Caught at 97mph

Discussions on better road driving, advanced courses and the like

Moderator: Gazza

PVR
Z Register member
Joined: Wed 12 Nov, 2003 19:09
Posts: 814

  Z4 M roadster
Location: Worth

Post by PVR » Fri 15 Jun, 2007 15:16

PhoenixCoupe wrote:
BimBeema wrote: 1) The length that this government goes to enforce this law compared to enforcing other laws and catching real criminals!
Exceeding the speed limit makes you a 'real' criminal - you are breaking the law, making you a perfectly valid target for prosecution.
Nope - not true, exceeding the speed limit is an offence, not a crime :D

User avatar
spokey
Joined: Fri 20 Feb, 2004 11:11
Posts: 4586

  blank
Location: The Big Smoke

Post by spokey » Fri 15 Jun, 2007 15:25

Arbitrary adherence to a number on a stick is a stupid thing. What's more, I blame RobBruce for not removing this stupid law from the books.

Bad RobBruce. :head:
Ciao,
Spokey
jackal on PH wrote:i love your profile... an endless pornographic paroxysm of the letters BMW

do you actually like driving at all or are cars to you just a manifestation of some sort of pathological mother complex ?

User avatar
BimBeema
Joined: Sun 16 Oct, 2005 23:55
Posts: 1753

  Z3 roadster 2.2i
Location: London

Post by BimBeema » Fri 15 Jun, 2007 15:33

PhoenixCoupe wrote:
BimBeema wrote: 1) The length that this government goes to enforce this law compared to enforcing other laws and catching real criminals!
Exceeding the speed limit makes you a 'real' criminal - you are breaking the law, making you a perfectly valid target for prosecution.
Pleeeeeeze pull the other one! Its an offence which is punishable by way of fine and points/disqualification, however doesn't get you a criminal record and nor can you categorise it with say murder, theft, assault, etc!

Unfortunately it seems we have too many people that think like you sitting in our government, hence why we are where we are! Lets all concentrate on making money through the generally law abiding driver going from A to B a little bit quicker than he should be, whilst no on can go out at night in their town centres at fear of being assaulted or killed by gangs with knives and guns or the criminal gangs from overseas which have invaded the country or the drug dealers and pushers or the rapists and serial killers!

Would you like me to give you any more examples of real crimes? :head: :head:

Sorry I'm not having a rant at you and as you would have seen from my previous posts, I do not condone speeding, only the methods used in enforcing it and the victimisation of the driver to generate money!

w666est
Joined: Tue 08 May, 2007 00:47
Posts: 43

  Z3 roadster 2.0
Location: salisbury

Post by w666est » Fri 15 Jun, 2007 15:43

a couple of years ago i got 'offered' 3 points and £60 fine. it turns out that is the maximum penalty for that offence. so court can only match/reduce this.

i can't see it happening in your case tho. higher fines + points are given should you be going 150% of the speed limit (ie +90mph in a 60)

User avatar
SpunkyM
Joined: Mon 08 Mar, 2004 18:26
Posts: 1142

  M roadster S54
Location: Harrogate

Post by SpunkyM » Fri 15 Jun, 2007 16:13

whiteminks wrote:Oh dear , please not another speeding trap debate/punch up .........

My nerves can't take it after last time :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.zroadster.net/forum/viewtopi ... ed+cameras


Not quite the same context but you get the drift :wink:
:D ...afraid so Paula!
Image
Sapphire Black 02 S54 M Roadster

User avatar
Robin
Joined: Sun 14 Dec, 2003 18:35
Posts: 2685

  M roadster S50
Location: Southampton
Contact:

Post by Robin » Fri 15 Jun, 2007 17:33

I heard on the news last week that 94% of policemen caught speeding don't get prosecuted. Not terribly fair is it. As for nabbing drivers on quiet straight bits of road, often dual carriageways where it's far safer doing 95mph than doing 40 in a 30, it is entrapment. I say only apply the law where & when it needs applying, Otherwise use common sense. I'm not anti police in principle, it's just that sometimes they don't do much to win over the public.
No doubt it's the desk bound senior officers making the policies.
Save the laser guns for accident black spots I say.
I sometimes drive past Twickenham along country way towards the M3 around midnight. It's dead quet, it's dual carriagway, but the limit is 40mph ! A limit designed for commuter time that needn't be enforced when it's quiet.
Image
'High G' motoring enthusiast

User avatar
BimBeema
Joined: Sun 16 Oct, 2005 23:55
Posts: 1753

  Z3 roadster 2.2i
Location: London

Post by BimBeema » Fri 15 Jun, 2007 18:11

Daily Mail front page headline news today:

"UK is speedtrap capital of Europe with more people caught and fined than anywhere else - yet we are failing to cut number of road deaths"

Says it all really - all this government is interested in is generating money through this scheme and not the real safety issues and they just cover this up under Road Safety Act label!

PVR
Z Register member
Joined: Wed 12 Nov, 2003 19:09
Posts: 814

  Z4 M roadster
Location: Worth

Post by PVR » Fri 15 Jun, 2007 18:18

Robin - you are asking for common sense and intelligence there ... How many of those officers standing with a laser gun do you think have a degree or anything more then on the job training? As well as that, you give them power and a monthly target of 60 tickets that they have to issue and those three together do not make a productive combination

User avatar
nero
Joined: Wed 08 Oct, 2003 23:23
Posts: 669

  Z3 roadster 2.2i
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Post by nero » Fri 15 Jun, 2007 18:27

Fair enough - get caught speeding, you should get punished!

But why do you get punished twice - firstly points on your license and a monetary fine, then secondly your insurance then punish you by increasing your premiums (and as PVR said previously, if you've got more than one car, it lumped onto all policies).

What other crime/offence punishes you more than once?
BMWCCScotland

Nothing is as frustrating as arguing with someone who knows what he's talking about.

User avatar
Deano1712
Z Register organiser
Joined: Sat 05 Aug, 2006 13:56
Posts: 1393

  M roadster S50
Location: Leeds

Post by Deano1712 » Fri 15 Jun, 2007 18:37

There must be a case now for upping the national limit on duals and motorways to 80mph. I find that driving at 70mph on motorways more hazardous than going at 80 to 90. On the speed limit one is constantly overtaken and has to be on guard. At 80 going with the flow of traffic life is less stressful. If the limit were 80 then its going to be over 90 before a ticket. Wagons need to be allowed to go a bit faster too. It may get the damn things to their destinations faster and off the roads.

The present limit was set years ago when dad was driving Austins. Modern cars at 80 must be twice as safe as cars 40 years ago going at 70mph.

That said if you get done at 97mph its a fair cop. That must have been over 100 indicated. I would never go that fast :wink:
Z3M with a few mods...and a little bit more power

User avatar
Kipper
Joined: Thu 15 Dec, 2005 18:33
Posts: 700

  Z3 roadster 3.0i
Location: St. Saviour

Post by Kipper » Fri 15 Jun, 2007 19:12

It's interesting having recently driven in America that no one obeys the speed limit, it's part of the human condition. I was driving at 10% above in the US and everything was overtaking me, and I mean everything.

Same in Italy, France and the UK ( Jersey also ) if the limit's 70 they will drive at 80. I agree that there is an argument for reconsidering the speed limit, cars have changed enourmously since 1967.

But people will still abuse the law, look at parking violations - I was only 5 mins, I was only picking my kids up, I was only......

Everyone interprets the law differently, I don't agree with the way this law is enforced but it's the law, the government make the laws not the police, poor buggers just have to enforce it.

If you raised the limit ( and I think we should ) people would just go at 90, or 100 or whatever they thought was reasonable.

Ultimately do what you want, but accept that if you break the law and get caught there are consequences.

I think the real difference here is that people who routinely speed don't break any other laws. Habitual criminals will steal, carry out acts of violence and generally flout the laws as suits their purpose.

User avatar
PhoenixCoupe
Joined: Wed 02 May, 2007 01:46
Posts: 739

  Z4 coupe 3.0si
Location: Mars

Post by PhoenixCoupe » Fri 15 Jun, 2007 20:36

BimBeema wrote:
PhoenixCoupe wrote:
BimBeema wrote: 1) The length that this government goes to enforce this law compared to enforcing other laws and catching real criminals!
Exceeding the speed limit makes you a 'real' criminal - you are breaking the law, making you a perfectly valid target for prosecution.
Pleeeeeeze pull the other one! Its an offence which is punishable by way of fine and points/disqualification, however doesn't get you a criminal record and nor can you categorise it with say murder, theft, assault, etc!

Unfortunately it seems we have too many people that think like you sitting in our government, hence why we are where we are! Lets all concentrate on making money through the generally law abiding driver going from A to B a little bit quicker than he should be, whilst no on can go out at night in their town centres at fear of being assaulted or killed by gangs with knives and guns or the criminal gangs from overseas which have invaded the country or the drug dealers and pushers or the rapists and serial killers!

Would you like me to give you any more examples of real crimes? :head: :head:

Sorry I'm not having a rant at you and as you would have seen from my previous posts, I do not condone speeding, only the methods used in enforcing it and the victimisation of the driver to generate money!
I could of course comment that you had the chance to vote for the government that you are criticising - living here, we didn't, yet have to accept basically the same decisions they make...
Simple fact is you aren't 'law abiding' if you are speeding. You can't pick and choose which laws you obey and don't obey.
Can't go out in city centers at night because of being assaulted? Don't know where you live in the UK, but, even when we had the 'Troubles' here we still were about to go out and enjoy ourselves. I've also been out in a number of cities and towns round the world and never felt any particular fear for my life to be honest.

I'm well aware of what you are defining as real crimes, but, if you choose to break the law, you must be willing to accept the consequences.
Image
押忍!闘え!応援団

User avatar
BimBeema
Joined: Sun 16 Oct, 2005 23:55
Posts: 1753

  Z3 roadster 2.2i
Location: London

Post by BimBeema » Fri 15 Jun, 2007 23:19

PheonixCoupe - you're completely missing the point here - no one is condoning speeding and no one wants sympathy and yes if you are caught speeding - deal with it. I agree with all this, however, I do not agree with the length the government goes to or the method they use to enforce this law when there are generally more important issues to deal with up and down the country! This is my point and I do not know how else I can explain it to you!

and I didn't vote last time and the time before that because not one of the parties is good enough in my opinion!

User avatar
CTB
Joined: Fri 20 Feb, 2004 22:25
Posts: 204

  Not specified
Location: Kilmartin

Post by CTB » Fri 15 Jun, 2007 23:43

spokey wrote:Arbitrary adherence to a number on a stick is a stupid thing. What's more, I blame RobBruce for not removing this stupid law from the books.

Bad RobBruce. :head:
I am behind you there Spokey, it's all Rob's fault.


:D Hi Rob, long time no see

madmare
Joined: Thu 10 Aug, 2006 14:08
Posts: 96

  Z3 roadster 1.9i

Post by madmare » Sat 16 Jun, 2007 00:36

To clarify on my earlier point ... perhaps it differs from area to area as to whether the camera safety partnership give warnings - I know the force where I live do and so does Surrey according to this .....

An important principle of the Surrey Safety Camera Partnership is that speed enforcement is visible, and warning signs are provided to encourage drivers to slow down. However, if despite the warnings drivers continue to substantially exceed the limit they will be issued with a penalty.


Which sums it up quite nicely really! :wink:

madmare
Joined: Thu 10 Aug, 2006 14:08
Posts: 96

  Z3 roadster 1.9i

Post by madmare » Sat 16 Jun, 2007 00:36

There will be no question of hiding speed cameras from the public. Each new camera site will be well marked with advance warning signs, road markings and highly visible cameras. The alert driver will have no difficulty in ensuring that his or her speed is appropriate on the approach to the camera

kostverloren
Joined: Thu 24 Nov, 2005 13:07
Posts: 33

  Z3 roadster 3.0i

Post by kostverloren » Sat 16 Jun, 2007 02:33

Kipper wrote:It's interesting having recently driven in America that no one obeys the speed limit, it's part of the human condition. I was driving at 10% above in the US and everything was overtaking me, and I mean everything.
Quite right, the exception is where speed traps are established as revenue generators and have nothing to do with public safety. Our major highways generally have traffiic moving at 15-20 mph above the speed limit which is generally tolerated.

User avatar
mich
Joined: Wed 16 Feb, 2005 05:53
Posts: 807

  Z3 roadster 3.0i
Location: King Country
Contact:

Post by mich » Sat 16 Jun, 2007 06:19

There is an old saying “its not speed that kills, it’s the sudden stop at the end”
Now you get a sensible mature fellow in his/her Z doing 130-150k/hr on the motorway, a considerate driver, with great anticipation and perhaps 25 -40 years experience, and in every other way a law abiding citizen.
Compare this to a youngster just passed the test in a cheap souped up Jap import, a dunger, but not too far behind the Z in speed, virtually no experience, and of course considers himself a wonder driver. Who is the most dangerous ?
Image

User avatar
CTB
Joined: Fri 20 Feb, 2004 22:25
Posts: 204

  Not specified
Location: Kilmartin

Post by CTB » Sat 16 Jun, 2007 08:05

mich wrote:There is an old saying “its not speed that kills, it’s the sudden stop at the end”
Now you get a sensible mature fellow in his/her Z doing 130-150k/hr on the motorway, a considerate driver, with great anticipation and perhaps 25 -40 years experience, and in every other way a law abiding citizen.
Compare this to a youngster just passed the test in a cheap souped up Jap import, a dunger, but not too far behind the Z in speed, virtually no experience, and of course considers himself a wonder driver. Who is the most dangerous ?
The one that crashes first, you can never tell, age and experience counts for very little at high speed as we are condition and forced by law to drive at a speed way below what modern day cars can achieve, here in the UK it's 70mph on a motorway, in NZ I believe it's 55mph, let a kiwi drive all day long on a motorway at 70mph and he would be happier, make a uk driver do 55mph all day on a motorway and he would complain his civil liberties had been removed.

benelvin
Joined: Wed 07 Feb, 2007 19:45
Posts: 488

  Z3 roadster 2.0

Post by benelvin » Sat 16 Jun, 2007 09:23

This debate always goes nowhere. Props to the original poster for not making a fuss, his thread has been somewhat hijacked.
Image

User avatar
mich
Joined: Wed 16 Feb, 2005 05:53
Posts: 807

  Z3 roadster 3.0i
Location: King Country
Contact:

Post by mich » Sat 16 Jun, 2007 23:18

CTB wrote:
mich wrote:There is an old saying “its not speed that kills, it’s the sudden stop at the end”
Now you get a sensible mature fellow in his/her Z doing 130-150k/hr on the motorway, a considerate driver, with great anticipation and perhaps 25 -40 years experience, and in every other way a law abiding citizen.
Compare this to a youngster just passed the test in a cheap souped up Jap import, a dunger, but not too far behind the Z in speed, virtually no experience, and of course considers himself a wonder driver. Who is the most dangerous ?
The one that crashes first, you can never tell, age and experience counts for very little at high speed as we are condition and forced by law to drive at a speed way below what modern day cars can achieve, here in the UK it's 70mph on a motorway, in NZ I believe it's 55mph, let a kiwi drive all day long on a motorway at 70mph and he would be happier, make a uk driver do 55mph all day on a motorway and he would complain his civil liberties had been removed.
The greatest odds are that the inexperienced driver will get into trouble first, and I think that age and experience count for a hell of a lot, 100 k/hr = 60mph so not a great difference to your 70mph, If you kept at 100k in NZ everything on the road would pass you, Trucks with trailers, Busses, Milk Tankers etc etc the only thing that would hold you up are the Bl**#y Camper Vans.
So over here at least it is definatly a revenue gathering exercise and the point I was trying to make, but did not is : that dangerous driving at any speed is the killer not pure speed but of course, too difficult to police.
:) :)
Image

User avatar
spokey
Joined: Fri 20 Feb, 2004 11:11
Posts: 4586

  blank
Location: The Big Smoke

Post by spokey » Sun 17 Jun, 2007 01:04

CTB wrote: :D Hi Rob, long time no see
You tell him, Chris. You could have seen him recently, but he was too busy washing his hair. :)
Ciao,
Spokey
jackal on PH wrote:i love your profile... an endless pornographic paroxysm of the letters BMW

do you actually like driving at all or are cars to you just a manifestation of some sort of pathological mother complex ?

User avatar
CTB
Joined: Fri 20 Feb, 2004 22:25
Posts: 204

  Not specified
Location: Kilmartin

Post by CTB » Sun 17 Jun, 2007 08:25

spokey wrote:
CTB wrote: :D Hi Rob, long time no see
You tell him, Chris. You could have seen him recently, but he was too busy washing his hair. :)
That's his trouble he uses "Wash n Go" and its all gone, there is a reminder there Spokey, both you and I should stop using that brand, ours is fast getting shorter, soon we will be like Rob

User avatar
QED
Joined: Wed 13 Apr, 2005 15:09
Posts: 212

  Z3 roadster 3.0i
Location: Costa del Fife
Contact:

Post by QED » Mon 18 Jun, 2007 14:00

Speed limits were based on a cars ability to stop, and stopping distances in the Highway code are historical and are based on the performance of a Ford Anglia!

Is it not about time that they revised this based on the Ford Focus?
<hr>
<img border="0" src="http://www.asnb84.dsl.pipex.com/Video/signature.jpg" width="213" height="84">

User avatar
Dave L2
Joined: Tue 25 Jul, 2006 11:34
Posts: 573

  Z3 roadster 3.0i
Location: North Essex

Post by Dave L2 » Mon 18 Jun, 2007 14:56

BimBeema wrote:Daily Mail front page headline news today:

"UK is speedtrap capital of Europe with more people caught and fined than anywhere else - yet we are failing to cut number of road deaths"
At the risk of getting flamed to within an inch of my life, did anyone else read this headline and wonder why the anti-speeding message isn't getting through? :head:

User avatar
smartypants
Joined: Tue 09 Jan, 2007 12:15
Posts: 1210

  Other roadster
Location: Bracknell

Post by smartypants » Mon 18 Jun, 2007 15:19

I cant believe I missed the chance to rant in this thread! :head:

:lol:

User avatar
Alfie
Z Register member
Joined: Thu 29 Apr, 2004 15:28
Posts: 3307

  M roadster S54
Location: Broadchurch....

Post by Alfie » Mon 18 Jun, 2007 15:23

Mildly OT, but relevant.

Article in last Friday’s Metro.

“Britain no longer has safest roads."

"Britain has lost its place at the top of the European road safety league. Efforts to cut the number of road deaths have been slower than in other EU nations according to the European Transport Safety Council.

The British death toll fell by 7% between 2001 and 2005 compared with 25% in Sweden and Holland, and 35% in France.

Road Safety expert Prof Pete Thomas said: ‘Progress in reducing road deaths has slowed. The UK has to develop more innovative solutions and apply them’.”


When you consider that our country is CHOKED with speed cameras (and the promise of more and more being commissioned) and I think the entire French nation has just a tiny handful, what more proof do you need that cameras are not the way forward in road safety?

Tell me again that cameras aren’t just a big fat cash cow…..

Unfortunately, the article didn’t go on to mention what these apparently successful French methods were….
Mike?

And apparently, 10% of people in front seats of vehicles in the UK still do not wear seat belts, which proves to me that driver education is what’s sadly lacking in this country.

A.
Image

User avatar
smartypants
Joined: Tue 09 Jan, 2007 12:15
Posts: 1210

  Other roadster
Location: Bracknell

Post by smartypants » Mon 18 Jun, 2007 15:38

Cant really disagree there, although I prefer cameras to being caught by a over-zealous police officer who's sole intention in life is to make you feel as small as humanly possible. You at least have a fair chance with a Gatso.

However, I would welcome more bobbies than cameras if i could guarantee that they were not all Roscoe P Coltrane's

The reason we have so many road deaths in this country is down to:

- bad road signs and directions
- really really crap junctions and road layouts
- too many cars at the same time
- emphasis on stopping speeding people, rather than crap drivers
- the weather and our complete lack of preperation for it


None of which Gatso's can solve.

User avatar
PhoenixCoupe
Joined: Wed 02 May, 2007 01:46
Posts: 739

  Z4 coupe 3.0si
Location: Mars

Post by PhoenixCoupe » Mon 18 Jun, 2007 15:48

But then, France do a lot of their Autoroute speed checks by timing between tolls.
And their fines are a lot heftier.
Image
押忍!闘え!応援団

PVR
Z Register member
Joined: Wed 12 Nov, 2003 19:09
Posts: 814

  Z4 M roadster
Location: Worth

Post by PVR » Mon 18 Jun, 2007 15:53

Can I add bad driver training to that list? I am amazed to see how many people don't actually know who has right of way when coming to junctions when both drivers need to "cross" eachother.

Why in the UK is the driving age set at 17 whilst everywhere else in Europe it is 18?
Why is the examiniation in the UK so simple and easy to pass compared to other countries?
Why is there no motorway driving as part of lessons / exams?
Why are you allowed to drive at 17 without an instructor next to you who has dual control?

Don't forget that it is not just the driver that has the accident, but can also cause the accident. If you come across a 17 year old cutting across the road at 2 mph, you might have the accident - not them

User avatar
smartypants
Joined: Tue 09 Jan, 2007 12:15
Posts: 1210

  Other roadster
Location: Bracknell

Post by smartypants » Mon 18 Jun, 2007 15:55

PVR wrote:Can I add bad driver training to that list? I am amazed to see how many people don't actually know who has right of way when coming to junctions when both drivers need to "cross" eachother.

Why in the UK is the driving age set at 17 whilst everywhere else in Europe it is 18?
Why is the examiniation in the UK so simple and easy to pass compared to other countries?
Why is there no motorway driving as part of lessons / exams?
Why are you allowed to drive at 17 without an instructor next to you who has dual control?

Don't forget that it is not just the driver that has the accident, but can also cause the accident. If you come across a 17 year old cutting across the road at 2 mph, you might have the accident - not them
Good points :thumb:

Guest

  

Post by Guest » Mon 18 Jun, 2007 16:11

QED wrote:Speed limits were based on a cars ability to stop, and stopping distances in the Highway code are historical and are based on the performance of a Ford Anglia!

Is it not about time that they revised this based on the Ford Focus?
Except that stopping distances are a combination of the cars mechanical capability to stop and the thinking time of the driver. Cars may be better than they were 30 years ago, but people are not. I driver reaction time is probably worse today than it has ever been due to the many more things we have to distract us. Car Hi-fi, mobile phones, sat nav, etc.. We also rely far too heavily on driver aids like better suspension, brakes and ABS/DSC to save our bacon. The distance between vehicles also seems shorter than it has ever been. Why, because you can't leave a decent gap, else someone pulls into it leaving no gap at all. its become dog eat dog.

I am afraid the problem is ALL about attitude and the poor attitude shown by far too many people to the important business of driving and not using a mobile phone and wearing a seatbelt and...and....and. The problem about attitudes is that they take a long time to change. We are in a McDonalds culture that wants everything yesterday. We don't want to hear anyone tell us we have to wait for results, we want instant results and vote for governments that promise them.

If a government said they could fix a problem permanently, but it would require another 3p on income tax and take 10 years to accomplish, would we vote for them. Even if it were the only way to fix the problem. I suspect not.

We get what we deserve!

User avatar
smartypants
Joined: Tue 09 Jan, 2007 12:15
Posts: 1210

  Other roadster
Location: Bracknell

Post by smartypants » Mon 18 Jun, 2007 16:14

siwilson wrote:
QED wrote:Speed limits were based on a cars ability to stop, and stopping distances in the Highway code are historical and are based on the performance of a Ford Anglia!

Is it not about time that they revised this based on the Ford Focus?
Except that stopping distances are a combination of the cars mechanical capability to stop and the thinking time of the driver. Cars may be better than they were 30 years ago, but people are not. I driver reaction time is probably worse today than it has ever been due to the many more things we have to distract us. Car Hi-fi, mobile phones, sat nav, etc.. We also rely far too heavily on driver aids like better suspension, brakes and ABS/DSC to save our bacon. The distance between vehicles also seems shorter than it has ever been. Why, because you can't leave a decent gap, else someone pulls into it leaving no gap at all. its become dog eat dog.

I am afraid the problem is ALL about attitude and the poor attitude shown by far too many people to the important business of driving and not using a mobile phone and wearing a seatbelt and...and....and. The problem about attitudes is that they take a long time to change. We are in a McDonalds culture that wants everything yesterday. We don't want to hear anyone tell us we have to wait for results, we want instant results and vote for governments that promise them.

If a government said they could fix a problem permanently, but it would require another 3p on income tax and take 10 years to accomplish, would we vote for them. Even if it were the only way to fix the problem. I suspect not.

We get what we deserve!
And I cannot find fault in that argument either!!

User avatar
RobBruce
Joined: Tue 09 Mar, 2004 20:57
Posts: 1077

  Z3 roadster 2.8
Location: Behind you in West Essex

Post by RobBruce » Mon 18 Jun, 2007 22:28

PVR wrote:Can I add bad driver training to that list? I am amazed to see how many people don't actually know who has right of way when coming to junctions when both drivers need to "cross" eachother.

Why in the UK is the driving age set at 17 whilst everywhere else in Europe it is 18?
Why is the examiniation in the UK so simple and easy to pass compared to other countries?
Why is there no motorway driving as part of lessons / exams?
Why are you allowed to drive at 17 without an instructor next to you who has dual control?

Don't forget that it is not just the driver that has the accident, but can also cause the accident. If you come across a 17 year old cutting across the road at 2 mph, you might have the accident - not them

YAAAAY!

PVR and I finally agree on something! :lol:

The driving test is an absolute joke - how can you get a full licence without ever having driven on a motorway or in the dark?? :head:

Another reason why the UK's accident rate is poor - lack of Traffic police due to government statistics.

Proper trafpols are expensive - their kit cost lots as does the training. The govt is just interested in 'Sanctioned Detections' as a performance indicator for Police Forces.

Sanc Det? Peeing in the street, shouting in the street and nicking a £2 sandwich from Tescos.
NOT Sanc Det - Drink drive, dangerous driving, no documents...........

Ooh, guess where the money and focussed patrols go? :roll:

They'd rather have experienced officers fighting over giving out £40 tickets for 'disorder' than dealing with death and mayhem on the roads, cos that's what the forces are measured on.

Ever driven on the continent? HOW MANY plod do you see on the Auto Routes? LOADS. When was the last time you saw more than the odd one Traffic car on our roads??

Combine that with the poor test and ineffective sentencing, it's no wonder the roads are heading into oblivion. That's why I'm leaving Traffic - they've lost the point completely.

Rob
In God We Trust - everyone else gets PNC'd.

User avatar
mich
Joined: Wed 16 Feb, 2005 05:53
Posts: 807

  Z3 roadster 3.0i
Location: King Country
Contact:

Post by mich » Mon 18 Jun, 2007 22:46

At last the message is getting through, speed alone does not kill,
Crap cars and inexperienced drivers do!
Image

User avatar
Alfie
Z Register member
Joined: Thu 29 Apr, 2004 15:28
Posts: 3307

  M roadster S54
Location: Broadchurch....

Post by Alfie » Mon 18 Jun, 2007 23:58

RobBruce wrote:That's why I'm leaving Traffic.
:shock:

Speechless.

A.
Image

PVR
Z Register member
Joined: Wed 12 Nov, 2003 19:09
Posts: 814

  Z4 M roadster
Location: Worth

Post by PVR » Tue 19 Jun, 2007 09:46

can you change your sig to "I did" ? :P

User avatar
BimBeema
Joined: Sun 16 Oct, 2005 23:55
Posts: 1753

  Z3 roadster 2.2i
Location: London

Post by BimBeema » Tue 19 Jun, 2007 09:51

PVR wrote:can you change your sig to "I did" ? :P
:roflmao: :roflmao:

PVR
Z Register member
Joined: Wed 12 Nov, 2003 19:09
Posts: 814

  Z4 M roadster
Location: Worth

Post by PVR » Thu 21 Jun, 2007 14:59

Ok ... just had it confirmed by my legal person: The act is NOT into force as of yet.

Only points 1,49,51 came into force on Jan 2007 and section 26 on 27th of Feb.

User avatar
RobBruce
Joined: Tue 09 Mar, 2004 20:57
Posts: 1077

  Z3 roadster 2.8
Location: Behind you in West Essex

Post by RobBruce » Thu 21 Jun, 2007 23:03

PVR wrote:can you change your sig to "I did" ? :P
Sure.

I was going to change my number plate sig for you too - but then I though 'What's the point? He can't see it from that far back........." :P
In God We Trust - everyone else gets PNC'd.

User avatar
RobBruce
Joined: Tue 09 Mar, 2004 20:57
Posts: 1077

  Z3 roadster 2.8
Location: Behind you in West Essex

Post by RobBruce » Thu 21 Jun, 2007 23:08

PVR wrote:Ok ... just had it confirmed by my legal person: The act is NOT into force as of yet.

Only points 1,49,51 came into force on Jan 2007 and section 26 on 27th of Feb.
To be precise.........

61 Commencement

(1) The preceding provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint (but subject to subsections (7) to (10)).

(2) Different days may be appointed for different purposes.

(3) Any provision of this Act which alters any penalty for an offence has effect only in relation to offences committed after the coming into force of the provision.

(4) Section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (inserted by section 20) has effect only in relation to driving occurring after the coming into force of that section; and section 3ZB of that Act (inserted by section 21) has effect only in relation to driving occurring after the coming into force of that section.

(5) In relation to an offence under section 2B or 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988 committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44), the references in column 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) relating to offences under those sections have effect with the omission of the words "12 months (in England and Wales) or" and "(in Scotland)".

(6) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument make such transitional provisions and savings as he considers appropriate in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act.

(7) The following provisions come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed-

(a) section 1, and
(b) section 49.
(8) The day on which sections 8 and 9 and Schedule 2 (and the repeals contained in Schedule 7 under the heading "Endorsement: unlicensed and foreign drivers") come into force must be-

(a) later than the day on which section 5 and Schedule 1 (and the repeals contained in Schedule 7 under the heading "Giving of fixed penalty notices by vehicle examiners") come into force, but
(b) earlier than the day on which section 10 and Schedule 3 (and the repeals contained in Schedule 7 under the heading "Endorsement: all drivers") come into force.
(9) Sections 51, 58 and 60, and the repeals contained in Schedule 7 under the heading "Spent enactments" (and section 59 so far as relating to them), come into force on the day on which this Act is passed; but-

(a) section 51(2) does not affect anything done or omitted to be done before that day, and
(b) section 58(6) has effect only in relation to offences committed on or after that day.
(10) Any power to make an order or regulations which is conferred by any provision of this Act may be exercised at any time after the passing of this Act.
In God We Trust - everyone else gets PNC'd.

daverave
Joined: Thu 15 Jun, 2006 21:42
Posts: 203

  Z3 roadster 3.0i
Location: San Isidro, Cartagena

Post by daverave » Fri 22 Jun, 2007 00:13

Typical

Written by lawyers so that only lawyers can understand :head:

Can any lawyer present please translate to ENGLISH!

Note:- This is a request for free legal advice not an offer of payment for services rendered :)
ImageImage

User avatar
Robin
Joined: Sun 14 Dec, 2003 18:35
Posts: 2685

  M roadster S50
Location: Southampton
Contact:

Post by Robin » Fri 22 Jun, 2007 01:38

You need to be wearing a long grey wig & a black frock & stockings to be able to understand that mumbo jumbo.
Image
'High G' motoring enthusiast

garyw
Joined: Fri 07 Nov, 2003 22:29
Posts: 2644

  Porsche

Post by garyw » Fri 22 Jun, 2007 04:03

I agree with the lack of police seen on motorways, however I must point out the amount of umarked police vehicle seen on the motorways, luckily only observed when pulling other unfortunate or possibly needfully so drivers.
Again this just stinks of sneeky underhand tactics against the motorist.
I'm sure there are reasons for this being the required case, but I alway felt that its a downward spiral of if they don't play by the rules then why should anyone else ?
Its a game of cat and mouse after all :wink:

Obviously I do understand the serious nature of policing and not trying to trivialise is, just trying to make the point a little more obvious.

garyw

User avatar
BimBeema
Joined: Sun 16 Oct, 2005 23:55
Posts: 1753

  Z3 roadster 2.2i
Location: London

Post by BimBeema » Fri 22 Jun, 2007 10:59

Couldn't agree more Gary - if they are allowed to use underhand tactics (unmarked cars, unmarked camera vans, no signs or hiding behind roundabout where they can't be seen) then why can't the motorist use detectors - it would at least level the playing field slightly! Also worth noting is I've never used detectors or such, so I'm not arguing this case from a selfish point of view!

User avatar
muppet
Joined: Wed 08 Feb, 2006 17:16
Posts: 1841

  Z4 sDrive20i M Sport
Location: Roof down getting a tan

Post by muppet » Fri 22 Jun, 2007 11:12

A speaker at a recent police federation conference criticised government targets which lead to the police chasing these targets by prosecuting normal people for trivia rather than persuing criminals.
Zealous pusuit of speeders may come into this but the road safety argument will always be at the front of the response.
I said earlier in this thread , you know the legislation is there , you know the tactics used to catch speeders . If you choose not to take cognisance of the information then live with the consequences.
As Erdnase has done with such dignity
Image
I have been diagnosed with ADHOTS. Attention Deficit Hyperactive Ohh That's Shiney

PVR
Z Register member
Joined: Wed 12 Nov, 2003 19:09
Posts: 814

  Z4 M roadster
Location: Worth

Post by PVR » Fri 22 Jun, 2007 17:02

daverave wrote:Typical

Written by lawyers so that only lawyers can understand :head:

Can any lawyer present please translate to ENGLISH!

Note:- This is a request for free legal advice not an offer of payment for services rendered :)
Basically, I was right. It is not illegal at this moment in time.

PVR
Z Register member
Joined: Wed 12 Nov, 2003 19:09
Posts: 814

  Z4 M roadster
Location: Worth

Post by PVR » Mon 25 Jun, 2007 09:15

Slightly concerning though that if the law enforcers are not exactly aware of what is and what is not the law - what chance do you have if you get stopped and fined for something which is not illegal ...

User avatar
cowboybebop
Joined: Sat 12 May, 2007 22:54
Posts: 366

  Z3 roadster 2.8
Location: Derby

Post by cowboybebop » Tue 26 Jun, 2007 18:38

This all reminds me of when i was caught speeding in Oxford a few years ago... i was doing 40 in a 30 zone...

i had £60 fine and 3 points , they told me it was a high risk area.....

but im clean again now...
:twisted: :twisted:

User avatar
muppet
Joined: Wed 08 Feb, 2006 17:16
Posts: 1841

  Z4 sDrive20i M Sport
Location: Roof down getting a tan

Post by muppet » Tue 26 Jun, 2007 18:41

It used to be you had to be doing at least 40in a 30 to get done now 36mph would apear to be the norm.... I do drive slower in towns because of this.
Image
I have been diagnosed with ADHOTS. Attention Deficit Hyperactive Ohh That's Shiney

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest