Looking on the bright side!

pinno

On a dull November evening, a Sunday in 2013, I had previously spent a couple of hours tending to my ailing mother - longer than expected. I was then late to help my OH with the Toots' dinner. She was then running late for work and had an impeccable time and attendance record.
So I was in a bit of a hurry trying to get my OH to work. On exiting a small village on the way, no one around, not a soul, not another car user, I was clocked doing 47 just immediately after the 30 limit ended.
I got pulled. I got hit with a £100 fine and 3 points.
The female police officer asked if I was going to learn from the lesson - I told her no as I was trying to keep all parties happy - my mother, my girls and my OH.
I declined the speed awareness course.

No discretion. Absolutely no point in where they were parked anyway - not an accident spot, not a place where people regularly speed and if they were there, most other car users would flash you up to give you some warning anyway.

Now, I live on the main route to a local village and the North of this peninsula. On a dry summer night late on - particularly a Friday and a Saturday, the boy racers use the local roads as a race track. It can be noisy as hell, coupled with doughnuts around the roundabout.
Some of them, you can hardly call 'boy', they work on the oil rigs, they drive M BMW's, they are 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off - you know when they are 'off' and they drive like lunatics. It's sometimes dangerous just trying to get out of my own drive - they come around the roundabout and floor it - knowing full well, no police ever sit this side of the roundabout.
There is at least 1 car per year that crashes on the roundabout - and there have been numerous injuries, some of them fatal.
There is a bend just half a mile form the house adjacent to a golf course. This is where the boy racers often come unstuck, plough a hole through the hedge and their car ends up on the fairway of the 11th hole.
Where are the police? No where to be seen or if on the rare occasion they are, sitting large as life in the middle of the day catching sweet fanny adam.

So, I think that their priorities are somewhat skewed. The targets are 'soft', for example - there is a new bypass locally, it's a straight road for 3.5 miles, it's made up of 2 sections of 'dual carriageway' in both directions. You get stuck behind trucks (often for miles) and you use the lanes to get by them but you have to be very careful because 8 out of 10 times, the police or a camera van are sat somewhere just as you merge into single carriageway from the 2 lanes.
Technically, there's 'no mans land' between the lanes but no armco , so it's just an A road within that section - but no body knows because there is no signage.

And I do not know what the law is. Is it classed as 'Dual carriageway' because it does not say so. Can you do 70 which is applicable on a DC or on some sections of 'overtaking lane'? Is it just an A road where the speed limit is normally 60 unless otherwise indicated? 60 being a slow speed to overtake trucks doing 56 - especially if there's more than a half dozen cars.
Pointless having an 'overtaking lane' if it's restricted to 60.
There's hardly been an accident on this section of bypass since it was completed 8 years ago. Visibility is good, it's dead straight and there's enough road to get by most tail backs.

Having delivered all over the South East in a truck, doing 56 everywhere, I witnessed idiots on a daily basis go up and down the M4 at speeds well in excess of 90mph, Day in, day out. In fact, I missed and was just through High Wycombe when that awful crash in the fog happened on the M40 (2002) and I remember cars going headlong into thick fog as if it were a clear sunny day. Utter madness - and all the time thinking, where the f*ck are the police when the roads really need them? Where the f*ck are the police when situations require it or where regular, habitual speeding occurs at particular times?

...and then, as a cyclist; having been nearly knocked off at a roundabout (I fell in the process of trying to avoid collision) where a driver did not indicate - I thought he was going straight on, I also had a witness and was subject to threatening verbal abuse, was told by the police - A: he was on the roundabout so he had right of way and B: we're not here to uphold the highway code. !!!

So, if cameras and police where in the right places at the right times and targeting habitual speeding drivers or accident blackspots, I would not think that they are mostly using it as revenue procurement exercise..

Herendeththerant.

focuszing723

Nicely explained and described Pinno.

People using the roads as a race track makes my blood boil. Go on a track day if you want to do that!

Stevo_666

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect if they want them to work as a deterrent to any speeding, doing it in a spot where more people will get caught by it make s total sense.

It is amazing how much quieter life is without cars running around though. Really noticeable. Lovely stuff.

Maybe, but they keep telling us that it is done for safety reasons - and that the cameras are deployed at accident black spots, which clearly isnt the case based on my observations.

Call me a cynic...

You're a cycnic!

I've got no problem with catching people speeding or using mobile phones, even if it isn't in an accident blackspot. I've got a very good friend who's also a petrolhead, who rails against them as being a tax on motoring. They're not, they're just a tax on people who won't abide by the rules, however unfair the person thinks the law is. People should campaign to get the law changed, if they think it's unfair.

There's an absolutely foolproof way of avoiding the 'tax'/fines: don't speed, and don't use the mobile while driving. It's even more simple than the laws on drink driving, and people don't complain about them.

And if I got caught (I've managed 39 years up till now without point on my licence), I'd know I'd been a dïck, with only myself to blame (unless signage was at fault).

Being stupid involves getting caught

I have raised my objections to the less practical speed limits in my area. Good example is a road not far from me that goes between Bromley and Lewisham. 30 mph limit for the whole stretch until recently. Then Lewishem council in their wisdom changed their end to a 20 limit. So the week before doing what was perfectly legal and sensible speed suddenly made motorists a danger to society - when they cross an invisible line part way along the road.

And they wonder why so many motorists ignore 20mph limits. Usual rule of thumb is if a law is unreasonable, people will ignore it...

pinno

...or in France; 'If there's a law, ignore it.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect if they want them to work as a deterrent to any speeding, doing it in a spot where more people will get caught by it make s total sense.

It is amazing how much quieter life is without cars running around though. Really noticeable. Lovely stuff.

Maybe, but they keep telling us that it is done for safety reasons - and that the cameras are deployed at accident black spots, which clearly isnt the case based on my observations.

Call me a cynic...

You're a cycnic!

I've got no problem with catching people speeding or using mobile phones, even if it isn't in an accident blackspot. I've got a very good friend who's also a petrolhead, who rails against them as being a tax on motoring. They're not, they're just a tax on people who won't abide by the rules, however unfair the person thinks the law is. People should campaign to get the law changed, if they think it's unfair.

There's an absolutely foolproof way of avoiding the 'tax'/fines: don't speed, and don't use the mobile while driving. It's even more simple than the laws on drink driving, and people don't complain about them.

And if I got caught (I've managed 39 years up till now without point on my licence), I'd know I'd been a dïck, with only myself to blame (unless signage was at fault).

Being stupid involves getting caught

I have raised my objections to the less practical speed limits in my area. Good example is a road not far from me that goes between Bromley and Lewisham. 30 mph limit for the whole stretch until recently. Then Lewishem council in their wisdom changed their end to a 20 limit. So the week before doing what was perfectly legal and sensible speed suddenly made motorists a danger to society - when they cross an invisible line part way along the road.

And they wonder why so many motorists ignore 20mph limits. Usual rule of thumb is if a law is unreasonable, people will ignore it...

20mph actually makes a lot more sense than 30mph when you look at the survival rates of a pedestrian being hit by a car but I agree it is very difficult to adapt to it. I drove up for a weekend in the Twickenham / Richmond areas and virtually all the residential streets were 20mph, it was the first time I'd seen cameras in 20 zones too. You really need to change the character of a street in order to make the 20mph self-enforcing.

Stevo_666

pinno said:

...or in France; 'If there's a law, ignore it.

Very true. Got a couple of speeding tickets from the French plod after a holiday in the South of France - must have been snapped by cameras as was never stopped. Can't have been going more than 1 or 2kmh with over the limit as I was being pretty careful. Did a spot of research and realised there was no reciprocal agreement between France and the UK to allow enforcement so I told them where to stick their speeding tickets and chucked them in the bin.

Very satisfying

Wheelspinner

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect if they want them to work as a deterrent to any speeding, doing it in a spot where more people will get caught by it make s total sense.

It is amazing how much quieter life is without cars running around though. Really noticeable. Lovely stuff.

Maybe, but they keep telling us that it is done for safety reasons - and that the cameras are deployed at accident black spots, which clearly isnt the case based on my observations.

Call me a cynic...

You're a cycnic!

I've got no problem with catching people speeding or using mobile phones, even if it isn't in an accident blackspot. I've got a very good friend who's also a petrolhead, who rails against them as being a tax on motoring. They're not, they're just a tax on people who won't abide by the rules, however unfair the person thinks the law is. People should campaign to get the law changed, if they think it's unfair.

There's an absolutely foolproof way of avoiding the 'tax'/fines: don't speed, and don't use the mobile while driving. It's even more simple than the laws on drink driving, and people don't complain about them.

And if I got caught (I've managed 39 years up till now without point on my licence), I'd know I'd been a dïck, with only myself to blame (unless signage was at fault).

Being stupid involves getting caught

I have raised my objections to the less practical speed limits in my area. Good example is a road not far from me that goes between Bromley and Lewisham. 30 mph limit for the whole stretch until recently. Then Lewishem council in their wisdom changed their end to a 20 limit. So the week before doing what was perfectly legal and sensible speed suddenly made motorists a danger to society - when they cross an invisible line part way along the road.

And they wonder why so many motorists ignore 20mph limits. Usual rule of thumb is if a law is unreasonable, people will ignore it...

20mph actually makes a lot more sense than 30mph when you look at the survival rates of a pedestrian being hit by a car but I agree it is very difficult to adapt to it. I drove up for a weekend in the Twickenham / Richmond areas and virtually all the residential streets were 20mph, it was the first time I'd seen cameras in 20 zones too. You really need to change the character of a street in order to make the 20mph self-enforcing.

In the same way that people insist if you don’t want to get a speeding ticket, then don’t speed, if pedestrians don’t want to die they should stay off the f^^*ing road.

The other part of the “reduce speed limits” to save pedestrian lives bollox that irritates me is that it comes from similar groups who whinge about climate change and pollution etc etc.

If you drive 1 mile at 30 mph it takes 2 minutes. To do the same mile at 20 takes 3 minutes. So your car engine is ticking over for 50% more time, but I can absolutely guarantee it won’t use 50% less petrol (or other energy source of your choice). So you have just deliberately increased the emissions of that vehicle and every other one on the same stretch by 30-50% because the muppet pedestrians are too thick to stay off the road or look first.

Why is that a sensible plan?

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect if they want them to work as a deterrent to any speeding, doing it in a spot where more people will get caught by it make s total sense.

It is amazing how much quieter life is without cars running around though. Really noticeable. Lovely stuff.

Maybe, but they keep telling us that it is done for safety reasons - and that the cameras are deployed at accident black spots, which clearly isnt the case based on my observations.

Call me a cynic...

You're a cycnic!

I've got no problem with catching people speeding or using mobile phones, even if it isn't in an accident blackspot. I've got a very good friend who's also a petrolhead, who rails against them as being a tax on motoring. They're not, they're just a tax on people who won't abide by the rules, however unfair the person thinks the law is. People should campaign to get the law changed, if they think it's unfair.

There's an absolutely foolproof way of avoiding the 'tax'/fines: don't speed, and don't use the mobile while driving. It's even more simple than the laws on drink driving, and people don't complain about them.

And if I got caught (I've managed 39 years up till now without point on my licence), I'd know I'd been a dïck, with only myself to blame (unless signage was at fault).

Being stupid involves getting caught

I have raised my objections to the less practical speed limits in my area. Good example is a road not far from me that goes between Bromley and Lewisham. 30 mph limit for the whole stretch until recently. Then Lewishem council in their wisdom changed their end to a 20 limit. So the week before doing what was perfectly legal and sensible speed suddenly made motorists a danger to society - when they cross an invisible line part way along the road.

And they wonder why so many motorists ignore 20mph limits. Usual rule of thumb is if a law is unreasonable, people will ignore it...

20mph actually makes a lot more sense than 30mph when you look at the survival rates of a pedestrian being hit by a car but I agree it is very difficult to adapt to it. I drove up for a weekend in the Twickenham / Richmond areas and virtually all the residential streets were 20mph, it was the first time I'd seen cameras in 20 zones too. You really need to change the character of a street in order to make the 20mph self-enforcing.

If you saw the road I was referring to you would see how ridiculous a 20 limit is in that case. And Bromley council clearly agree with me as they haven't changed the limit on their part.

The better way to avoid injuring pedestrians is to watch the road ahead rather than gawping at your speedo making sure you're not exceeding the limit by 1 mph. There's much more to safe driving than speed, but it's a lot harder to fine people for the other things. Call me a cynic...

pinno

Stevo_666 said:

pinno said:

...or in France; 'If there's a law, ignore it.

Very true. Got a couple of speeding tickets from the French plod after a holiday in the South of France - must have been snapped by cameras as was never stopped. Can't have been going more than 1 or 2kmh with over the limit as I was being pretty careful. Did a spot of research and realised there was no reciprocal agreement between France and the UK to allow enforcement so I told them where to stick their speeding tickets and chucked them in the bin.

Very satisfying

Apparently, the rich French drive fast and just pay all the fines. However, the fines are levvied if you drive over the speed limit and up to 30% over. Above that 'window', you get the book chucked at you.

Stevo_666

pinno said:

Stevo_666 said:

pinno said:

...or in France; 'If there's a law, ignore it.

Very true. Got a couple of speeding tickets from the French plod after a holiday in the South of France - must have been snapped by cameras as was never stopped. Can't have been going more than 1 or 2kmh with over the limit as I was being pretty careful. Did a spot of research and realised there was no reciprocal agreement between France and the UK to allow enforcement so I told them where to stick their speeding tickets and chucked them in the bin.

Very satisfying

Apparently, the rich French drive fast and just pay all the fines. However, the fines are levvied if you drive over the speed limit and up to 30% over. Above that 'window', you get the book chucked at you.

I suppose that works if they don't get points as well. Anyway, the scoreline is still Stevo 2 - 0 Frogplod

pinno

I got a parking ticket in Heidelberg. I asked the hotelier why I got a ticket and he couldn't explain. He said this sort of thing happened regularly. The ticket is framed and on my wall in amongst a host of other travelling 'memorabilia'.
It was only 15 euros but if things get really bad in Germany, i'll pay it.

Wheelspinner

Stevo_666 said:

pinno said:

Stevo_666 said:

pinno said:

...or in France; 'If there's a law, ignore it.

Very true. Got a couple of speeding tickets from the French plod after a holiday in the South of France - must have been snapped by cameras as was never stopped. Can't have been going more than 1 or 2kmh with over the limit as I was being pretty careful. Did a spot of research and realised there was no reciprocal agreement between France and the UK to allow enforcement so I told them where to stick their speeding tickets and chucked them in the bin.

Very satisfying

Apparently, the rich French drive fast and just pay all the fines. However, the fines are levvied if you drive over the speed limit and up to 30% over. Above that 'window', you get the book chucked at you.

I suppose that works if they don't get points as well. Anyway, the scoreline is still Stevo 2 - 0 Frogplod

Genuine question: what happens now if you go to France? Do they arrest you for unpaid fines?

rjsterry

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect if they want them to work as a deterrent to any speeding, doing it in a spot where more people will get caught by it make s total sense.

It is amazing how much quieter life is without cars running around though. Really noticeable. Lovely stuff.

Maybe, but they keep telling us that it is done for safety reasons - and that the cameras are deployed at accident black spots, which clearly isnt the case based on my observations.

Call me a cynic...

You're a cycnic!

I've got no problem with catching people speeding or using mobile phones, even if it isn't in an accident blackspot. I've got a very good friend who's also a petrolhead, who rails against them as being a tax on motoring. They're not, they're just a tax on people who won't abide by the rules, however unfair the person thinks the law is. People should campaign to get the law changed, if they think it's unfair.

There's an absolutely foolproof way of avoiding the 'tax'/fines: don't speed, and don't use the mobile while driving. It's even more simple than the laws on drink driving, and people don't complain about them.

And if I got caught (I've managed 39 years up till now without point on my licence), I'd know I'd been a dïck, with only myself to blame (unless signage was at fault).

Being stupid involves getting caught

I have raised my objections to the less practical speed limits in my area. Good example is a road not far from me that goes between Bromley and Lewisham. 30 mph limit for the whole stretch until recently. Then Lewishem council in their wisdom changed their end to a 20 limit. So the week before doing what was perfectly legal and sensible speed suddenly made motorists a danger to society - when they cross an invisible line part way along the road.

And they wonder why so many motorists ignore 20mph limits. Usual rule of thumb is if a law is unreasonable, people will ignore it...

20mph actually makes a lot more sense than 30mph when you look at the survival rates of a pedestrian being hit by a car but I agree it is very difficult to adapt to it. I drove up for a weekend in the Twickenham / Richmond areas and virtually all the residential streets were 20mph, it was the first time I'd seen cameras in 20 zones too. You really need to change the character of a street in order to make the 20mph self-enforcing.

In the same way that people insist if you don’t want to get a speeding ticket, then don’t speed, if pedestrians don’t want to die they should stay off the f^^*ing road.

The other part of the “reduce speed limits” to save pedestrian lives bollox that irritates me is that it comes from similar groups who whinge about climate change and pollution etc etc.

If you drive 1 mile at 30 mph it takes 2 minutes. To do the same mile at 20 takes 3 minutes. So your car engine is ticking over for 50% more time, but I can absolutely guarantee it won’t use 50% less petrol (or other energy source of your choice). So you have just deliberately increased the emissions of that vehicle and every other one on the same stretch by 30-50% because the muppet pedestrians are too thick to stay off the road or look first.

Why is that a sensible plan?

Sure, let's ignore basic physics 😄 and why won't everyone in the entire universe get out of my way?!

Stevo_666

Wheelspinner said:

Stevo_666 said:

pinno said:

Stevo_666 said:

pinno said:

...or in France; 'If there's a law, ignore it.

Very true. Got a couple of speeding tickets from the French plod after a holiday in the South of France - must have been snapped by cameras as was never stopped. Can't have been going more than 1 or 2kmh with over the limit as I was being pretty careful. Did a spot of research and realised there was no reciprocal agreement between France and the UK to allow enforcement so I told them where to stick their speeding tickets and chucked them in the bin.

Very satisfying

Apparently, the rich French drive fast and just pay all the fines. However, the fines are levvied if you drive over the speed limit and up to 30% over. Above that 'window', you get the book chucked at you.

I suppose that works if they don't get points as well. Anyway, the scoreline is still Stevo 2 - 0 Frogplod

Genuine question: what happens now if you go to France? Do they arrest you for unpaid fines?

Good point. I've been back to France several times since 2013 for work and ski holidays and have never had my collar felt. Have to assume they either write these off and/or are a local offence (happened in Nice and have not been back since).

Or could be to do with the point that they are unenforceable after the event, as I remember from researching it. (As opposed to a roadside stop where a fixed penalty notice would have been enforceable). One for the lawyers maybe.

capt_slog

pinno said:

And I do not know what the law is. Is it classed as 'Dual carriageway' because it does not say so. Can you do 70 which is applicable on a DC or on some sections of 'overtaking lane'? Is it just an A road where the speed limit is normally 60 unless otherwise indicated? 60 being a slow speed to overtake trucks doing 56 - especially if there's more than a half dozen cars.
Pointless having an 'overtaking lane' if it's restricted to 60.
There's hardly been an accident on this section of bypass since it was completed 8 years ago. Visibility is good, it's dead straight and there's enough road to get by most tail backs.

From someone who has been on a speed awareness course (and it's not me)

"If you can roll a ball from the nearside of the road to the opposite nearside of the road, it isn't a dual carriageway"

From this, my understanding of dual carriageway is two lane separated by a divider of some sort, and NOT (necessarily) two lanes per each side of road. basically what it says, a DOUBLE carriageway.

I'm quite prepare to be proved wrong, but that's what I was told.

pinno

capt_slog said:

From this, my understanding of dual carriageway is two lane separated by a divider of some sort, and NOT (necessarily) two lanes per each side of road. basically what it says, a DOUBLE carriageway.

I'm quite prepare to be proved wrong, but that's what I was told.

Yes, there are sections where there are 2 lanes on one side and 1 on the other plus no man's land throughout.
My question was; does no man's land and the 2 lanes constitute dual carriageway rather than an armco

There's this:



...and there's this:

"That is why engineers and people writing about roads in a professional capacity will use more specific language, like describing a "two-lane dual carriageway" or "dual three-lane carriageways". It's why roads like the A556 west of the M6, that have two lanes each way but no physical barrier down the middle, are subject to the single carriageway speed limit of 60mph and not the dual carriageway limit of 70."

morstar

capt_slog said:

pinno said:

And I do not know what the law is. Is it classed as 'Dual carriageway' because it does not say so. Can you do 70 which is applicable on a DC or on some sections of 'overtaking lane'? Is it just an A road where the speed limit is normally 60 unless otherwise indicated? 60 being a slow speed to overtake trucks doing 56 - especially if there's more than a half dozen cars.
Pointless having an 'overtaking lane' if it's restricted to 60.
There's hardly been an accident on this section of bypass since it was completed 8 years ago. Visibility is good, it's dead straight and there's enough road to get by most tail backs.

From someone who has been on a speed awareness course (and it's not me)

"If you can roll a ball from the nearside of the road to the opposite nearside of the road, it isn't a dual carriageway"

From this, my understanding of dual carriageway is two lane separated by a divider of some sort, and NOT (necessarily) two lanes per each side of road. basically what it says, a DOUBLE carriageway.

I'm quite prepare to be proved wrong, but that's what I was told.

I did a speed awareness course 2 or 3 years ago and this is correct. It is also the one fact that really surprises a large proportion of the attendees (myself included).
If there is a physical divider between the carriageways is the definition of dual carriageway.
Two lanes in each direction but no divider is not a dual carriageway, although I personally see very few of these about nowadays.
Interestingly though, I have seen overtaking lanes where no divider exists described as “dual carriageway ahead”. No wonder there is a lack of knowledge regarding this fact.

wongataa

pinno said:

Yes, there are sections where there are 2 lanes on one side and 1 on the other plus no man's land throughout.
My question was; does no man's land and the 2 lanes constitute dual carriageway rather than an armco

It is quite simple. The number of lanes does not define a dual carriageway. There needs to be a physical barrier between each side of the road making it a dual carriageway (hence the ball test mentioned earlier). If there is no physical barrier it is a single carriageway road.

morstar

pinno said:

capt_slog said:

From this, my understanding of dual carriageway is two lane separated by a divider of some sort, and NOT (necessarily) two lanes per each side of road. basically what it says, a DOUBLE carriageway.

I'm quite prepare to be proved wrong, but that's what I was told.

Yes, there are sections where there are 2 lanes on one side and 1 on the other plus no man's land throughout.
My question was; does no man's land and the 2 lanes constitute dual carriageway rather than an armco

The definition we were given was can you trip over it? I.e. a curb or barrier so no, based on those criteria but I am no expert.

Wheelspinner

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect if they want them to work as a deterrent to any speeding, doing it in a spot where more people will get caught by it make s total sense.

It is amazing how much quieter life is without cars running around though. Really noticeable. Lovely stuff.

Maybe, but they keep telling us that it is done for safety reasons - and that the cameras are deployed at accident black spots, which clearly isnt the case based on my observations.

Call me a cynic...

You're a cycnic!

I've got no problem with catching people speeding or using mobile phones, even if it isn't in an accident blackspot. I've got a very good friend who's also a petrolhead, who rails against them as being a tax on motoring. They're not, they're just a tax on people who won't abide by the rules, however unfair the person thinks the law is. People should campaign to get the law changed, if they think it's unfair.

There's an absolutely foolproof way of avoiding the 'tax'/fines: don't speed, and don't use the mobile while driving. It's even more simple than the laws on drink driving, and people don't complain about them.

And if I got caught (I've managed 39 years up till now without point on my licence), I'd know I'd been a dïck, with only myself to blame (unless signage was at fault).

Being stupid involves getting caught

I have raised my objections to the less practical speed limits in my area. Good example is a road not far from me that goes between Bromley and Lewisham. 30 mph limit for the whole stretch until recently. Then Lewishem council in their wisdom changed their end to a 20 limit. So the week before doing what was perfectly legal and sensible speed suddenly made motorists a danger to society - when they cross an invisible line part way along the road.

And they wonder why so many motorists ignore 20mph limits. Usual rule of thumb is if a law is unreasonable, people will ignore it...

20mph actually makes a lot more sense than 30mph when you look at the survival rates of a pedestrian being hit by a car but I agree it is very difficult to adapt to it. I drove up for a weekend in the Twickenham / Richmond areas and virtually all the residential streets were 20mph, it was the first time I'd seen cameras in 20 zones too. You really need to change the character of a street in order to make the 20mph self-enforcing.

In the same way that people insist if you don’t want to get a speeding ticket, then don’t speed, if pedestrians don’t want to die they should stay off the f^^*ing road.

The other part of the “reduce speed limits” to save pedestrian lives bollox that irritates me is that it comes from similar groups who whinge about climate change and pollution etc etc.

If you drive 1 mile at 30 mph it takes 2 minutes. To do the same mile at 20 takes 3 minutes. So your car engine is ticking over for 50% more time, but I can absolutely guarantee it won’t use 50% less petrol (or other energy source of your choice). So you have just deliberately increased the emissions of that vehicle and every other one on the same stretch by 30-50% because the muppet pedestrians are too thick to stay off the road or look first.

Why is that a sensible plan?

Sure, let's ignore basic physics 😄 and why won't everyone in the entire universe get out of my way?!

Explain please? What physics? Feel free to use examples 😀

Longshot

Going on a Drivers' Awareness Course is scary. The lack of basic knowledge of road rules and even common sense shown was terrifying.

Stevo_666

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect if they want them to work as a deterrent to any speeding, doing it in a spot where more people will get caught by it make s total sense.

It is amazing how much quieter life is without cars running around though. Really noticeable. Lovely stuff.

Maybe, but they keep telling us that it is done for safety reasons - and that the cameras are deployed at accident black spots, which clearly isnt the case based on my observations.

Call me a cynic...

You're a cycnic!

I've got no problem with catching people speeding or using mobile phones, even if it isn't in an accident blackspot. I've got a very good friend who's also a petrolhead, who rails against them as being a tax on motoring. They're not, they're just a tax on people who won't abide by the rules, however unfair the person thinks the law is. People should campaign to get the law changed, if they think it's unfair.

There's an absolutely foolproof way of avoiding the 'tax'/fines: don't speed, and don't use the mobile while driving. It's even more simple than the laws on drink driving, and people don't complain about them.

And if I got caught (I've managed 39 years up till now without point on my licence), I'd know I'd been a dïck, with only myself to blame (unless signage was at fault).

Being stupid involves getting caught

I have raised my objections to the less practical speed limits in my area. Good example is a road not far from me that goes between Bromley and Lewisham. 30 mph limit for the whole stretch until recently. Then Lewishem council in their wisdom changed their end to a 20 limit. So the week before doing what was perfectly legal and sensible speed suddenly made motorists a danger to society - when they cross an invisible line part way along the road.

And they wonder why so many motorists ignore 20mph limits. Usual rule of thumb is if a law is unreasonable, people will ignore it...

20mph actually makes a lot more sense than 30mph when you look at the survival rates of a pedestrian being hit by a car but I agree it is very difficult to adapt to it. I drove up for a weekend in the Twickenham / Richmond areas and virtually all the residential streets were 20mph, it was the first time I'd seen cameras in 20 zones too. You really need to change the character of a street in order to make the 20mph self-enforcing.

In the same way that people insist if you don’t want to get a speeding ticket, then don’t speed, if pedestrians don’t want to die they should stay off the f^^*ing road.

The other part of the “reduce speed limits” to save pedestrian lives bollox that irritates me is that it comes from similar groups who whinge about climate change and pollution etc etc.

If you drive 1 mile at 30 mph it takes 2 minutes. To do the same mile at 20 takes 3 minutes. So your car engine is ticking over for 50% more time, but I can absolutely guarantee it won’t use 50% less petrol (or other energy source of your choice). So you have just deliberately increased the emissions of that vehicle and every other one on the same stretch by 30-50% because the muppet pedestrians are too thick to stay off the road or look first.

Why is that a sensible plan?

Sure, let's ignore basic physics 😄 and why won't everyone in the entire universe get out of my way?!

Explain please? What physics? Feel free to use examples 😀

I think he means physics for people who aren't interested in/don't like cars

Pross

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect if they want them to work as a deterrent to any speeding, doing it in a spot where more people will get caught by it make s total sense.

It is amazing how much quieter life is without cars running around though. Really noticeable. Lovely stuff.

Maybe, but they keep telling us that it is done for safety reasons - and that the cameras are deployed at accident black spots, which clearly isnt the case based on my observations.

Call me a cynic...

You're a cycnic!

I've got no problem with catching people speeding or using mobile phones, even if it isn't in an accident blackspot. I've got a very good friend who's also a petrolhead, who rails against them as being a tax on motoring. They're not, they're just a tax on people who won't abide by the rules, however unfair the person thinks the law is. People should campaign to get the law changed, if they think it's unfair.

There's an absolutely foolproof way of avoiding the 'tax'/fines: don't speed, and don't use the mobile while driving. It's even more simple than the laws on drink driving, and people don't complain about them.

And if I got caught (I've managed 39 years up till now without point on my licence), I'd know I'd been a dïck, with only myself to blame (unless signage was at fault).

Being stupid involves getting caught

I have raised my objections to the less practical speed limits in my area. Good example is a road not far from me that goes between Bromley and Lewisham. 30 mph limit for the whole stretch until recently. Then Lewishem council in their wisdom changed their end to a 20 limit. So the week before doing what was perfectly legal and sensible speed suddenly made motorists a danger to society - when they cross an invisible line part way along the road.

And they wonder why so many motorists ignore 20mph limits. Usual rule of thumb is if a law is unreasonable, people will ignore it...

20mph actually makes a lot more sense than 30mph when you look at the survival rates of a pedestrian being hit by a car but I agree it is very difficult to adapt to it. I drove up for a weekend in the Twickenham / Richmond areas and virtually all the residential streets were 20mph, it was the first time I'd seen cameras in 20 zones too. You really need to change the character of a street in order to make the 20mph self-enforcing.

In the same way that people insist if you don’t want to get a speeding ticket, then don’t speed, if pedestrians don’t want to die they should stay off the f^^*ing road.

The other part of the “reduce speed limits” to save pedestrian lives bollox that irritates me is that it comes from similar groups who whinge about climate change and pollution etc etc.

If you drive 1 mile at 30 mph it takes 2 minutes. To do the same mile at 20 takes 3 minutes. So your car engine is ticking over for 50% more time, but I can absolutely guarantee it won’t use 50% less petrol (or other energy source of your choice). So you have just deliberately increased the emissions of that vehicle and every other one on the same stretch by 30-50% because the muppet pedestrians are too thick to stay off the road or look first.

Why is that a sensible plan?

Well, in this case it's not. I'm a highway engineer with over 30 years experience and part of my job is in road safety. I've had to look at the data more times than I can remember and the risk of pedestrian being injured increases from around 5% at 20mph to 20% at 30mph. Of course pedestrians should look first and the biggest contributory factor for pedestrian at fault collisions with vehicles is exactly that, it is also the biggest factor for driver at fault collisions as well but I suspect we've all done it and surely it's better to be in a position where a vehicle can stop more easily or, if it does hit the pedestrian, is less likely to cause injury?

I don't know about the fuel efficiency rates of vehicles but I'm pretty sure it doesn't follow that a 50% increase in journey time equals a 50% increase in fuel use or pollution. My understanding is that the biggest factor on that side of things is how steadily you drive as braking and accelerating uses far more fuel so if you're cruising at 20mph there's an argument that you'll be more fuel efficient.

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect if they want them to work as a deterrent to any speeding, doing it in a spot where more people will get caught by it make s total sense.

It is amazing how much quieter life is without cars running around though. Really noticeable. Lovely stuff.

Maybe, but they keep telling us that it is done for safety reasons - and that the cameras are deployed at accident black spots, which clearly isnt the case based on my observations.

Call me a cynic...

You're a cycnic!

I've got no problem with catching people speeding or using mobile phones, even if it isn't in an accident blackspot. I've got a very good friend who's also a petrolhead, who rails against them as being a tax on motoring. They're not, they're just a tax on people who won't abide by the rules, however unfair the person thinks the law is. People should campaign to get the law changed, if they think it's unfair.

There's an absolutely foolproof way of avoiding the 'tax'/fines: don't speed, and don't use the mobile while driving. It's even more simple than the laws on drink driving, and people don't complain about them.

And if I got caught (I've managed 39 years up till now without point on my licence), I'd know I'd been a dïck, with only myself to blame (unless signage was at fault).

Being stupid involves getting caught

I have raised my objections to the less practical speed limits in my area. Good example is a road not far from me that goes between Bromley and Lewisham. 30 mph limit for the whole stretch until recently. Then Lewishem council in their wisdom changed their end to a 20 limit. So the week before doing what was perfectly legal and sensible speed suddenly made motorists a danger to society - when they cross an invisible line part way along the road.

And they wonder why so many motorists ignore 20mph limits. Usual rule of thumb is if a law is unreasonable, people will ignore it...

20mph actually makes a lot more sense than 30mph when you look at the survival rates of a pedestrian being hit by a car but I agree it is very difficult to adapt to it. I drove up for a weekend in the Twickenham / Richmond areas and virtually all the residential streets were 20mph, it was the first time I'd seen cameras in 20 zones too. You really need to change the character of a street in order to make the 20mph self-enforcing.

If you saw the road I was referring to you would see how ridiculous a 20 limit is in that case. And Bromley council clearly agree with me as they haven't changed the limit on their part.

The better way to avoid injuring pedestrians is to watch the road ahead rather than gawping at your speedo making sure you're not exceeding the limit by 1 mph. There's much more to safe driving than speed, but it's a lot harder to fine people for the other things. Call me a cynic...

Surprised you haven't got a heads up display on your posh car!

Pross

pinno said:

capt_slog said:

From this, my understanding of dual carriageway is two lane separated by a divider of some sort, and NOT (necessarily) two lanes per each side of road. basically what it says, a DOUBLE carriageway.

I'm quite prepare to be proved wrong, but that's what I was told.

Yes, there are sections where there are 2 lanes on one side and 1 on the other plus no man's land throughout.
My question was; does no man's land and the 2 lanes constitute dual carriageway rather than an armco

There's this:



...and there's this:

"That is why engineers and people writing about roads in a professional capacity will use more specific language, like describing a "two-lane dual carriageway" or "dual three-lane carriageways". It's why roads like the A556 west of the M6, that have two lanes each way but no physical barrier down the middle, are subject to the single carriageway speed limit of 60mph and not the dual carriageway limit of 70."

A dual carriageway just has to have the opposing carriageways segregated by a central reservation (no barriers are necessary) so that road pictured (which I've been on many times and which our old friend Matthew Falle would have known well as it leads up to the military ranges on Epynt) is theoretically a 70mph speed limit. However, as a limit is a limit and not a target you have to achieve, I suspect the police could pull you for driving without due care and attention if you chose to drive at that speed.

Of course, you also have to take street lighting into account - if there is any lighting present you should assume a 30mph limit unless there's signage to the contrary.

TheBigBean

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect if they want them to work as a deterrent to any speeding, doing it in a spot where more people will get caught by it make s total sense.

It is amazing how much quieter life is without cars running around though. Really noticeable. Lovely stuff.

Maybe, but they keep telling us that it is done for safety reasons - and that the cameras are deployed at accident black spots, which clearly isnt the case based on my observations.

Call me a cynic...

You're a cycnic!

I've got no problem with catching people speeding or using mobile phones, even if it isn't in an accident blackspot. I've got a very good friend who's also a petrolhead, who rails against them as being a tax on motoring. They're not, they're just a tax on people who won't abide by the rules, however unfair the person thinks the law is. People should campaign to get the law changed, if they think it's unfair.

There's an absolutely foolproof way of avoiding the 'tax'/fines: don't speed, and don't use the mobile while driving. It's even more simple than the laws on drink driving, and people don't complain about them.

And if I got caught (I've managed 39 years up till now without point on my licence), I'd know I'd been a dïck, with only myself to blame (unless signage was at fault).

Being stupid involves getting caught

I have raised my objections to the less practical speed limits in my area. Good example is a road not far from me that goes between Bromley and Lewisham. 30 mph limit for the whole stretch until recently. Then Lewishem council in their wisdom changed their end to a 20 limit. So the week before doing what was perfectly legal and sensible speed suddenly made motorists a danger to society - when they cross an invisible line part way along the road.

And they wonder why so many motorists ignore 20mph limits. Usual rule of thumb is if a law is unreasonable, people will ignore it...

20mph actually makes a lot more sense than 30mph when you look at the survival rates of a pedestrian being hit by a car but I agree it is very difficult to adapt to it. I drove up for a weekend in the Twickenham / Richmond areas and virtually all the residential streets were 20mph, it was the first time I'd seen cameras in 20 zones too. You really need to change the character of a street in order to make the 20mph self-enforcing.

In the same way that people insist if you don’t want to get a speeding ticket, then don’t speed, if pedestrians don’t want to die they should stay off the f^^*ing road.

The other part of the “reduce speed limits” to save pedestrian lives bollox that irritates me is that it comes from similar groups who whinge about climate change and pollution etc etc.

If you drive 1 mile at 30 mph it takes 2 minutes. To do the same mile at 20 takes 3 minutes. So your car engine is ticking over for 50% more time, but I can absolutely guarantee it won’t use 50% less petrol (or other energy source of your choice). So you have just deliberately increased the emissions of that vehicle and every other one on the same stretch by 30-50% because the muppet pedestrians are too thick to stay off the road or look first.

Why is that a sensible plan?

Sure, let's ignore basic physics 😄 and why won't everyone in the entire universe get out of my way?!

Explain please? What physics? Feel free to use examples 😀

I would guess

Work done = power x time.

Pross

capt_slog said:

pinno said:

And I do not know what the law is. Is it classed as 'Dual carriageway' because it does not say so. Can you do 70 which is applicable on a DC or on some sections of 'overtaking lane'? Is it just an A road where the speed limit is normally 60 unless otherwise indicated? 60 being a slow speed to overtake trucks doing 56 - especially if there's more than a half dozen cars.
Pointless having an 'overtaking lane' if it's restricted to 60.
There's hardly been an accident on this section of bypass since it was completed 8 years ago. Visibility is good, it's dead straight and there's enough road to get by most tail backs.

From someone who has been on a speed awareness course (and it's not me)

"If you can roll a ball from the nearside of the road to the opposite nearside of the road, it isn't a dual carriageway"

From this, my understanding of dual carriageway is two lane separated by a divider of some sort, and NOT (necessarily) two lanes per each side of road. basically what it says, a DOUBLE carriageway.

I'm quite prepare to be proved wrong, but that's what I was told.

It's not necessarily true but the sort of simplistic thing you get on those courses (yes, I've been on one - I had to bite my tongue at times as they were saying things that weren't quite correct but appreciated they were dumbed down versions of what is correct that people would find easier to remember). You could have a level central reservation with barriers segregating the carriageway so the ball would roll assuming the crossfall permitted it to do so!

rick_chasey

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect if they want them to work as a deterrent to any speeding, doing it in a spot where more people will get caught by it make s total sense.

It is amazing how much quieter life is without cars running around though. Really noticeable. Lovely stuff.

Maybe, but they keep telling us that it is done for safety reasons - and that the cameras are deployed at accident black spots, which clearly isnt the case based on my observations.

Call me a cynic...

You're a cycnic!

I've got no problem with catching people speeding or using mobile phones, even if it isn't in an accident blackspot. I've got a very good friend who's also a petrolhead, who rails against them as being a tax on motoring. They're not, they're just a tax on people who won't abide by the rules, however unfair the person thinks the law is. People should campaign to get the law changed, if they think it's unfair.

There's an absolutely foolproof way of avoiding the 'tax'/fines: don't speed, and don't use the mobile while driving. It's even more simple than the laws on drink driving, and people don't complain about them.

And if I got caught (I've managed 39 years up till now without point on my licence), I'd know I'd been a dïck, with only myself to blame (unless signage was at fault).

Being stupid involves getting caught

I have raised my objections to the less practical speed limits in my area. Good example is a road not far from me that goes between Bromley and Lewisham. 30 mph limit for the whole stretch until recently. Then Lewishem council in their wisdom changed their end to a 20 limit. So the week before doing what was perfectly legal and sensible speed suddenly made motorists a danger to society - when they cross an invisible line part way along the road.

And they wonder why so many motorists ignore 20mph limits. Usual rule of thumb is if a law is unreasonable, people will ignore it...

20mph actually makes a lot more sense than 30mph when you look at the survival rates of a pedestrian being hit by a car but I agree it is very difficult to adapt to it. I drove up for a weekend in the Twickenham / Richmond areas and virtually all the residential streets were 20mph, it was the first time I'd seen cameras in 20 zones too. You really need to change the character of a street in order to make the 20mph self-enforcing.

In the same way that people insist if you don’t want to get a speeding ticket, then don’t speed, if pedestrians don’t want to die they should stay off the f^^*ing road.

The other part of the “reduce speed limits” to save pedestrian lives bollox that irritates me is that it comes from similar groups who whinge about climate change and pollution etc etc.

If you drive 1 mile at 30 mph it takes 2 minutes. To do the same mile at 20 takes 3 minutes. So your car engine is ticking over for 50% more time, but I can absolutely guarantee it won’t use 50% less petrol (or other energy source of your choice). So you have just deliberately increased the emissions of that vehicle and every other one on the same stretch by 30-50% because the muppet pedestrians are too thick to stay off the road or look first.

Why is that a sensible plan?

Sure, let's ignore basic physics 😄 and why won't everyone in the entire universe get out of my way?!

Explain please? What physics? Feel free to use examples 😀

You do cycle, right?

Take a look at the power required to cycle at 10mph, 20mph and 30mph for a given bike and position, and you'll soon see that the air resistance does not increase linearly. It looks more like exponential, though I don't think it actually is.

Wheelspinner

TheBigBean said:

Wheelspinner said:

rjsterry said:

Wheelspinner said:

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

I suspect if they want them to work as a deterrent to any speeding, doing it in a spot where more people will get caught by it make s total sense.

It is amazing how much quieter life is without cars running around though. Really noticeable. Lovely stuff.

Maybe, but they keep telling us that it is done for safety reasons - and that the cameras are deployed at accident black spots, which clearly isnt the case based on my observations.

Call me a cynic...

You're a cycnic!

I've got no problem with catching people speeding or using mobile phones, even if it isn't in an accident blackspot. I've got a very good friend who's also a petrolhead, who rails against them as being a tax on motoring. They're not, they're just a tax on people who won't abide by the rules, however unfair the person thinks the law is. People should campaign to get the law changed, if they think it's unfair.

There's an absolutely foolproof way of avoiding the 'tax'/fines: don't speed, and don't use the mobile while driving. It's even more simple than the laws on drink driving, and people don't complain about them.

And if I got caught (I've managed 39 years up till now without point on my licence), I'd know I'd been a dïck, with only myself to blame (unless signage was at fault).

Being stupid involves getting caught

I have raised my objections to the less practical speed limits in my area. Good example is a road not far from me that goes between Bromley and Lewisham. 30 mph limit for the whole stretch until recently. Then Lewishem council in their wisdom changed their end to a 20 limit. So the week before doing what was perfectly legal and sensible speed suddenly made motorists a danger to society - when they cross an invisible line part way along the road.

And they wonder why so many motorists ignore 20mph limits. Usual rule of thumb is if a law is unreasonable, people will ignore it...

20mph actually makes a lot more sense than 30mph when you look at the survival rates of a pedestrian being hit by a car but I agree it is very difficult to adapt to it. I drove up for a weekend in the Twickenham / Richmond areas and virtually all the residential streets were 20mph, it was the first time I'd seen cameras in 20 zones too. You really need to change the character of a street in order to make the 20mph self-enforcing.

In the same way that people insist if you don’t want to get a speeding ticket, then don’t speed, if pedestrians don’t want to die they should stay off the f^^*ing road.

The other part of the “reduce speed limits” to save pedestrian lives bollox that irritates me is that it comes from similar groups who whinge about climate change and pollution etc etc.

If you drive 1 mile at 30 mph it takes 2 minutes. To do the same mile at 20 takes 3 minutes. So your car engine is ticking over for 50% more time, but I can absolutely guarantee it won’t use 50% less petrol (or other energy source of your choice). So you have just deliberately increased the emissions of that vehicle and every other one on the same stretch by 30-50% because the muppet pedestrians are too thick to stay off the road or look first.

Why is that a sensible plan?

Sure, let's ignore basic physics 😄 and why won't everyone in the entire universe get out of my way?!

Explain please? What physics? Feel free to use examples 😀

I would guess

Work done = power x time.

True.

Try this experiment:

- fill car fuel tank to brim.
- Drive 100 miles at exactly (say) 40 mph with the transmission locked into second gear.
- Refill and calculate fuel consumption.
- Repeat drive of same 100 miles and let the car decide what gear is appropriate for the load required throughout, uphill and down.
- Refill and re-calculate fuel consumption.

Report back on your results.

Your physics equation is correct that the theoretical power required to move a vehicle mass over a fixed distance at a constant speed is the same. In that case the result of the above experiment should be identical fuel consumption figures, no? Same car, same mass, same duration, same road profile.

Want to bet your house on that being the case? 😀

capt_slog

Pross said:

It's not necessarily true but the sort of simplistic thing you get on those courses (yes, I've been on one - I had to bite my tongue at times as they were saying things that weren't quite correct but appreciated they were dumbed down versions of what is correct that people would find easier to remember). You could have a level central reservation with barriers segregating the carriageway so the ball would roll assuming the crossfall permitted it to do so!

one of these....