Thetownend.com

In calne carrying out speed checks.....yesterday.

If the lazy bone idle useless plod can't do it, I don't see why civilians should......that is all.

they couldn't do anything fi they caught you though surely?

Normally its just data collection to get speed limit dropped in a certain area. I dont think they collect any car details other than speed. (i may be wrong)

They were out in a corsham and Box yesterday as well.

Doing similar in north Swindon, bunch of locals armed with a speed camera, first time they catch you you get a letter, seconded time they pass your details to police and you may get a visit, third time points. (I think). They have undergone training by the traffic cops. They've been doing it along the blunsdon to highworth road in the 30mph zone.  :bye:

I saw them a week or so ago on that road after a trip to Banbury, wife was driving so no chance of getting done for speeding, more chance of running him over than anything

I would love to get a letter.....they would get one back and as for a visit they wouldn't set foot in my house.

I thought Bob Holt was back for a minute.  Anyone else?

No. You get a letter from the fuzz saying you were observed/caught by the neighbourhood stasi and that if you do it again you may get a visit from the plod. Again, they can only do you if they themselves or a camera partnership (tax collection service) flash you.

Don't speed, no issue

Dont commit any crime and we can sack two thirds of the fuckers.

Let's ask the villains to comply and start laying em off and reduce our council tax.....great policy.

Oh, so that's why it's OK to drive at high speeds and risk other peoples' lives.

I really don't get peoples' attitudes to speed limits.....

When it comes to things like drink driving etc, people are all well aware that it is dangerous etc. But why do people seem to think it's OK to flaunt the speed limits?

Because excessive speed is not the biggest cause of accidents - by a country mile - only 5% according to Govt stats and as Swindonians we know that better than anyone

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/9604736.Town_tops_league_for_safest_driving/

Perhaps, maybe, excess speed is not the biggest killer because people are limited to how fast they are allowed to drive. Which, unless I am mistaken, is pretty much the point.

I didn't say it wasn't the biggest killer - I used the words 'cause' of accidents.

Killer/cause of accidents

My point stands. It's like saying people should be allowed guns in Britain because so few people are killed by them.

Clearly not - given that 95% of motorists admit to breaking speed limits, yet the cause of accidents by excessive speed is so low and that Swindon has the safest roads despite no fixed speed cameras

A majority of speed limits are ridiculous. Tewkesbury way for example, why a boring 40mph? As long as you slow down before the roundabouts, why not 50 or 60mph?

I got caught speeding in Mozambique yesterday. The limit was 60kph whilst driving through the village, which I adhered to. Then once the houses and people disappeared I sped up, only to be caught 50 metres before the national speed sign by the plod with a radar gun. The policewoman wrote me a ticket for £88 and then she drove me back to the village to pay the fine in her car. She was speeding herself and pissed herself laughing when I pointed it out to her. Cunt.

My mate was run over of tewksbury way so i am inclined to think 40 is good enough

Oh come on

Are the roads full of people speeding at dangerous speeds? No, they are not. Most people do drive sensibly. People may go over the limit from time to time but you can't make it out to be some anarchic state on the road where no fucker pays attention. It just isn't like that. The vast majority of road journeys I have made as a driver or passenger have been within the limits. Remove those limits and you'll have unskilled/inexperienced drivers as well as careless fuckers going much faster putting lives at risk.

Speeding does actually put other people's lives at risk. Of course it fucking does, it really isn't rocket science. I really can't see how people go moaning about speed cameras/paying fines etc for committing what is an irresponsible and potentially dangerous act.

Works both way, Id say people who drive too slow are just as much a risk as speeders, if you are not confident to drive at the speed limit you shouldn't be on the road.

I always thought the argument wasn't about the existence of speed limits, its that they are generally set too low.

Er... quite clearly they are (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/5273310/Speeding-tickets-double-under-Labour-to-earn-250000-every-day.html)


But then what's a dangerous speed? Is 69mph following a car 1 foot from its bumper in the fog better than 79mph on an empty clear motorway in good weather conditions at 2am? Speed limits are an artificial arbitrary limit. And as Govt stats show they are not the cause of circa 95% of accidents, how much you wish to ignore it.

Hugely agree with this. In some states of America they have minimum speed limits on freeways etc. (typically about 20mph less) Anyone not able/willing to keep close enough to the speed limit is as much a risk as someone who exceeds it, if purely for the fact people get fed up and act stupidly trying to overtake them (see how many people overtake cyclists round blind bends/into oncoming traffic etc.)

I'm with Flashheart regarding speed limits, if you exceed them you're wayyy more dangerous than someone keeping to it. It's stupid to claim otherwise. Not because you're 100% going to cause an accident, but that if you do have even a relatively minor one, when you factor in going faster than the speed limit you're askign or some serious trouble. There's also factoring in keeping a sensible speed - i.e. don't drive 60 on a narrow windy country road with high hedges and numerous fields about, even if it says you can. I know some people who have had to flourescent vest up and get out the speed cameras to get the speed limit changed in their village because of this.

I do think that speed limits (particularly on Motorways and Dual Carriageways) need to be looked at more closely though. Back when speed limits were first set 70mph was beyond the comfortable reach of the average car, nowadays pretty much anyone can reach 80/90 on a dual carriageway if they want to. Maybe increasing speed limits during off-peak hours, such as 12-6am or similar would be a step forward. The unrestricted autobahns in Germany are a great model of the system. It would also give people a sense of freedom which they don't really have now. It's hard as someone who enjoys cars and speed to find anywhere where you can go for an afternoon and just dick about (safely) without spending stupid money. I was pretty pissed when we drove all the way to Pendine Sands this year (on a horrid day in March with my Mum so she could safely and legally hoon about in my car without needing insurance) only to find that Cars aren't allowed on the beach anymore because they are 'a danger to bathers and other beach users'.

As far as Busybodies with cameras are concerned, sometimes they're needed, sometimes not. I generally find waving at them fun. If you're speeding through a village or small town where there's all likelihood of hitting kids/dogs/old people/cars pulling out of driveways you're probably a bit of a dick anyway, so being pulled up by another set of dicks is kind of just desserts.

250k a day taken in fines?

Taking the lowest fine of 44 quid (so google tells me), that equates to about 5,600 individuals getting caught. There's an estimated 45 million car owners in the UK.

That equates to about 1% of of people being caught speeding.

Now of course not everybody drives every day and not everybody will drive by a speed camera. However, there is no way the average fine will be 44 quid and a lot of those people caught are sure to be marginal cases (which seems to be a common complaint).

By my back of a fag packet calculations there's about 1% of people being caught speeding. That means that either the roads aren't full of people driving at dangerous speeds, or it means that more speed cameras are needed.

That's not correct is it. On the Motorway today I saw a tailgator about 4ft from the car in front and a lorry transporter nearly sideswipe a Micra by indicating and moving before looking. Neither were going more than 65, but both were going slower than the car that later overtook me in the clear outside lane at 85. Which was more dangerous?

If you get caught speeding you rightly get a ticket. But lets not pretend speeding automatically makes you more dangerous.

Yet if that lorry transporter was doing 85 the outcome may have been very different.

There's lots of accidents caused by drivers that don't pay attention. What if they were not paying attention while driving at high speeds?

I think you've paraphrased me slightly, either that or I've explained myself poorly: in my original post I said:

By which I mean that speeding itself is not necessarily dangerous in of itself, but through simple fag-pack maths you're much more of a risk to yourself and other road users if you're going at an increased speed.  I'm not saying speeding is more dangerous than tailgating or sideswiping, but that if you're doing it and THEN have an accident it is a major factor in causing an almighty horrific smash-up.

Swooshing past at 85 in the outside lane is yes, probably less dangerous than tailgating or sideswiping at 65. But tailgating or sideswiping at 85 is a hell of a lot more dangerous.

It's not just about how 'well' the speeding driver is going either as they have less time to react to other people's mistakes.

Flashheart, do you drive?

Yeah

And you stick to speed limits?

Not on the motorways, don't feel the need to go any faster on other roads though.

Why?

Flash heart has missed my point by a country fucking mile.

Although annoying (I think there are bigger fish to fry in relation to crime in Wiltshire) I have no qualms about plod setting up speed checks.....it just fucks me off when busy bodies do it.

As I travel the road a lot I have had a few tickets and although a few have pissed me off (36 in a 30 was memorable) its a fair cop.

The speeding issue is another point...and the lack of a spike in deaths since Wiltshire cameras were switched off speaks volumes.

But I'm not against cameras as a whole and blacks spots should all have them not cynical straights on dual carriageways.

It's neighbourhood watch gone mad.

Those type of people get under my skin also. They are often sad, nosy cunts in the need to feel more important at other people's expense.

That doesn't mean to say they don't have a legitimate grievance though.

the condems are slashing police budgets already. Don't give them more ideas

It's not the car, or speed, or lack of speed that is dangerous, it's the driver. I often follow cars that pootle along at 25-40 mph in a 60 limit - driver not paying attention, all over the place, in a world of their own. I overtook a car once along the straight between Bassett and Lyneham, he was doing about 45mph but obviously didn't like being overtaken. By the time I got to the 40mph limit he was hurtling towards my exhaust pipes and had to slam on his brakes, causing him to momentarily lose control - what a dick! Why?
I was in Calne last night and a van was coming the other way past parked cars, but he was way over and almost drove into the front of me - the twat was texting!

For me, lack of attention and a lack of general awareness are the most dangerous things on the road.

Of course higher (or too low) speeds are dangerous.

To say otherwise would be denying the laws of physics.

Only based on the environment you're driving in :)

Exactly! Drive to the conditions and i don't see a problem!

Speed limits are set as a limit only (don't go above). Theorectically, you don't have to drive at 30 in a 30 limit area if you don't think it's safe to do so! Drive to the conditions!!

I find it fucking boring but don't brake the law and they can't pull you up on it!

Where does the law stand if you do 75 in a 60, IF.....
You go to overtake a car doing 45mph, said car then puts their foot down as you draw level?

Eh?

Forgive me... but that makes fuck all sense!

The driver in front of you is doing 45mph so you decide to overtake. As you pull alongside, they then decide to put their foot down. You then accelerate too so that you can safely pull back in. During the course of this you reach 75mph - are you in the shit for breaking the speed limit or is the other driver in the pooh for dangerous driving?

I appreciate 4D is a cunt but how anyone couldn't interpret his question without that explanation should be put down

Why not just slow down and drop in behind them?

I think you'd be in the shit for dangerous driving surely.

Some drivers drive well below the speed limit but don't like being overtaken, surely we've all experienced this? I have dropped back in before FH but it's not always easy or feaseable.

It took a few times to read to make sense!

Why would you not be able to pull in behind a car that is accelerating? It is, after all, accelerating.

If someone 'stopped' you from overtaking then they are a prat and are driving dangerously.

What 4D is asking, albeit not very well, is how the courts would look upon somebody that was forced into speeding through another person's actions.

I'd imagine and hope that they'd use some common sense. I'd also imagine they'd expect you to convince them you were forced into it because it sound very bloody unlikely. I'm not quite sure of the point of the question either to be honest.

I had an accident once when a couple of vehicles I was overtaking were doing 50mph in a 60. One of the cars decided to pull out and hit me side on. They try to make out I was speeding. Yes I was doing over 60mph but the highway code states 'that you need to overtake quickly and safely'.

The law was on my side.

http://thetownend.com/index.php?action=arcade;sa=play;game=191