Stealth tax

[Davidc]

You'd be unlucky Norm. The calibration point for 40mph detection always used to be 47, and your speed limiter will almost certainly be like a speedometer, calibrated to err on the safe side. (according to a satellite unit mine lets me go 48 when set to 50)

At least you are willing to accept that if you get a ticket you're the one to blame.

 

[Norm]

At least you are willing to accept that if you get a ticket you're the one to blame.

Completely my fault, call it a self-imposed "D'Oh" tax.

Most annoying is that I had, just three days before, got back a clean licence after having purged the points which I picked up in late 2004. I was hoping for at least one round of insurance renewals which I didn't have to tell them about an SP30.

 

[Davidc]

Completely my fault, call it a self-imposed "D'Oh" tax.

Most annoying is that I had, just three days before, got back a clean licence after having purged the points which I picked up in late 2004. I was hoping for at least one round of insurance renewals which I didn't have to tell them about an SP30.

A serial criminal then? Off with your head, as the red queen said.

 

[thomas]

Completely my fault, call it a self-imposed "D'Oh" tax.

Most annoying is that I had, just three days before, got back a clean licence after having purged the points which I picked up in late 2004. I was hoping for at least one round of insurance renewals which I didn't have to tell them about an SP30.

A repeat offender 'ey? Some others in this thread might say you deserve a £1000 fine (or possibly up to 2 months salary), car crushed, lose your licence for a year (or up to forever).

I guess you've just got to hope that the average speed cameras weren't working properly. A friend's Dad got caught by one a couple of weeks back going a bit faster through empty road works.

This is the problem with speeding offences. Why they can be seen as a tax. I can fully understand why a reduced speed limit is needed when people are carrying out road works....but when no one is working, put it back up.

On the up side norm, at least you accept your mistake and aren't trying to blame anyone for it

 

[Norm]

A repeat offender 'ey? Some others in this thread might say you deserve a £1000 fine (or possibly up to 2 months salary), car crushed, lose your licence for a year (or up to forever).

Yup, repeat offender, pick a window and I'll leave now. (that line sounded better when I worked on the 22nd floor)

I don't blame anyone and I didn't with the last one either, even though I was caught doing 58 in the 50 on the A1 through Sandy by a van which was, in contravention of their own guidelines, parked on private property hidden behind a street sign. It was my choice to exceed the posted limit on a clear stretch of road, pay up and move on.

At least they couldn't catch me when I went past the police car outside the school at 150 on the motorbike a few days ago! (That's just a joke, BTW, I haven't been out on the motorbike in months )

If there was human involvement, I'd be happy with increasing the fines for dangerous driving (tailgating etc), inappropriate speed (without necessarily making reference to posted limits) or wilful negligence (driving on fogs because one of your bulbs has blown).

I think that being fined a grand for making a mistake and doing 50 on a clear empty straight motorway at 8:30 on a Saturday morning might be considered a touch excessive, though. There'd be a hint of "let him who is without blame cast the first stone" about that one.

 

[mangaman]

Even more interesting is the fact that some Police Forces (such as Kent) employ additional staff to operate the Camera Partnerships and the use of Cameras actually INCREASES the number of Police out on Patrol for opportunistic enforcement of motoring offences.

Kent Camera partnership also recognises the link between motoring offences and other crimes. It employs additional officers to specifically follow up the more serious offences, agan increasing the number of Police out n the roads and carrying out enforcement

Thanks again Cunobelin.

Anecdotally, despite all the speed camera haters, I have had a feeling that there were more visible traffic police around recently.

A win-win situation I'd say. I suppose ANPR has had an effect, especially where other crimes are involved?

 

[thomas]

Anecdotally, despite all the speed camera haters, I have had a feeling that there were more visible traffic police around recently.

I've always found Police in cars to be a bit like buses....they all come at once. When ever I see one, I see a load more. So if you see a Police, drive like a saint for the rest of your journey.

 

[mangaman]

I've always found Police in cars to be a bit like buses....they all come at once. When ever I see one, I see a load more. So if you see a Police, drive like a saint for the rest of your journey.

Thomas laddie, always drive like a saint.

It's much better than thinking you're Jenson Button in your crap company car. Drive slowly and enjoy the views and the experience.

Everything is then cool.

 

[thomas]

Thomas laddie, always drive like a saint.

It's much better than thinking you're Jenson Button in your crap company car. Drive slowly and enjoy the views and the experience.

Everything is then cool.

haha, I wasn't suggesting other wise. Just something I noticed. They seem to go out once a month in full force to show their presence...then sit in office the next 4 weeks ...more so back home in Woking/Guildford area.

 

[ufkacbln]

I've always found Police in cars to be a bit like buses....they all come at once. When ever I see one, I see a load more. So if you see a Police, drive like a saint for the rest of your journey.

But this is NOT a good thing... as posted before this is extremely dangerous as drivers are distracted by having to ook for Police Cars rather than paying atention to their driving

 

[Dan B]

It was a point for David's post earlier . As for always driving 10mph below the speed limit,

... it will cause you to fail your driving test if there's no sensible reason for doing so.

 

[neslon]

at the risk of sounding dim, what is a speed limiter? Do they have them on new cars, coz I'm not sure what you mean (unless you're referring to your right foot). Certainly not got one in my car.

 

[thomas]

But this is NOT a good thing... as posted before this is extremely dangerous as drivers are distracted by having to ook for Police Cars rather than paying atention to their driving

I wasn't suggesting hidden police cars, just police cars driving around. No need to be distracted looking for them.

at the risk of sounding dim, what is a speed limiter? Do they have them on new cars, coz I'm not sure what you mean (unless you're referring to your right foot). Certainly not got one in my car.

I think it's where cars are fitted with electronic devices, which use GPS technology to find what road you're on, the speed limit of that road and then don't let you go above the speed limit.

 

[Norm]

Not as good as that, Thomas. Many cars which have cruise control (Renaults and Mercs at least) have speed limiters, which are, effectively, cruise control in reverse.

With cruise control, you electronically set the slowest speed that you want the car to travel at. You can choose to go faster with the accelerator but, if you take your feet off the pedals (assuming it's an auto), the car will maintain the speed you have set unless you turn it off.

The speed limiter works the other way. I set it to, say, 50, and I can travel any speed that I want to up to 50 but, unless I turn it off, I can't go any faster.

It's funny how many people (usually in motor vehicle manufacturing departments) brag about their cars being fitted with cruise control but hardly any mention the limiters. I've used the cruise control on mine once in 14k miles, for about 5 seconds, yet the limiter is set about a quarter of the time I am driving. If it was imposed on me, though, I'd pay money to get it removed.

 

[thomas]

Not as good as that, Thomas. Many cars which have cruise control (Renaults and Mercs at least) have speed limiters, which are, effectively, cruise control in reverse.

With cruise control, you electronically set the slowest speed that you want the car to travel at. You can choose to go faster with the accelerator but, if you take your feet off the pedals (assuming it's an auto), the car will maintain the speed you have set unless you turn it off.

The speed limiter works the other way. I set it to, say, 50, and I can travel any speed that I want to up to 50 but, unless I turn it off, I can't go any faster.

It's funny how many people (usually in motor vehicle manufacturing departments) brag about their cars being fitted with cruise control but hardly any mention the limiters. I've used the cruise control on mine once in 14k miles, for about 5 seconds, yet the limiter is set about a quarter of the time I am driving. If it was imposed on me, though, I'd pay money to get it removed.

Ohh. I think my Dad's Accord has something like that. Certainly using cruise control at least to limit your speed, or to follow a speed limit is a good idea. With most cruise control systems I've come across it isn't a minimum speed, it's a cruising speed....so you set it and leave the pedals alone. If you want to go faster or brake then the cruise control switches off. Or at least that's what I always thought. I've never had cruise control.

Certainly, some people in the thread have mentioned some type of GPS based electronic limiting system for cars....and to be honest, some type of system like that (though, technologically possible, I don't believe necisarily feasible on a larger scale) it probably is the only way to keep everyone within speed limits.