do sympathise with cyclists that do break the law because the infrastructure we have to deal with is not designed for cycling

+1 I don't RLJ (mainly because the next time I'm in a serious accident, I don't want my behaviour to be called into question), and I don't condone it. But I've encountered many situations where the infrastructure causes cyclists to be put in a more risky position by obeying the traffic light signals. It puts them right in front of an intimidating starting grid of cars, and I've seen less confident riders wobble off into the gutter under the pressure while drivers closely overtake/undertake them. Now this could just be the reality of what it is like to cycle in London; Always a struggle against motorists and the road infrastructure. Some people deal with that by flouting the rules, others by being better cyclists, but there will be a significant proportion that won't be able to deal with it at all and will either be scared away from cycling or heaven forbid become part of the RTA statistics

Most people who RLJ just do it because of convenience. I'm not defending that. But there are situations where having different phasing for cyclists would work out better for both us and the drivers. As it stands, the law doesn't always favour or protect us, so its no surprise that some people take a more laissez faire approach to the highway code.

spen666

Oh no, who rattled Bimbly wimbly's cage

now we're getting the usual pages of quotes from random sources to prove "facts" and anyone who disagrees is a straw man.

Wonder if he will be true to form and get himself banned again

W1

BigMat wrote:

W1 wrote:

But speed limits are arbitrary, and they are set to the lowest common denominator. The question that is asked is - what would a safe speed be for the worst driver, in the worst weather, outside this school at 3pm on a dark Thursday? That's because the limits don't change depending on all the myriad of factors that affect "safe" driving and speeds. Is the same speed limit required all the time? Well not really. It would be adequately safe for the limit to be higher outside the same school at 3am on a Sunday morning in the summer, because the risk is much lower.

Is that really the case? Genuine question. I would have thought that setting the limit would be a more complex process, taking into account competing interests of different groups. I certainly don't get the sense that speed limits are set as low as possible to take into account the worst driver in the worst conditions, and that as a result it is safe to break those limits if you are a better than average driver in good conditions.

I was being flippant - I am sure there is more to it than that. But what is true is that the limit doesn't change to reflect changing conditions (road, weather, time of day) or driver skill. As I said, if one driver can do 40mph and avoid an accident because he or she is a good, attentive, careful driver and another poor, inattentive driver can avoid the same accident but only at 20mph isn't there a valid argument for saying the better driver should be allowed to drive faster because the effect is the same?

W1

spen666 wrote:

Oh no, who rattled Bimbly wimbly's cage

now we're getting the usual pages of quotes from random sources to prove "facts" and anyone who disagrees is a straw man.

Wonder if he will be true to form and get himself banned again

Sorry, that might have been me. It was the Loony thread that made my think of it though.

mybreakfastconsisted

notsoblue wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

I don't condone RLJ because I despise motorists that do.

Of course motorists that do RLJ deserve to be hated, they are in a 1/2 ton - 40 ton killing machine.

I do sympathise with cyclists that do break the law because the infrastructure we have to deal with is not designed for cycling

+1 I don't RLJ (mainly because the next time I'm in a serious accident, I don't want my behaviour to be called into question), and I don't condone it. But I've encountered many situations where the infrastructure causes cyclists to be put in a more risky position by obeying the traffic light signals. It puts them right in front of an intimidating starting grid of cars, and I've seen less confident riders wobble off into the gutter under the pressure while drivers closely overtake/undertake them. Now this could just be the reality of what it is like to cycle in London; Always a struggle against motorists and the road infrastructure. Some people deal with that by flouting the rules, others by being better cyclists, but there will be a significant proportion that won't be able to deal with it at all and will either be scared away from cycling or heaven forbid become part of the RTA statistics

Most people who RLJ just do it because of convenience. I'm not defending that. But there are situations where having different phasing for cyclists would work out better for both us and the drivers. As it stands, the law doesn't always favour or protect us, so its no surprise that some people take a more laissez faire approach to the highway code.

It's chickens and eggs, people on bikes who rlj put themselves in danger and generally don't cause many accidents, it's not anywhere near a major factor. Speeding is different , the general rule is that the higher the speed the more accidents occur (and injuries and deaths)

Keith1983

I think we've lost some perspective here people. The issue for some may be that it is black and white and that laws should not be broken, by any amount at any time by any person and if that is your stance then good luck to you trying to live by your own standards. There is a reason that sentences for different crimes are different as the severity of the crime is different. I don't like RLJers as their actions potentially cause a serious traffic accident which will at least inconvenience lots of people and at worst will mean a car driver will have to live with the memory of killing someone. To me the gains don't justify the risk, this is why I don't like RLJers and don't do it myself. simples!

bigmat

W1 wrote:

BigMat wrote:

W1 wrote:

But speed limits are arbitrary, and they are set to the lowest common denominator. The question that is asked is - what would a safe speed be for the worst driver, in the worst weather, outside this school at 3pm on a dark Thursday? That's because the limits don't change depending on all the myriad of factors that affect "safe" driving and speeds. Is the same speed limit required all the time? Well not really. It would be adequately safe for the limit to be higher outside the same school at 3am on a Sunday morning in the summer, because the risk is much lower.

Is that really the case? Genuine question. I would have thought that setting the limit would be a more complex process, taking into account competing interests of different groups. I certainly don't get the sense that speed limits are set as low as possible to take into account the worst driver in the worst conditions, and that as a result it is safe to break those limits if you are a better than average driver in good conditions.

I was being flippant - I am sure there is more to it than that. But what is true is that the limit doesn't change to reflect changing conditions (road, weather, time of day) or driver skill. As I said, if one driver can do 40mph and avoid an accident because he or she is a good, attentive, careful driver and another poor, inattentive driver can avoid the same accident but only at 20mph isn't there a valid argument for saying the better driver should be allowed to drive faster because the effect is the same?

The speed limit may be an arbitrary number, but it is usually appropriate for the surroundings. And its a limit, not an advised speed, so it should be viewed as the maximum appropriate speed for a competent driver in good conditions. A less confident driver should drive more slowly, and slower speeds will be appropriate in bad conditions, at busy times, rain, ice, fog, kids playing by the road, whatever. My real issue is in built up areas, where non motorised road users are at far greater risk.

mudcow007

i hate hate hate RLJ as do most of the people here but i work on an industrial estate which leads on to the single carriage main road

there are lights going from our estate onto the main road.

my bike doesn't seem to trip the lights no matter which way i approach them (my bike is alloy so should break the mag strips?!) so sometimes im waiting about 5 mins until a car/ van or truck comes along...if no cars are within site on the main road or approaching the lights i usually go through but that's they are the only lights i would ever dream of jumping

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Most people who RLJ just do it because of convenience. I'm not defending that. But there are situations where having different phasing for cyclists would work out better for both us and the drivers. As it stands, the law doesn't always favour or protect us, so its no surprise that some people take a more laissez faire approach to the highway code.

I agree with much of that. But for reasons that you already know (albeit don't agree with), it is far easier to argue for better facilities without all the nay-sayers bleating about RLJers. For example the parts of CS8 that I ride are fantastic - a really good facility. It would be easier, I think, for more money to be invested in cycling if "people" generally had a good opinion of cyclists.

As you said, RLJers do so far more for convenience than anything else, so I think it's hard to find any really good examples where being "laisse faire" with the HC is due to safety. There's rarely a reason why getting off and walking isn't an option.

spen666

There seems to be a flaw in the arguments of some people on here.

There is a legal maximum speed (aka "the speed limit") for each road in Great Britain. Exceed this and you are committing an offence.

This does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed and you could easily find yourself prosecuted for careless driving ( or its other limbs) for driving below the aspeed limit, where it was not safe to drive at the speed you were doing - an example could be driving at 65mph on a dual carriageway or motorway in this freezing fog.

A driver is required to
a) drive @ a safe speed AND
b) not to exceed the speed limit

Both limbs are required each time you drive