FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Speeding Tickets
Speeding Tickets
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Following on from a thread in the Wales forum ...
No one likes to receive a speeding ticket (I never have  ), especially from obscure cameras or average speed cameras in roadworks 
What are your experiences of speeding cameras and fines ?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Most speed cameras are for safety but many are for revenue raising. I ignored the three speeding tickets I have received initially, but in the end a copper turns up to have a word with me so I have had to send them back eventually. Due to costs involved have never gone to court but always ask for a picture.
You can of course drive at any speed for there is only ever one crime...getting caught.....  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You can of course drive at any speed for there is only ever one crime...getting caught..... "
Very irresponsible attitude.
I'm sure you'd change your tune if a child or relative of yours was mowed down by a speeding motorist.
The simplest and easiest method of avoiding a speeding ticket is so straight forward I'm surprised nobody has thought of it before.
DRIVE WITHIN THE SPEED LIMIT!!!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The chances of us getting a ticket are very low as we don't speed.
The person saying drive as fast as you want is, bluntly, a moron. Nine people a day die on British roads thanks ti monumental idiots who think it's a game. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You can of course drive at any speed for there is only ever one crime...getting caught.....
Very irresponsible attitude.
I'm sure you'd change your tune if a child or relative of yours was mowed down by a speeding motorist.
The simplest and easiest method of avoiding a speeding ticket is so straight forward I'm surprised nobody has thought of it before.
DRIVE WITHIN THE SPEED LIMIT!!!!!"
Speed cameras in some areas have been known to cause accidents not prevent them as drivers slam on the brakes suddenly when they spot a camera that is well hidden at the last minute.
Ok in residential areas by schools and such stick to the limit but I think the 70mph limit on our motorways now is very outdated and needs re_iewing. I think with the advances in car technology (better brakes and handling, airbags, etc) motorway speed limit should be at least 80mph. I also think a lot of the speed cameras are just a cash cow for the government to make money and they criminalise motorists who for the most part are just ordinary people going about their daily lives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *UNKIEMan
over a year ago
south east |
"
Speed cameras in some areas have been known to cause accidents not prevent them as drivers slam on the brakes suddenly when they spot a camera that is well hidden at the last minute.
"
REALLY!!!!!!!!  blame the cameras..not the speeding arseholes slamming on their brakes...if that works for you...crack on  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You can of course drive at any speed for there is only ever one crime...getting caught.....
Very irresponsible attitude.
I'm sure you'd change your tune if a child or relative of yours was mowed down by a speeding motorist.
The simplest and easiest method of avoiding a speeding ticket is so straight forward I'm surprised nobody has thought of it before.
DRIVE WITHIN THE SPEED LIMIT!!!!!
Speed cameras in some areas have been known to cause accidents not prevent them as drivers slam on the brakes suddenly when they spot a camera that is well hidden at the last minute.
Ok in residential areas by schools and such stick to the limit but I think the 70mph limit on our motorways now is very outdated and needs re_iewing. I think with the advances in car technology (better brakes and handling, airbags, etc) motorway speed limit should be at least 80mph. I also think a lot of the speed cameras are just a cash cow for the government to make money and they criminalise motorists who for the most part are just ordinary people going about their daily lives. "
Not to mention insurance companies who now load premiums when they used to ignore minor speeding offences.
If you want to see the back of speed cameras, then everyone drive slower. The partnerships that operate them will have no revenue and soon be done away with when they are starting to cost money rather than make it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Just gone through 15 months of their b/s. 37 mph in a 30mph area at 4oclock on a xmas morning.
No.1 rule DO NOT sign the 2 part letter they send you, it is designed so you admit guilt.
Simply return it and on another piece of paper write " I have no recolection of this offence nor do i know who was driving"
They then have to prove you were driving, in my case they came to court with a picture of the back of my car. I knew they could not prove it was me driving, yet the magistrates believed it was me, so i appealed to the crown court.. judge threw it out within 30 seconds.
Good luck mate |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
People slamming on the brakes when they see a camera were speeding. Is there something wrong with your brain to blame a stationary camera for your accident?
Some people are just so stupid they should have their license removed permanently. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icky999Man
over a year ago
warrington |
if you missed a 11ft bright yellow box at the side of the road. you wernt driving with due care and attention. stick one on every street, tax the rich, tax the polluters, tax the dangerous. unmarked van on a quiet dual carriage way with few pedestrians, good visability sort your lives out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Speed cameras in some areas have been known to cause accidents not prevent them as drivers slam on the brakes suddenly when they spot a camera that is well hidden at the last minute.
REALLY!!!!!!!! blame the cameras..not the speeding arseholes slamming on their brakes...if that works for you...crack on "
Point is accidents would not have happened if the cameras had not been there in the first place. I read a report about this somewhere that in certain areas before the cameras were installed say there were 20 accidents per year then after the installation of speed cameras on the same stretch of road the number of accidents increased almost doubled in some cases so that can't be right if it appears the road was actually safer before. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You can of course drive at any speed for there is only ever one crime...getting caught.....
Very irresponsible attitude.
I'm sure you'd change your tune if a child or relative of yours was mowed down by a speeding motorist.
The simplest and easiest method of avoiding a speeding ticket is so straight forward I'm surprised nobody has thought of it before.
DRIVE WITHIN THE SPEED LIMIT!!!!!
Speed cameras in some areas have been known to cause accidents not prevent them as drivers slam on the brakes suddenly when they spot a camera that is well hidden at the last minute.
Ok in residential areas by schools and such stick to the limit but I think the 70mph limit on our motorways now is very outdated and needs re_iewing. I think with the advances in car technology (better brakes and handling, airbags, etc) motorway speed limit should be at least 80mph. I also think a lot of the speed cameras are just a cash cow for the government to make money and they criminalise motorists who for the most part are just ordinary people going about their daily lives. "
You can make the cars as safe as you like with all the safety in the world. Its not going to stop the muppets on the road who,
A- dont give a shit about others on the road.(boy racer wankers, the dicks who get 4mm from your back bumper on the motorway)
B- the ones who possibly shouldnt be on the roads (crazy pensioners who just pull out and dont seem to have any spacial awareness)
C- add your own bad driver experiences here.
Cars may be safe but its the drivers that are not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Revenue raising that's all I have one for thirty five miles a hour on.dual lane road. In a unfamiliar road no traffic in front none at back driving thirty four years. Stats always lie. About them. Don't forget more speeding is done out of pub car parks. Side streets. My road about thirty a day speed never speed cameras also the five miles over mine the road went on a incline |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"People slamming on the brakes when they see a camera were speeding. Is there something wrong with your brain to blame a stationary camera for your accident?
Some people are just so stupid they should have their license removed permanently."
I haven't had an accident personally, go back and read what I said. Did I say it happened to me anywhere in that post? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"if you missed a 11ft bright yellow box at the side of the road. you wernt driving with due care and attention. stick one on every street, tax the rich, tax the polluters, tax the dangerous. unmarked van on a quiet dual carriage way with few pedestrians, good visability sort your lives out. "
Some cameras I think are deliberately placed in positions to try and catch you out such as hidden behind street signs or overgrown bushes. You can pay as much attention as you like and still not see them until the last minute in some cases. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bi HaiveMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Cheeseville, Somerset |
"Just gone through 15 months of their b/s. 37 mph in a 30mph area at 4oclock on a xmas morning.
No.1 rule DO NOT sign the 2 part letter they send you, it is designed so you admit guilt.
Simply return it and on another piece of paper write " I have no recolection of this offence nor do i know who was driving"
They then have to prove you were driving, in my case they came to court with a picture of the back of my car. I knew they could not prove it was me driving, yet the magistrates believed it was me, so i appealed to the crown court.. judge threw it out within 30 seconds.
Good luck mate"
I'd be careful posting that kind of remark on an open forum _iewable by the public.
You might find the judge sees it!
A |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *UNKIEMan
over a year ago
south east |
"
Speed cameras in some areas have been known to cause accidents not prevent them as drivers slam on the brakes suddenly when they spot a camera that is well hidden at the last minute.
REALLY!!!!!!!! blame the cameras..not the speeding arseholes slamming on their brakes...if that works for you...crack on
Point is accidents would not have happened if the cameras had not been there in the first place. I read a report about this somewhere that in certain areas before the cameras were installed say there were 20 accidents per year then after the installation of speed cameras on the same stretch of road the number of accidents increased almost doubled in some cases so that can't be right if it appears the road was actually safer before."
Seriously!!!! If there were no cameras then people would drive faster and there would be MORE accidents NOT LESS and more would be fatal  seriously dont get your reasoning here |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If you're not speeding it doesn't matter how bright or how well hidden the camera is. You don't get a ticket as you're not speeding. You are enjoying a safe and stress free drive keeping your attention on the road and not darting side to side looking out for cameras or police.
It's perfectly simple. But there are plenty of idiots that think they know better. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Speed cameras in some areas have been known to cause accidents not prevent them as drivers slam on the brakes suddenly when they spot a camera that is well hidden at the last minute.
REALLY!!!!!!!! blame the cameras..not the speeding arseholes slamming on their brakes...if that works for you...crack on
Point is accidents would not have happened if the cameras had not been there in the first place. I read a report about this somewhere that in certain areas before the cameras were installed say there were 20 accidents per year then after the installation of speed cameras on the same stretch of road the number of accidents increased almost doubled in some cases so that can't be right if it appears the road was actually safer before.
Seriously!!!! If there were no cameras then people would drive faster and there would be MORE accidents NOT LESS and more would be fatal seriously dont get your reasoning here "
It's not my reasoning as i said I read this in a report, I think it was published in a copy of motorcycle news some time ago as my brother is a biker and he often buys it so I sometimes read it. Motorcycle news collated this data from official government statistics.
Cameras are good in certain areas but in areas where the data shows they make roads more dangerous then they should be removed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *UNKIEMan
over a year ago
south east |
Car travelling too fast for the road its on ..slams on brakes seeing a speed camera....car behind travelling too fast for road its on and travelling too close to car infront cant brake in time and slams into car infront ....lets blame the camera |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Car travelling too fast for the road its on ..slams on brakes seeing a speed camera....car behind travelling too fast for road its on and travelling too close to car infront cant brake in time and slams into car infront ....lets blame the camera "
Exactly. I think we're flogging a dead horse here though, it seems the light is on but nobody's in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just gone through 15 months of their b/s. 37 mph in a 30mph area at 4oclock on a xmas morning.
No.1 rule DO NOT sign the 2 part letter they send you, it is designed so you admit guilt.
Simply return it and on another piece of paper write " I have no recolection of this offence nor do i know who was driving"
They then have to prove you were driving, in my case they came to court with a picture of the back of my car. I knew they could not prove it was me driving, yet the magistrates believed it was me, so i appealed to the crown court.. judge threw it out within 30 seconds.
Good luck mate"
.
Now I have no idea as I've never been caught speeding... Notice the caught!!.
But Google says.
Section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states that:
“Where a driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies (a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and (b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to the identification of the driver”.
Failure to provide said information to the po lice is a fine and 3 points!.
And you still have to inform the insurance company!.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Car travelling too fast for the road its on ..slams on brakes seeing a speed camera....car behind travelling too fast for road its on and travelling too close to car infront cant brake in time and slams into car infront ....lets blame the camera
Exactly. I think we're flogging a dead horse here though, it seems the light is on but nobody's in."
Just different opinions the forum would be very boring if everyone agreed with everyone else. Still I think the insulting tone of your posts says more about you than it does about me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's 24 years since my last speeding offence I got caught twice in quick succession by traffic cops. Fined £30 each time and 3pts on my licence on each occasion. That was enough of a wake up call to change my driving behaviour enough for me not to have been caught since ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
At the end of the day we all know the speed limits (or you should) the speed limits are posted along most roads, most speed cameras are signposted, they are painted bright yellow, and if you go on to the government web site it tells you where they all are, if you get certain sat navs they can be programmed to alert you to all traffic cams both static and mobile sites. So if you still get caught speeding you only have yourself to blame. I reckon most people speed (to a certain extent) and get away with it! Only dont start moaning about it when you get caught. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Car travelling too fast for the road its on ..slams on brakes seeing a speed camera....car behind travelling too fast for road its on and travelling too close to car infront cant brake in time and slams into car infront ....lets blame the camera
Exactly. I think we're flogging a dead horse here though, it seems the light is on but nobody's in.
Just different opinions the forum would be very boring if everyone agreed with everyone else. Still I think the insulting tone of your posts says more about you than it does about me. "
Never seen a kid killed by a speeder have you? You never had to fill a poor child's head with cotton wool before the family come to _iew them have you?
I happily insult speeders all day long. Whatever that says about me I'm totally fine with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *errygTV/TS
over a year ago
denton |
it was nice to see john Prescott banned for speeding as he was one in favour of speed cameras, as for safety of children ive yet to see a speed camera outside schools, to many are sited for easy revenue |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's not hard to know the limit on a road and of unsure er on the side of caution.
I've had speeding tickets nut never moan about them. My choice to speed my penalty to pay.
As for being revenue generators...they wouldn't generate revenue if people didn't speed. Easy way to stop lining their pockets.
I also think the cameras shouldn't be so identifiable.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Myself and my daughter got done same day..seconds between us..I was taking my car for its Mot..she was in front I was following. ..100 quid plus points...joyous..she's doing the course plus 85 quid... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You can of course drive at any speed for there is only ever one crime...getting caught.....
Very irresponsible attitude.
I'm sure you'd change your tune if a child or relative of yours was mowed down by a speeding motorist.
The simplest and easiest method of avoiding a speeding ticket is so straight forward I'm surprised nobody has thought of it before.
DRIVE WITHIN THE SPEED LIMIT!!!!!"
True except that sometimes the signs aren't as clear as they could be. I know quite a few roads that are 50 but the reminder signs are not as regular as they should be.
Added to that some new 30 & 40 limits have been introduced in many places where it looks like it should be the national 60, often with poor signage.
I've never knowingly driven above the speed limit but I have had tickets!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
59 in a 40... (Last time I'd gone down the road was 2 months prior and was a 60 limit) Gatso speed cam and paid £60 with 3 points.... This was December 2009 though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Last time I got stopped for speeding, I got a stern telling off!
I had been flying along the tainford by pass at night after my late shift, got pulled after over taking two cars in a 30 zone. I put my hands up. Like I said got a right bollocking. There are some good police out there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The Chief Plod who introduced them is saying they're not being used the way they were intended. He says they're being used as revenue raisers and unnecessarily punishing largely law abiding people who make minor transgressions, whilst ignoring those who are a danger.
The one that got me 2 weeks ago (37 in a 30) was hidden behind trees, going out of town, down a hill where the car naturally picks up speed, and where the limit changes to 50 - pure stealth revenue raiser.
This particular camera is the subject of an investigation, but by Bath and Somerset Police - the people who installed it - so I won't hold my breath. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Speed cameras in some areas have been known to cause accidents not prevent them as drivers slam on the brakes suddenly when they spot a camera that is well hidden at the last minute.
REALLY!!!!!!!! blame the cameras..not the speeding arseholes slamming on their brakes...if that works for you...crack on
Point is accidents would not have happened if the cameras had not been there in the first place. I read a report about this somewhere that in certain areas before the cameras were installed say there were 20 accidents per year then after the installation of speed cameras on the same stretch of road the number of accidents increased almost doubled in some cases so that can't be right if it appears the road was actually safer before.
Seriously!!!! If there were no cameras then people would drive faster and there would be MORE accidents NOT LESS and more would be fatal seriously dont get your reasoning here "
This is what we are told but actually the statistical data does not support the presumption that driving faster actually causes accidents. There is statistical data to support the argument that faster speed results in more serious accidents but not more accidents. In fact the statistical evidence says that the more time you spend on the road and the more traffic there is on the road are the main contributory components to how likely you are to have an accident. Reducing speed limits contributes to a increasing both of those. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Speed cameras in some areas have been known to cause accidents not prevent them as drivers slam on the brakes suddenly when they spot a camera that is well hidden at the last minute.
REALLY!!!!!!!! blame the cameras..not the speeding arseholes slamming on their brakes...if that works for you...crack on
Point is accidents would not have happened if the cameras had not been there in the first place. I read a report about this somewhere that in certain areas before the cameras were installed say there were 20 accidents per year then after the installation of speed cameras on the same stretch of road the number of accidents increased almost doubled in some cases so that can't be right if it appears the road was actually safer before.
Seriously!!!! If there were no cameras then people would drive faster and there would be MORE accidents NOT LESS and more would be fatal seriously dont get your reasoning here
It's not my reasoning as i said I read this in a report, I think it was published in a copy of motorcycle news some time ago as my brother is a biker and he often buys it so I sometimes read it. Motorcycle news collated this data from official government statistics.
Cameras are good in certain areas but in areas where the data shows they make roads more dangerous then they should be removed. "
I don't often agree with this guy but I really don't see how anyone can disagree with his last paragraph. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Chief Plod who introduced them is saying they're not being used the way they were intended. He says they're being used as revenue raisers and unnecessarily punishing largely law abiding people who make minor transgressions, whilst ignoring those who are a danger.
The one that got me 2 weeks ago (37 in a 30) was hidden behind trees, going out of town, down a hill where the car naturally picks up speed, and where the limit changes to 50 - pure stealth revenue raiser.
This particular camera is the subject of an investigation, but by Bath and Somerset Police - the people who installed it - so I won't hold my breath."
.
That's actually the easiest way to get out of a ticket.
The camera has to be clearly visible and painted in the correct colours of yellow or blue.
Take a picture of it hidden behind trees and use it in court!.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Car travelling too fast for the road its on ..slams on brakes seeing a speed camera....car behind travelling too fast for road its on and travelling too close to car infront cant brake in time and slams into car infront ....lets blame the camera "
Surely the camera is meant to be there to reduce accidents and make the road safer. If it's not actually doing that, regardless who is to blame, and actually achieving the opposite then surely it should be removed. How can it be called road safety if it's actually resulting in more accidents? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
That's actually the easiest way to get out of a ticket.
The camera has to be clearly visible and painted in the correct colours of yellow or blue.
Take a picture of it hidden behind trees and use it in court!.
"
Already looked into it - it's not a legal requirement for it to be visible or painted , just an ACPO guideline. The head highwayman for Avon and Somerset even stated as much when inter_iewed by the Mail, which ran an article on it - it's done something like 100,000 motorists since being switched on in Feb.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Car travelling too fast for the road its on ..slams on brakes seeing a speed camera....car behind travelling too fast for road its on and travelling too close to car infront cant brake in time and slams into car infront ....lets blame the camera
Exactly. I think we're flogging a dead horse here though, it seems the light is on but nobody's in."
I disagree, I think the problem here is that people are looking to punish and blame and have forgotten that these cameras are meant to be about road safety. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Car travelling too fast for the road its on ..slams on brakes seeing a speed camera....car behind travelling too fast for road its on and travelling too close to car infront cant brake in time and slams into car infront ....lets blame the camera
Surely the camera is meant to be there to reduce accidents and make the road safer. If it's not actually doing that, regardless who is to blame, and actually achieving the opposite then surely it should be removed. How can it be called road safety if it's actually resulting in more accidents?"
Incorrect, the speed limits are there to reduce accidents and make the roads safer, the cameras are there to catch those that break the law. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just gone through 15 months of their b/s. 37 mph in a 30mph area at 4oclock on a xmas morning.
No.1 rule DO NOT sign the 2 part letter they send you, it is designed so you admit guilt.
Simply return it and on another piece of paper write " I have no recolection of this offence nor do i know who was driving"
They then have to prove you were driving, in my case they came to court with a picture of the back of my car. I knew they could not prove it was me driving, yet the magistrates believed it was me, so i appealed to the crown court.. judge threw it out within 30 seconds.
Good luck mate.
Now I have no idea as I've never been caught speeding... Notice the caught!!.
But Google says.
Section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states that:
“Where a driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies (a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and (b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to the identification of the driver”.
Failure to provide said information to the po lice is a fine and 3 points!.
And you still have to inform the insurance company!.
"
That's out of date. It's actually 6 point fine now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *UNKIEMan
over a year ago
south east |
15yrs driving taxis day and night 7 days a week ...never had an accident and never had a point ...yes i suppose ive been lucky once or twice a few near misses lol but to suggest a speed camera makes a road dangerous is laughable...no matter what way you try to dress it ..its the driver behind the wheel that makes roads dangerous |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
That's actually the easiest way to get out of a ticket.
The camera has to be clearly visible and painted in the correct colours of yellow or blue.
Take a picture of it hidden behind trees and use it in court!.
Already looked into it - it's not a legal requirement for it to be visible or painted , just an ACPO guideline. The head highwayman for Avon and Somerset even stated as much when inter_iewed by the Mail, which ran an article on it - it's done something like 100,000 motorists since being switched on in Feb.
"
.
Have you challenged it in court?
I got my wife off her ticket with that loophole, the judge agreed with me that the authority should follow guidance procedures! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Car travelling too fast for the road its on ..slams on brakes seeing a speed camera....car behind travelling too fast for road its on and travelling too close to car infront cant brake in time and slams into car infront ....lets blame the camera
Surely the camera is meant to be there to reduce accidents and make the road safer. If it's not actually doing that, regardless who is to blame, and actually achieving the opposite then surely it should be removed. How can it be called road safety if it's actually resulting in more accidents?
Incorrect, the speed limits are there to reduce accidents and make the roads safer, the cameras are there to catch those that break the law."
Then why are they officially called 'Road Safety Cameras' but regardless of the semantics are you seriously arguing that the road should be made less safe just so we can more easily punish people? Because that's what you seem to be saying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If they were safety cameras, they would be sited in genuine hazard locations.
They would be highly visible, with warning lights if you approached too fast.
Their purpose and deployment would be to deter and prevent.
But they aren't.
They are deployed to catch and fine - how does that help safety? It's all about the revenue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Car travelling too fast for the road its on ..slams on brakes seeing a speed camera....car behind travelling too fast for road its on and travelling too close to car infront cant brake in time and slams into car infront ....lets blame the camera
Surely the camera is meant to be there to reduce accidents and make the road safer. If it's not actually doing that, regardless who is to blame, and actually achieving the opposite then surely it should be removed. How can it be called road safety if it's actually resulting in more accidents?
Incorrect, the speed limits are there to reduce accidents and make the roads safer, the cameras are there to catch those that break the law.
Then why are they officially called 'Road Safety Cameras' but regardless of the semantics are you seriously arguing that the road should be made less safe just so we can more easily punish people? Because that's what you seem to be saying."
Roads would be a hell of a lot safer if speeders got an automatic lifetime ban cameras or no cameras.
People who speed are the ones causing accidents around cameras, in the very few cases that has actually happened, and it just proves there was a real need for the cameras to be there.
You speed, you break the law, you take the consequences and get on your knees and thank whatever you believe in that your speeding got you a fine and not some dead body, because for a lot of people they wish they had a fine and not the person they killed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If they were safety cameras, they would be sited in genuine hazard locations.
They would be highly visible, with warning lights if you approached too fast.
Their purpose and deployment would be to deter and prevent.
But they aren't.
They are deployed to catch and fine - how does that help safety? It's all about the revenue."
Ridiculous argument and makes you sound like an 11 year old classroom lawyer child that doesn't like being told what to do.
There are laws against murder yet people still do it, shall we just stop catching them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ait88Man
over a year ago
Plymouth |
What kind of parents allow their children uncontrolled access to roads?
Why aren't they prosecuted when their child is run over?
What exactly is the point of a 40 mph speed limit on an empty duel carriageway at 4 o'clock on a fine morning?
We are breeding a nation of morons who are incapable of thinking for themselves! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What kind of parents allow their children uncontrolled access to roads?
Why aren't they prosecuted when their child is run over?"
You are quite possibly the most blindingly stupid person I have EVER come across. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
My 2 pence worth now.
For the argument of speed cameras causing accidents.… several years ago myself and the driver of our van were doing the stated 50mph on the A40 in Greenford heading towards B&Q when all of a sudden a woman slams her foot on the break because she suddenly sees the speed camera we narrowly missed rear ending her. I drive a lot and it amazes me how many people slam their foot on the break when they aren't even near the speed limit all it takes is a split second and bang your in the back of someone.
Accidents… last year I got flashed by a camera my fault not gonna argue. But during my awareness course it was discussed that most accidents are caused by stop start driving around towns a lot of that is because idiots speed but most is because people don't look around or what's in front or in some cases a taxi or bus just pulls out of a bus lane to get a few cars in front. Very few accidents are caused by speed on a national speed limit road ie a motorway/dual carriageway |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Car travelling too fast for the road its on ..slams on brakes seeing a speed camera....car behind travelling too fast for road its on and travelling too close to car infront cant brake in time and slams into car infront ....lets blame the camera
Surely the camera is meant to be there to reduce accidents and make the road safer. If it's not actually doing that, regardless who is to blame, and actually achieving the opposite then surely it should be removed. How can it be called road safety if it's actually resulting in more accidents?
Incorrect, the speed limits are there to reduce accidents and make the roads safer, the cameras are there to catch those that break the law.
Then why are they officially called 'Road Safety Cameras' but regardless of the semantics are you seriously arguing that the road should be made less safe just so we can more easily punish people? Because that's what you seem to be saying.
Roads would be a hell of a lot safer if speeders got an automatic lifetime ban cameras or no cameras.
People who speed are the ones causing accidents around cameras, in the very few cases that has actually happened, and it just proves there was a real need for the cameras to be there.
You speed, you break the law, you take the consequences and get on your knees and thank whatever you believe in that your speeding got you a fine and not some dead body, because for a lot of people they wish they had a fine and not the person they killed."
I think you should seriously ask yourself whether your more interested in punishing people who have broken the law or road safety. It seems to me that your attitude is far more about an authoritarian attitude to the law than people's lives and genuine road safety. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If they were safety cameras, they would be sited in genuine hazard locations.
They would be highly visible, with warning lights if you approached too fast.
Their purpose and deployment would be to deter and prevent.
But they aren't.
They are deployed to catch and fine - how does that help safety? It's all about the revenue.
Ridiculous argument and makes you sound like an 11 year old classroom lawyer child that doesn't like being told what to do.
There are laws against murder yet people still do it, shall we just stop catching them? "
You're the one using schoolroom logic - so we let murders happen and then punish, rather than prevent do we?
Don't try and convince us that you've never strayed a few mph above the limit whilst concentrating on the road ahead - I simply won't believe you.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
'What kind of parents allow their children uncontrolled access to roads?'
This idiotic argument was used by persistent road traffic offenders when I used to work with them after their court appearances. Unbelievable. Would you justify drink-driving? Speeding should be similarly unacceptable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *errygTV/TS
over a year ago
denton |
children are about in built up areas plus the elderly etc, so motorist themselves should be aware, I think in usa strict speed laws around schools during certain hours which is common sense, but my insurance told me over 50% of clients have 3 points or over, but in non urban areas a bit of leeway given, there are people on here say they don't speed, but I feel they may go over some time in their cars |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Its all bullshit and if you are stupid enough to be caught/conned by the forms they send you, then you deserve to be done.. however the law of this land does NOT say your guilty cos we think you are, it is that your guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Sign the 2 part form and you are fucked |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm interested to know if the people who say they don't speed drive cars like a gee whiz which cannot go faster than 30mph? I know when I drive I sometimes don't even realise I'm going as fast as I am I often find myself slowing down because of this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"'What kind of parents allow their children uncontrolled access to roads?'
This idiotic argument was used by persistent road traffic offenders when I used to work with them after their court appearances. Unbelievable. Would you justify drink-driving? Speeding should be similarly unacceptable."
I think most people do find speeding almost as unacceptable as drink driving but what they question is are all the speed limits set really appropriate and, where the method used to try and catch people speeding has actually resulted in more accidents being caused, is it the correct approach to take. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"'What kind of parents allow their children uncontrolled access to roads?'
This idiotic argument was used by persistent road traffic offenders when I used to work with them after their court appearances. Unbelievable. Would you justify drink-driving? Speeding should be similarly unacceptable.
I think most people do find speeding almost as unacceptable as drink driving but what they question is are all the speed limits set really appropriate and, where the method used to try and catch people speeding has actually resulted in more accidents being caused, is it the correct approach to take."
Agree, example of this is the reduction of speed on a stretch of the A40 that I've never seen an accident on in over 15 years. I see cameras popping up in areas with no accidents yet they state they only install in accident black spots |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *errygTV/TS
over a year ago
denton |
"I'm interested to know if the people who say they don't speed drive cars like a gee whiz which cannot go faster than 30mph? I know when I drive I sometimes don't even realise I'm going as fast as I am I often find myself slowing down because of this. "
agree it is so easy to stray over 30 , but if people drive a lot you know you are driving a bit fast, answer is a talking speedometer that way your eyes not glued to speedo
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm interested to know if the people who say they don't speed drive cars like a gee whiz which cannot go faster than 30mph? I know when I drive I sometimes don't even realise I'm going as fast as I am I often find myself slowing down because of this. agree it is so easy to stray over 30 , but if people drive a lot you know you are driving a bit fast, answer is a talking speedometer that way your eyes not glued to speedo"
It's one idea, but could that be considered a distraction if your car kept beeping or telling you how fast it was going. I think the best idea is a heads up display. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm interested to know if the people who say they don't speed drive cars like a gee whiz which cannot go faster than 30mph? I know when I drive I sometimes don't even realise I'm going as fast as I am I often find myself slowing down because of this. agree it is so easy to stray over 30 , but if people drive a lot you know you are driving a bit fast, answer is a talking speedometer that way your eyes not glued to speedo
It's one idea, but could that be considered a distraction if your car kept beeping or telling you how fast it was going. I think the best idea is a heads up display. "
I think the best solution is to take a sensible attitude to speeding and a sensible attitude to speed enforcement. I think most drivers, although not all, do. I remain to be convinced that all speeding enforcement is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just gone through 15 months of their b/s. 37 mph in a 30mph area at 4oclock on a xmas morning.
No.1 rule DO NOT sign the 2 part letter they send you, it is designed so you admit guilt.
Simply return it and on another piece of paper write " I have no recolection of this offence nor do i know who was driving"
They then have to prove you were driving, in my case they came to court with a picture of the back of my car. I knew they could not prove it was me driving, yet the magistrates believed it was me, so i appealed to the crown court.. judge threw it out within 30 seconds.
Good luck mate"
Let's hope no one from the police or CPS have just read your confession that you perverted the course of justice  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"children are about in built up areas plus the elderly etc, so motorist themselves should be aware, I think in usa strict speed laws around schools during certain hours which is common sense, but my insurance told me over 50% of clients have 3 points or over, but in non urban areas a bit of leeway given, there are people on here say they don't speed, but I feel they may go over some time in their cars"
In nion urban areas the speed limits are often more generous but there are still vulnerable road users around |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
never had one - the ex always called my driving (and everything else) when we split up he went to see his mum and got a speeding ticket en route - ah well  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *UNKIEMan
over a year ago
south east |
At the end of the day whether speed cameras/camera vans or cops are being used for road safety or to generate cash ..the speed limits on our roads are LAWS break them like any and reap what you sow it wasnt the cameras fault you got fined and points ...it was your own for taking chances just like breaking any other law and getting caught on cctv
And i'll state it again....roads and speed cameras are not dangerous.......DRIVERS ARE |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *UNKIEMan
over a year ago
south east |
"Car travelling too fast for the road its on ..slams on brakes seeing a speed camera....car behind travelling too fast for road its on and travelling too close to car infront cant brake in time and slams into car infront ....lets blame the camera
I seen people "slamming on the brakes" when they`re already travelling at the or below the speed limit! "
Thats not a cameras fault thats just BAD driving |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *UNKIEMan
over a year ago
south east |
"My 2 pence worth now.
For the argument of speed cameras causing accidents.… several years ago myself and the driver of our van were doing the stated 50mph on the A40 in Greenford heading towards B&Q when all of a sudden a woman slams her foot on the break because she suddenly sees the speed camera we narrowly missed rear ending her. I drive a lot and it amazes me how many people slam their foot on the break when they aren't even near the speed limit all it takes is a split second and bang your in the back of someone.
"
I'd say you guys were driving too close to the car in front then now replace camera in your statement to a child and lady slams on her brakes and just avoids hitting the stunned child then you plough through the back of her because you were too close taking her out and the child wouldnt be ladies fault it would be yours |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Car travelling too fast for the road its on ..slams on brakes seeing a speed camera....car behind travelling too fast for road its on and travelling too close to car infront cant brake in time and slams into car infront ....lets blame the camera
I seen people "slamming on the brakes" when they`re already travelling at the or below the speed limit!
Thats not a cameras fault thats just BAD driving "
I think you're missing the point. It's not about punishment or fault it's about whether more or less accidents are happening where they are placed. If more accidents are happening at the site than before the camera was sited there then it should be removed. Who's fault it is or who is actually breaking the law is irrelevant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Speed cameras in some areas have been known to cause accidents not prevent them as drivers slam on the brakes suddenly when they spot a camera that is well hidden at the last minute.
REALLY!!!!!!!! blame the cameras..not the speeding arseholes slamming on their brakes...if that works for you...crack on "
There's a camera in a national speed limit near me that's on a long straight road and hidden untill your about 20 ft behind it.
The amount if people doing 60, so perfectly fine to go through it, who do an emergancy break to try an get down to the 40 or so they assume it must be is unreal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Car travelling too fast for the road its on ..slams on brakes seeing a speed camera....car behind travelling too fast for road its on and travelling too close to car infront cant brake in time and slams into car infront ....lets blame the camera
I seen people "slamming on the brakes" when they`re already travelling at the or below the speed limit!
Thats not a cameras fault thats just BAD driving
I think you're missing the point. It's not about punishment or fault it's about whether more or less accidents are happening where they are placed. If more accidents are happening at the site than before the camera was sited there then it should be removed. Who's fault it is or who is actually breaking the law is irrelevant."
But in the example the hypothetical accident is caused because the second car is going to fast, seems to suggest it;s a good place for a camera? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My 2 pence worth now.
For the argument of speed cameras causing accidents.… several years ago myself and the driver of our van were doing the stated 50mph on the A40 in Greenford heading towards B&Q when all of a sudden a woman slams her foot on the break because she suddenly sees the speed camera we narrowly missed rear ending her. I drive a lot and it amazes me how many people slam their foot on the break when they aren't even near the speed limit all it takes is a split second and bang your in the back of someone.
I'd say you guys were driving too close to the car in front then now replace camera in your statement to a child and lady slams on her brakes and just avoids hitting the stunned child then you plough through the back of her because you were too close taking her out and the child wouldnt be ladies fault it would be yours "
But if the woman stopped for no reason at all it would be hers. But I don't get were this fault comes into it. It's meant to be about road safety, not punishment and blame. If more accidents are happening now than before the camera was there then it's not safer. Simples really. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"At the end of the day whether speed cameras/camera vans or cops are being used for road safety or to generate cash ..the speed limits on our roads are LAWS break them like any and reap what you sow it wasnt the cameras fault you got fined and points ...it was your own for taking chances just like breaking any other law and getting caught on cctv
And i'll state it again....roads and speed cameras are not dangerous.......DRIVERS ARE "
To be fair most of the speed limits such as on motorways are well outdated now and need raising to meet the capabilities of modern cars.
And did you really just say roads ain't dangerous?
Try hitting a long narrow pot hole at 70 on the motorway when it's hidden in the shadow of a bridge.
Fortunately I was in line with it and it just ragged the shit out of the front wheel. If I'd have been moving across the lane at the time that would have definitely flipped the bike and put me through the reservation |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *UNKIEMan
over a year ago
south east |
"
I think you're missing the point. It's not about punishment or fault it's about whether more or less accidents are happening where they are placed. If more accidents are happening at the site than before the camera was sited there then it should be removed. Who's fault it is or who is actually breaking the law is irrelevant."
No i do get the point but dont get the reasoning of remove the camera...its like when a cctv camera gets located and the number of reported crime goes up in that area ...do we remove that too so that we can reduce our crime figures ...in my _iew more needs to be done to educate people on how to drive properly ..some of the standards out there are fecking scary |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Car travelling too fast for the road its on ..slams on brakes seeing a speed camera....car behind travelling too fast for road its on and travelling too close to car infront cant brake in time and slams into car infront ....lets blame the camera
I seen people "slamming on the brakes" when they`re already travelling at the or below the speed limit!
Thats not a cameras fault thats just BAD driving
I think you're missing the point. It's not about punishment or fault it's about whether more or less accidents are happening where they are placed. If more accidents are happening at the site than before the camera was sited there then it should be removed. Who's fault it is or who is actually breaking the law is irrelevant.
But in the example the hypothetical accident is caused because the second car is going to fast, seems to suggest it;s a good place for a camera?"
The camera is not there to check you're not going too fast it's thee to check you're not breaking the speed limit. It's perfectly possible to be going too fast and not be breaking the speed limit.
Clearly if you go into the back of someone you were going too fast, however that does not mean you are in the wrong. There have already been a number of cases were the person who went into the back of someone else has been judged not to be in the wrong.
But all of this blame is missing the point. Is the road safer after the camera than before? That's the only question that should matter. If more accidents are happening at the site than before the camera was placed then it's clearly not safer and should be removed. Fault, blame and punishment are irrelevant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My 2 pence worth now.
For the argument of speed cameras causing accidents.… several years ago myself and the driver of our van were doing the stated 50mph on the A40 in Greenford heading towards B&Q when all of a sudden a woman slams her foot on the break because she suddenly sees the speed camera we narrowly missed rear ending her. I drive a lot and it amazes me how many people slam their foot on the break when they aren't even near the speed limit all it takes is a split second and bang your in the back of someone.
I'd say you guys were driving too close to the car in front then now replace camera in your statement to a child and lady slams on her brakes and just avoids hitting the stunned child then you plough through the back of her because you were too close taking her out and the child wouldnt be ladies fault it would be yours
But if the woman stopped for no reason at all it would be hers. But I don't get were this fault comes into it. It's meant to be about road safety, not punishment and blame. If more accidents are happening now than before the camera was there then it's not safer. Simples really."
If you crash into another vehicle from behind the legal stance is that you are too close - end of discussion. Whether the car in frint stopped or braked for a reason you approve of is irrelevant |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If you crash into another vehicle from behind the legal stance is that you are too close - end of discussion. Whether the car in frint stopped or braked for a reason you approve of is irrelevant"
In the normal course of things yes. But if someone darts in front of you and then immediately brakes leaving you no reaction time and braking space, then if you have footage and can prove it, it's their fault. There have been several cases where this has been proven - often when the perpetrators have done it deliberately to get the insurance and whiplash payouts.
That's why I now have a dashcam - had too many near misses caused by twats.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I think you're missing the point. It's not about punishment or fault it's about whether more or less accidents are happening where they are placed. If more accidents are happening at the site than before the camera was sited there then it should be removed. Who's fault it is or who is actually breaking the law is irrelevant.
No i do get the point but dont get the reasoning of remove the camera...its like when a cctv camera gets located and the number of reported crime goes up in that area ...do we remove that too so that we can reduce our crime figures ...in my _iew more needs to be done to educate people on how to drive properly ..some of the standards out there are fecking scary "
The point is is that the cameras are called 'Safety Cameras'. They are meant to make it safer for everyone, including drivers who may be driving too fast. If they are not doing that then they're not doing the job they were intended to to. CCTV is completely different.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Its all bullshit and if you are stupid enough to be caught/conned by the forms they send you, then you deserve to be done.. however the law of this land does NOT say your guilty cos we think you are, it is that your guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Sign the 2 part form and you are fucked"
How true  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My 2 pence worth now.
For the argument of speed cameras causing accidents.… several years ago myself and the driver of our van were doing the stated 50mph on the A40 in Greenford heading towards B&Q when all of a sudden a woman slams her foot on the break because she suddenly sees the speed camera we narrowly missed rear ending her. I drive a lot and it amazes me how many people slam their foot on the break when they aren't even near the speed limit all it takes is a split second and bang your in the back of someone.
I'd say you guys were driving too close to the car in front then now replace camera in your statement to a child and lady slams on her brakes and just avoids hitting the stunned child then you plough through the back of her because you were too close taking her out and the child wouldnt be ladies fault it would be yours
But if the woman stopped for no reason at all it would be hers. But I don't get were this fault comes into it. It's meant to be about road safety, not punishment and blame. If more accidents are happening now than before the camera was there then it's not safer. Simples really.
If you crash into another vehicle from behind the legal stance is that you are too close - end of discussion. Whether the car in frint stopped or braked for a reason you approve of is irrelevant"
You're wrong. I'd go check your case law if I were you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
In cardiff a static camera was placed in a residential street ( 30 mph limit ) where to my knowledge there had been 1 accident. After the camera was installed there were numerous accidents due to people concentrating on the camera, as opposed to the road. After 3 parked cars were seriously damaged on seperate occasions the camera was removed! Poor driving and lack of judgment causes far more accidents. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You can of course drive at any speed for there is only ever one crime...getting caught.....
Very irresponsible attitude.
I'm sure you'd change your tune if a child or relative of yours was mowed down by a speeding motorist.
The simplest and easiest method of avoiding a speeding ticket is so straight forward I'm surprised nobody has thought of it before.
DRIVE WITHIN THE SPEED LIMIT!!!!!"
Nice sentiment but majority do it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My 2 pence worth now.
For the argument of speed cameras causing accidents.… several years ago myself and the driver of our van were doing the stated 50mph on the A40 in Greenford heading towards B&Q when all of a sudden a woman slams her foot on the break because she suddenly sees the speed camera we narrowly missed rear ending her. I drive a lot and it amazes me how many people slam their foot on the break when they aren't even near the speed limit all it takes is a split second and bang your in the back of someone.
I'd say you guys were driving too close to the car in front then now replace camera in your statement to a child and lady slams on her brakes and just avoids hitting the stunned child then you plough through the back of her because you were too close taking her out and the child wouldnt be ladies fault it would be yours
But if the woman stopped for no reason at all it would be hers. But I don't get were this fault comes into it. It's meant to be about road safety, not punishment and blame. If more accidents are happening now than before the camera was there then it's not safer. Simples really.
If you crash into another vehicle from behind the legal stance is that you are too close - end of discussion. Whether the car in frint stopped or braked for a reason you approve of is irrelevant"
No not true hence why a lot of people have dash cams after the spare of people slamming on to get rear ended then them an all thier mates claiming whiplash
If you just slam on without reason and get rear ended because of it if they have a cam to show you had no reason you'll be the one fucked as you'll be prosecuted for dangerous driving. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The most dangerous nut on a car is still the one between the steering wheel and the drivers seat!
Strange isn't how a select few are blaming many things other than themselves.
I drive a reasonably powerful sports car, but I still remain within the speed limit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I drive about 65 thousand miles a year and have been fined twice for speeding both times on dual carrageways just over the limits both times vehicles are a lot more advanced now and the speed limits were decided a long time ago its about time to revise the speed limits on dual tracks and motorways to match the more advanced technologly of the current vechiles as a modern van would easily out break a 70's sports car |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The most dangerous nut on a car is still the one between the steering wheel and the drivers seat!
Strange isn't how a select few are blaming many things other than themselves.
I drive a reasonably powerful sports car, but I still remain within the speed limit. "
But it's not about blame, it's about safety. Who is at fault is not relevant. The only criteria for a 'Safety Camera' should be that it makes the road safer. If it's not actually doing that then why have them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Following on from a thread in the Wales forum ...
No one likes to receive a speeding ticket (I never have ), especially from obscure cameras or average speed cameras in roadworks
What are your experiences of speeding cameras and fines ? "
. Speeding tickets have never bothered me . I have no objection to hidden cameras . I just drive within the speed limits regardless of the time of day ..Most speed limits are there for a reason. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm interested to know if the people who say they don't speed drive cars like a gee whiz which cannot go faster than 30mph? I know when I drive I sometimes don't even realise I'm going as fast as I am I often find myself slowing down because of this. "
. If you are having trouble sticking to speed limits , all you need do is to go on an advanced driving course and you will be trained to drive to both a high standard and to within the speed limits . All you need to stick to the speed limit is good discipline and the right attitude.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"15yrs driving taxis day and night 7 days a week ...never had an accident and never had a point ...yes i suppose ive been lucky once or twice a few near misses lol but to suggest a speed camera makes a road dangerous is laughable...no matter what way you try to dress it ..its the driver behind the wheel that makes roads dangerous "
. Good post . Only an extremely poor driver would attempt to suggest that speed cameras cause accidents . Accidents are caused by the driver , not the camera . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just gone through 15 months of their b/s. 37 mph in a 30mph area at 4oclock on a xmas morning.
No.1 rule DO NOT sign the 2 part letter they send you, it is designed so you admit guilt.
Simply return it and on another piece of paper write " I have no recolection of this offence nor do i know who was driving"
They then have to prove you were driving, in my case they came to court with a picture of the back of my car. I knew they could not prove it was me driving, yet the magistrates believed it was me, so i appealed to the crown court.. judge threw it out within 30 seconds.
Good luck mate"
. Does this post mean that you committed perjury by claiming that you were not driving a vehicle when in fact you knew that you were . If not , surely you must know who has access to your vehicle . I never speed and have never had a speeding ticket but I would not wanted to risk being sent to prison by making a false statement in court if I ever were to receive one . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My 2 pence worth now.
For the argument of speed cameras causing accidents.… several years ago myself and the driver of our van were doing the stated 50mph on the A40 in Greenford heading towards B&Q when all of a sudden a woman slams her foot on the break because she suddenly sees the speed camera we narrowly missed rear ending her. I drive a lot and it amazes me how many people slam their foot on the break when they aren't even near the speed limit all it takes is a split second and bang your in the back of someone.
I'd say you guys were driving too close to the car in front then now replace camera in your statement to a child and lady slams on her brakes and just avoids hitting the stunned child then you plough through the back of her because you were too close taking her out and the child wouldnt be ladies fault it would be yours
But if the woman stopped for no reason at all it would be hers. But I don't get were this fault comes into it. It's meant to be about road safety, not punishment and blame. If more accidents are happening now than before the camera was there then it's not safer. Simples really.
If you crash into another vehicle from behind the legal stance is that you are too close - end of discussion. Whether the car in frint stopped or braked for a reason you approve of is irrelevant
No not true hence why a lot of people have dash cams after the spare of people slamming on to get rear ended then them an all thier mates claiming whiplash
If you just slam on without reason and get rear ended because of it if they have a cam to show you had no reason you'll be the one fucked as you'll be prosecuted for dangerous driving."
.
If you were driving the correct distance away from the vehicle in front.... It wouldn't matter what the fuck they do, you'd stop before crashing into the back of them...... End off by law... Your dashcam proves nothing except your negligence for driving to close to the vehicle in front! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
If you were driving the correct distance away from the vehicle in front.... It wouldn't matter what the fuck they do, you'd stop before crashing into the back of them...... End off by law... Your dashcam proves nothing except your negligence for driving to close to the vehicle in front!"
You are right in normal driving, in that if the car in front needs to do an emergency stop, then you should be far enough behind to do one too.
But as I stated above, if someone darts in front of you and then brakes suddenly, you have no braking space or reaction time.
Some fraudsters have been doing this to claim the whiplash payments.
Dashcams, can and do, prove that you were not at fault and footage is accepted by insurance companies as proof. Many cases already settled in favour of the person behind, when they've had dashcam footage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
If you were driving the correct distance away from the vehicle in front.... It wouldn't matter what the fuck they do, you'd stop before crashing into the back of them...... End off by law... Your dashcam proves nothing except your negligence for driving to close to the vehicle in front!
You are right in normal driving, in that if the car in front needs to do an emergency stop, then you should be far enough behind to do one too.
But as I stated above, if someone darts in front of you and then brakes suddenly, you have no braking space or reaction time.
Some fraudsters have been doing this to claim the whiplash payments.
Dashcams, can and do, prove that you were not at fault and footage is accepted by insurance companies as proof. Many cases already settled in favour of the person behind, when they've had dashcam footage."
.
If somebody pulls in front of you in traffic, you are many to brake and resume the required gap.
I understand what your saying about fraudsters, but as a general rule of thumb, it's your fault for traveling to close.
What most of the scammers do is tail gate there victims for several miles before pulling in front of them.... They then rely on human nature of your wrath for you to tail gate them back... When they brake you hit them... That's your fault!.... I know it's instinct to do it back but by the law it's your fault |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm not talking about that sort of situation. I never get mad enough to tailgate back, I'm too accident averse and too wise to do so.
What I'm saying is, that there are circumstances where the other driver is at fault, as I've outlines twice above.
Insurance companies and the courts are accepting dashcam evidence, and finding in favour of the driver behind. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If you're not speeding it doesn't matter how bright or how well hidden the camera is. You don't get a ticket as you're not speeding. You are enjoying a safe and stress free drive keeping your attention on the road and not darting side to side looking out for cameras or police.
It's perfectly simple. But there are plenty of idiots that think they know better. "
It's exceptionally difficult to keep to the 20mph limits all the time. No matter how careful you are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My 2 pence worth now.
For the argument of speed cameras causing accidents.… several years ago myself and the driver of our van were doing the stated 50mph on the A40 in Greenford heading towards B&Q when all of a sudden a woman slams her foot on the break because she suddenly sees the speed camera we narrowly missed rear ending her. I drive a lot and it amazes me how many people slam their foot on the break when they aren't even near the speed limit all it takes is a split second and bang your in the back of someone.
I'd say you guys were driving too close to the car in front then now replace camera in your statement to a child and lady slams on her brakes and just avoids hitting the stunned child then you plough through the back of her because you were too close taking her out and the child wouldnt be ladies fault it would be yours
But if the woman stopped for no reason at all it would be hers. But I don't get were this fault comes into it. It's meant to be about road safety, not punishment and blame. If more accidents are happening now than before the camera was there then it's not safer. Simples really.
If you crash into another vehicle from behind the legal stance is that you are too close - end of discussion. Whether the car in frint stopped or braked for a reason you approve of is irrelevant
No not true hence why a lot of people have dash cams after the spare of people slamming on to get rear ended then them an all thier mates claiming whiplash
If you just slam on without reason and get rear ended because of it if they have a cam to show you had no reason you'll be the one fucked as you'll be prosecuted for dangerous driving..
If you were driving the correct distance away from the vehicle in front.... It wouldn't matter what the fuck they do, you'd stop before crashing into the back of them...... End off by law... Your dashcam proves nothing except your negligence for driving to close to the vehicle in front!"
Nope, law is all based upon the belief of a reasonable person in the situation no reasonable person would expect a car to deliberately try to cause a crash and so you are not liable. The other person however is guilty of dangerous driving. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
If you were driving the correct distance away from the vehicle in front.... It wouldn't matter what the fuck they do, you'd stop before crashing into the back of them...... End off by law... Your dashcam proves nothing except your negligence for driving to close to the vehicle in front!
You are right in normal driving, in that if the car in front needs to do an emergency stop, then you should be far enough behind to do one too.
But as I stated above, if someone darts in front of you and then brakes suddenly, you have no braking space or reaction time.
Some fraudsters have been doing this to claim the whiplash payments.
Dashcams, can and do, prove that you were not at fault and footage is accepted by insurance companies as proof. Many cases already settled in favour of the person behind, when they've had dashcam footage..
If somebody pulls in front of you in traffic, you are many to brake and resume the required gap.
I understand what your saying about fraudsters, but as a general rule of thumb, it's your fault for traveling to close.
What most of the scammers do is tail gate there victims for several miles before pulling in front of them.... They then rely on human nature of your wrath for you to tail gate them back... When they brake you hit them... That's your fault!.... I know it's instinct to do it back but by the law it's your fault"
Actually your wrong saying you're meant to break, when driving your actions should never cause another vehicle to have to change speed or direction (you actually get a major for it on your test) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Driver education and training is the key.
So many times I see people doing 50 in a 60 limit, then suddenly brake when they're surprised by a bloody great big yellow pole with a box on top. They have no idea of the limit they're in, the speed they're doing or the impact of their driving on the cars behind them.
Speed alone does not kill, but it does contribute.
Inappropriate use of speed, poor observation, poor car control, poor awareness and poor planning are what kill.
70 mph in ideal conditions on the motorway is appropriate.
70 mph down my road in the dark and pissing rain, while lighting a fag and changing a cd is not appropriate.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
70 mph in ideal conditions on the motorway is appropriate.
"
See that's not really true in all situations.
If you do a lot of motorway commuting you'll notice the general speed of the outside e lane is 80 - 90 mph. And all is fine right up until somone doing an "appropriate 70mph" moves out into the outside lane without taking into account the speed of traffic there.
Just remember
"But I was right"
Doesn't mean shit when it's carved on your headstone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm interested to know if the people who say they don't speed drive cars like a gee whiz which cannot go faster than 30mph? I know when I drive I sometimes don't even realise I'm going as fast as I am I often find myself slowing down because of this. agree it is so easy to stray over 30 , but if people drive a lot you know you are driving a bit fast, answer is a talking speedometer that way your eyes not glued to speedo
It's one idea, but could that be considered a distraction if your car kept beeping or telling you how fast it was going. I think the best idea is a heads up display. "
If you struggle to keep to 30 in a 30 limit, drive in third gear not 4th. The engine noise will alert you if your speed creeps above 30.
Hope that helps. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And all is fine right up until somone doing an "appropriate 70mph" moves out into the outside lane without taking into account the speed of traffic there.
Just remember
"But I was right"
Doesn't mean shit when it's carved on your headstone. "
Which is precisely why I mentioned people who are not aware of what they are doing, not paying attention, not planning ahead.
And by your logic the accident is caused by the person obeying the speed limit, not the people exceeding it by 10 to 20mph?
If you're doing 90mph in the outside lane you'd better be taking even more care about what's going on around you.
Maybe realise that by doing 20mph over the limit you might be the major contributor.
If the car in front is doing 70 and so are you, if you've left the corect braking distance, your scenario will never happen.
So what causes the accident? Two things, one person obeying the limit but not paying attention, one disregarding the limit and not paying attention. Wake up.
Absolute genius to blame the person obeying the law and absolve all responsibility from the twat doing 90 and not watching what's going on ahead of him.
Can you let me know when you're next on the motorway, I'll stay home......
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My 2 pence worth now.
For the argument of speed cameras causing accidents.… several years ago myself and the driver of our van were doing the stated 50mph on the A40 in Greenford heading towards B&Q when all of a sudden a woman slams her foot on the break because she suddenly sees the speed camera we narrowly missed rear ending her. I drive a lot and it amazes me how many people slam their foot on the break when they aren't even near the speed limit all it takes is a split second and bang your in the back of someone.
I'd say you guys were driving too close to the car in front then now replace camera in your statement to a child and lady slams on her brakes and just avoids hitting the stunned child then you plough through the back of her because you were too close taking her out and the child wouldnt be ladies fault it would be yours
But if the woman stopped for no reason at all it would be hers. But I don't get were this fault comes into it. It's meant to be about road safety, not punishment and blame. If more accidents are happening now than before the camera was there then it's not safer. Simples really.
If you crash into another vehicle from behind the legal stance is that you are too close - end of discussion. Whether the car in frint stopped or braked for a reason you approve of is irrelevant
No not true hence why a lot of people have dash cams after the spare of people slamming on to get rear ended then them an all thier mates claiming whiplash
If you just slam on without reason and get rear ended because of it if they have a cam to show you had no reason you'll be the one fucked as you'll be prosecuted for dangerous driving..
If you were driving the correct distance away from the vehicle in front.... It wouldn't matter what the fuck they do, you'd stop before crashing into the back of them...... End off by law... Your dashcam proves nothing except your negligence for driving to close to the vehicle in front!
Nope, law is all based upon the belief of a reasonable person in the situation no reasonable person would expect a car to deliberately try to cause a crash and so you are not liable. The other person however is guilty of dangerous driving."
.
You can't see what the car in front can see and therefore you can't justify their breaking.
You should maintain a safe distance from them at all times for this reason!.
You cannot justify leaving a 15ft gap between you and the vehicle in front for any reason whatsoever.
And more to the point if you did leave the correct distance... The scammers would be out of business tomorrow, like all cons/scams it relies on your ability to be a bit of a tool at times |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm interested to know if the people who say they don't speed drive cars like a gee whiz which cannot go faster than 30mph? I know when I drive I sometimes don't even realise I'm going as fast as I am I often find myself slowing down because of this. . If you are having trouble sticking to speed limits , all you need do is to go on an advanced driving course and you will be trained to drive to both a high standard and to within the speed limits . All you need to stick to the speed limit is good discipline and the right attitude."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ait88Man
over a year ago
Plymouth |
"What kind of parents allow their children uncontrolled access to roads?
Why aren't they prosecuted when their child is run over?
You are quite possibly the most blindingly stupid person I have EVER come across. "
And the people who allow their children to be killed are the most intelligent?
You, and you alone, are responsible for the children you bring into this world. An awful lot is written about parents' rights, but sod-all is written about their responsibilities!
This country is a lunatic asylum, and the lunatics are running it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *UNKIEMan
over a year ago
south east |
"Driver education and training is the key.
So many times I see people doing 50 in a 60 limit, then suddenly brake when they're surprised by a bloody great big yellow pole with a box on top. They have no idea of the limit they're in, the speed they're doing or the impact of their driving on the cars behind them.
Speed alone does not kill, but it does contribute.
Inappropriate use of speed, poor observation, poor car control, poor awareness and poor planning are what kill.
70 mph in ideal conditions on the motorway is appropriate.
70 mph down my road in the dark and pissing rain, while lighting a fag and changing a cd is not appropriate.
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ait88Man
over a year ago
Plymouth |
"'What kind of parents allow their children uncontrolled access to roads?'
This idiotic argument was used by persistent road traffic offenders when I used to work with them after their court appearances. Unbelievable. Would you justify drink-driving? Speeding should be similarly unacceptable."
Please explain why the argument is "idiotic" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I was done some years ago on the M25 for 52 in a 40 limit in the variable speed section. I was convinced that the gantry limit was 60 so I asked for proof and got a picture of my car etc.. There were 5 other cars in the picture.
I called them and said it was 60 as i drove underneath the gantry. I asked what the delay was between the gantry speed sign changing and the speed camera operating at the new speed. It is instantaneous they said.  . "Of the other 5 cars in the picture with me how many were caught speeding?" I asked. "They all were" they said. Be aware folks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm interested to know if the people who say they don't speed drive cars like a gee whiz which cannot go faster than 30mph? I know when I drive I sometimes don't even realise I'm going as fast as I am I often find myself slowing down because of this. agree it is so easy to stray over 30 , but if people drive a lot you know you are driving a bit fast, answer is a talking speedometer that way your eyes not glued to speedo
It's one idea, but could that be considered a distraction if your car kept beeping or telling you how fast it was going. I think the best idea is a heads up display.
If you struggle to keep to 30 in a 30 limit, drive in third gear not 4th. The engine noise will alert you if your speed creeps above 30.
Hope that helps."
Increase engine wear and pollution and fuel consumption while you're at it. Very public spirited of you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"And all is fine right up until somone doing an "appropriate 70mph" moves out into the outside lane without taking into account the speed of traffic there.
Just remember
"But I was right"
Doesn't mean shit when it's carved on your headstone.
Which is precisely why I mentioned people who are not aware of what they are doing, not paying attention, not planning ahead.
And by your logic the accident is caused by the person obeying the speed limit, not the people exceeding it by 10 to 20mph?
If you're doing 90mph in the outside lane you'd better be taking even more care about what's going on around you.
Maybe realise that by doing 20mph over the limit you might be the major contributor.
If the car in front is doing 70 and so are you, if you've left the corect braking distance, your scenario will never happen.
So what causes the accident? Two things, one person obeying the limit but not paying attention, one disregarding the limit and not paying attention. Wake up.
Absolute genius to blame the person obeying the law and absolve all responsibility from the twat doing 90 and not watching what's going on ahead of him.
Can you let me know when you're next on the motorway, I'll stay home......
"
If speed was the cause of accidents then there would be more accidents on German motorways than anywhere else but there isn't, in fact it's lower than a lot of other European countries.
I agree with what you say about both drivers not paying enough attention. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If you have never sped, you're all complete whooses & don't deserve a license you cretins!
............. But OP it pays to continuously keep up communication with the feds; I.E keep replying to letters that you never actually received, - CONSTANTLY!!
This keeps them CONSTANTLY on their toes & insures that your 'case' will never be too far away from the 'too hard basket'!!!
Power to the people!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
Speed itself doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed kills. Driving at 50 MPH on a 70 MPH motorway is more likely to cause an accident than driving at 70 MPH.
With regard to people breaking at 'hidden' cameras, many people do this even though they aren't speeding... it's a natural reaction. However, we have a camera in a 50 zone not far from use, on a dual carriageway. I quite often see police cars driving toward it doing at least 70, and then braking just before the camera.
Here's a novel idea; get rid of speed cameras in towns giving people points and fines. Instead, still have the cameras, but linked to the next set of traffic lights. If someone speeds through the camera, then turn the traffic lights red. Have a secondary camera on the traffic light, if someone runs the light, it should be 6 points and a much larger fine.
Also, why not make all new cars with a black box in them that is linked to sensors by the road, so that cars can't do over the limit in built up areas? Over a period of time this will mean that all speed limits are adhered to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm interested to know if the people who say they don't speed drive cars like a gee whiz which cannot go faster than 30mph? I know when I drive I sometimes don't even realise I'm going as fast as I am I often find myself slowing down because of this. agree it is so easy to stray over 30 , but if people drive a lot you know you are driving a bit fast, answer is a talking speedometer that way your eyes not glued to speedo
It's one idea, but could that be considered a distraction if your car kept beeping or telling you how fast it was going. I think the best idea is a heads up display.
If you struggle to keep to 30 in a 30 limit, drive in third gear not 4th. The engine noise will alert you if your speed creeps above 30.
Hope that helps.
Increase engine wear and pollution and fuel consumption while you're at it. Very public spirited of you."
Driving in 3rd in a 30mph limit makes very little difference to engine wear. Dropping from fourth to third using the clutch uses more fuel than driving in 3rd. It also reduces wear and tear on the clutch, which costs much more to replace.
Any professional trained driver will confirm this.
Use your brakes to reduce your speed, not the gearbox. Match your speed to the gear and change. Block change if you need to.
No wear and tear on the clutch from multiple down changes. Have you listened to your engine when you use the clutch to slow you down? That's the sound of fuel being sucked through the carb and burnt, unused.
This increases fuel consumption much more than holding 30 in 3rd.
And really only highlights my earlier observation, more driver training and awareness required.
Go to the bottom of the class. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Speed itself doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed kills. Driving at 50 MPH on a 70 MPH motorway is more likely to cause an accident than driving at 70 MPH.
With regard to people breaking at 'hidden' cameras, many people do this even though they aren't speeding... it's a natural reaction. However, we have a camera in a 50 zone not far from use, on a dual carriageway. I quite often see police cars driving toward it doing at least 70, and then braking just before the camera.
Here's a novel idea; get rid of speed cameras in towns giving people points and fines. Instead, still have the cameras, but linked to the next set of traffic lights. If someone speeds through the camera, then turn the traffic lights red. Have a secondary camera on the traffic light, if someone runs the light, it should be 6 points and a much larger fine.
Also, why not make all new cars with a black box in them that is linked to sensors by the road, so that cars can't do over the limit in built up areas? Over a period of time this will mean that all speed limits are adhered to. "
They have a similar system to this in Portugal. When you reach a certain speed on some stretches of road, the traffic lights ahead of you, are activated and turn red.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And all is fine right up until somone doing an "appropriate 70mph" moves out into the outside lane without taking into account the speed of traffic there.
Just remember
"But I was right"
Doesn't mean shit when it's carved on your headstone.
Which is precisely why I mentioned people who are not aware of what they are doing, not paying attention, not planning ahead.
And by your logic the accident is caused by the person obeying the speed limit, not the people exceeding it by 10 to 20mph?
If you're doing 90mph in the outside lane you'd better be taking even more care about what's going on around you.
Maybe realise that by doing 20mph over the limit you might be the major contributor.
If the car in front is doing 70 and so are you, if you've left the corect braking distance, your scenario will never happen.
So what causes the accident? Two things, one person obeying the limit but not paying attention, one disregarding the limit and not paying attention. Wake up.
Absolute genius to blame the person obeying the law and absolve all responsibility from the twat doing 90 and not watching what's going on ahead of him.
Can you let me know when you're next on the motorway, I'll stay home......
"
Sorry but clearly you don't really do much motorway work the outside lane is nearly constantly at 80+ unless there's heavy traffic.
But sure I could sit in the middle and go "Yep right I'm doing my 70 our I go" and become a long red streak om the motorway for it because after all I was right and legal and that's all that matters?
You've been going on about advanced motoring and from the tone I'm guessing IAM not rspoa? (No sense in doing the hard one where you have to get regularly tested when you can do it once and Lord it over everyone for ever right?)
Well they should have taught you that it isn't about what's legal, stay within the law yes but don't be dumb enough to believe everyone is going to never expect people to be doing as they should and don't assume having right of way means you're going to get it.
But as for safety advanced riding courses teach me that it's often sensible to go around corners on the wrong side of the road, because I can see further same with stepping out to get a _iew around a large vehicle infront of me.
Are you going to go tell the police that they should be staying on the correct side of the road?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And all is fine right up until somone doing an "appropriate 70mph" moves out into the outside lane without taking into account the speed of traffic there.
Just remember
"But I was right"
Doesn't mean shit when it's carved on your headstone.
Which is precisely why I mentioned people who are not aware of what they are doing, not paying attention, not planning ahead.
And by your logic the accident is caused by the person obeying the speed limit, not the people exceeding it by 10 to 20mph?
If you're doing 90mph in the outside lane you'd better be taking even more care about what's going on around you.
Maybe realise that by doing 20mph over the limit you might be the major contributor.
If the car in front is doing 70 and so are you, if you've left the corect braking distance, your scenario will never happen.
So what causes the accident? Two things, one person obeying the limit but not paying attention, one disregarding the limit and not paying attention. Wake up.
Absolute genius to blame the person obeying the law and absolve all responsibility from the twat doing 90 and not watching what's going on ahead of him.
Can you let me know when you're next on the motorway, I'll stay home......
Sorry but clearly you don't really do much motorway work the outside lane is nearly constantly at 80+ unless there's heavy traffic.
But sure I could sit in the middle and go "Yep right I'm doing my 70 our I go" and become a long red streak om the motorway for it because after all I was right and legal and that's all that matters?
You've been going on about advanced motoring and from the tone I'm guessing IAM not rspoa? (No sense in doing the hard one where you have to get regularly tested when you can do it once and Lord it over everyone for ever right?)
Well they should have taught you that it isn't about what's legal, stay within the law yes but don't be dumb enough to believe everyone is going to never expect people to be doing as they should and don't assume having right of way means you're going to get it.
But as for safety advanced riding courses teach me that it's often sensible to go around corners on the wrong side of the road, because I can see further same with stepping out to get a _iew around a large vehicle infront of me.
Are you going to go tell the police that they should be staying on the correct side of the road?
"
I wouldn't normally get into a black dog discussion but as you asked a question about my driving;
Firstly, pursuit police are appropriately trained to use the road that's available to them. The key word there is trained. The training is also ongoing and their driving is regularly assessed.
Joe public is not.
I do in excess of 40,000 miles a year, the vast majority of it on the motorway.
How about you?
I am a professionaly trained and qualified level 1 driver, same as the motorway pursuit police.
How about you?
I teach defensive driving.
How about you?
I am authorised to carry out E and E procedures if required.
How about you?
I'm an IAM assessor.
How about you?
I have 9 ROSPA awards.
How about you?
I have an exemption.
How about you?
My driving is assessed and tested 3 times a year.
How about you?
You point is wholly invalid. Yes people to travel at 80+mph in the outside lane. That doesn't make it right and it means they are complicit in an accident.
No, it's not legal and the vast majority of them are woefully ill equipped to travel at that speed. I'd go as far to say lots of them are woefully ill equipped to be on a motorway at all.
Obey the speed limit.
Keep the correct braking distance.
Improve car control.
Improve observation.
Improve forward planning.
And nowhere did I say it was ok to sit at 70 in the middle lane.
The correct lane to drive in on a motorway is lane one. The rest of the lanes are for overtaking.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bfoxxxMan
over a year ago
Crete or LANCASTER |
Kerrrching!
KERRRCHING!
K E R R R C H I N G
Motorists are a cash cow.
Easy money.
Setting a mandatory limit as nothing to do with safety.
Try driving I Germany.
No max speed limit, No problem.
Speeding is just too easy to catch offenders.
They haven't got a camera for the brain dead in the middle lane brigade.
The texters.
The dim who have fog lights on in the daytime.
Idiot tailgaters.
Idiot cyclists with no lights.
Camouflaged pedestrians in country lanes at night.
Mums paying more attention to their kids antics than driving.
Incompetent Caravaners with a mile of traffic held up behind them.
Those who don't indicate.
Little boys who make too much noise - crap music,and ridiculous exhausts.
Why do you need to ride a horse on a road?
I am quite happy to drive at 20 in a 30 limit if I perceive a risk. Equally I'm happy to drive at 90 on a motorway when conditions allow.
Get a Barrister, mine not only got me off, but claimed my costs, result.
It cost me nothing, cost the Police thousands.
Police, and cameras aren't infallible.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And all is fine right up until somone doing an "appropriate 70mph" moves out into the outside lane without taking into account the speed of traffic there.
Just remember
"But I was right"
Doesn't mean shit when it's carved on your headstone.
Which is precisely why I mentioned people who are not aware of what they are doing, not paying attention, not planning ahead.
And by your logic the accident is caused by the person obeying the speed limit, not the people exceeding it by 10 to 20mph?
If you're doing 90mph in the outside lane you'd better be taking even more care about what's going on around you.
Maybe realise that by doing 20mph over the limit you might be the major contributor.
If the car in front is doing 70 and so are you, if you've left the corect braking distance, your scenario will never happen.
So what causes the accident? Two things, one person obeying the limit but not paying attention, one disregarding the limit and not paying attention. Wake up.
Absolute genius to blame the person obeying the law and absolve all responsibility from the twat doing 90 and not watching what's going on ahead of him.
Can you let me know when you're next on the motorway, I'll stay home......
Sorry but clearly you don't really do much motorway work the outside lane is nearly constantly at 80+ unless there's heavy traffic.
But sure I could sit in the middle and go "Yep right I'm doing my 70 our I go" and become a long red streak om the motorway for it because after all I was right and legal and that's all that matters?
You've been going on about advanced motoring and from the tone I'm guessing IAM not rspoa? (No sense in doing the hard one where you have to get regularly tested when you can do it once and Lord it over everyone for ever right?)
Well they should have taught you that it isn't about what's legal, stay within the law yes but don't be dumb enough to believe everyone is going to never expect people to be doing as they should and don't assume having right of way means you're going to get it.
But as for safety advanced riding courses teach me that it's often sensible to go around corners on the wrong side of the road, because I can see further same with stepping out to get a _iew around a large vehicle infront of me.
Are you going to go tell the police that they should be staying on the correct side of the road?
I wouldn't normally get into a black dog discussion but as you asked a question about my driving;
Firstly, pursuit police are appropriately trained to use the road that's available to them. The key word there is trained. The training is also ongoing and their driving is regularly assessed.
Joe public is not.
I do in excess of 40,000 miles a year, the vast majority of it on the motorway.
How about you?
I am a professionaly trained and qualified level 1 driver, same as the motorway pursuit police.
How about you?
I teach defensive driving.
How about you?
I am authorised to carry out E and E procedures if required.
How about you?
I'm an IAM assessor.
How about you?
I have 9 ROSPA awards.
How about you?
I have an exemption.
How about you?
My driving is assessed and tested 3 times a year.
How about you?
You point is wholly invalid. Yes people to travel at 80+mph in the outside lane. That doesn't make it right and it means they are complicit in an accident.
No, it's not legal and the vast majority of them are woefully ill equipped to travel at that speed. I'd go as far to say lots of them are woefully ill equipped to be on a motorway at all.
Obey the speed limit.
Keep the correct braking distance.
Improve car control.
Improve observation.
Improve forward planning.
And nowhere did I say it was ok to sit at 70 in the middle lane.
The correct lane to drive in on a motorway is lane one. The rest of the lanes are for overtaking.
"
I'm only 16k a year but on a bike where I've learned doing the legal and sensible thing isn't really the safest it gets you killed.
You don't sit in the DSA approved central position because you vanish, keep moving around (not lane weaving) always move to the point of maximum visibility as the movement hhe's you get seen as well as helping you see.
Always always filter, on the motorway if traffic slows below 50 lane split probably most organisations will not advise that at that speed but the amount of people texting and suddenly breaking when they don't realise traffic has slowed means having a car behind you either side keeps you safe.
And I didn't absolve the guy doing 90 I was pointing out what's legal isn't always what's safe.
Something like more than three quarters of motorcycle accidents are right of way violations.
People are going to kill you staring at your speedo to make sure your bang on 30 will cause more harm than keeping eyes open for an escape route when the guy tries to kill you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Kerrrching!
KERRRCHING!
K E R R R C H I N G
Motorists are a cash cow.
Easy money.
Setting a mandatory limit as nothing to do with safety.
Try driving I Germany.
No max speed limit, No problem.
Speeding is just too easy to catch offenders.
They haven't got a camera for the brain dead in the middle lane brigade.
The texters.
The dim who have fog lights on in the daytime.
Idiot tailgaters.
Idiot cyclists with no lights.
Camouflaged pedestrians in country lanes at night.
Mums paying more attention to their kids antics than driving.
Incompetent Caravaners with a mile of traffic held up behind them.
Those who don't indicate.
Little boys who make too much noise - crap music,and ridiculous exhausts.
Why do you need to ride a horse on a road?
I am quite happy to drive at 20 in a 30 limit if I perceive a risk. Equally I'm happy to drive at 90 on a motorway when conditions allow.
Get a Barrister, mine not only got me off, but claimed my costs, result.
It cost me nothing, cost the Police thousands.
Police, and cameras aren't infallible.
"
I'm going to agree with almost everything you said.
Just about everything you mentioned supports what I said earlier, better training and driver awareness are the key here.
I believe the test in Germany is quite different than here in the UK, more focused on driving ability and hazard perception than over here. Most likely due to the higher speed limits on the autobahn. They recognise that higher speed requires higher skills and teac/train accordingly.
I still find it wholly bizarre that we learn to drive trundling around town at 15mph in a one litre Corsa, pass a test and ten minutes later could be on a motorway in a bugatti veyron.
We don't teach people to drive, we teach them to pass a test.
Thankfully this is changing. More of the test is being geared up towards the IAM standard. This should be a minimum I think. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bfoxxxMan
over a year ago
Crete or LANCASTER |
"And all is fine right up until somone doing an "appropriate 70mph" moves out into the outside lane without taking into account the speed of traffic there.
Just remember
"But I was right"
Doesn't mean shit when it's carved on your headstone.
Which is precisely why I mentioned people who are not aware of what they are doing, not paying attention, not planning ahead.
And by your logic the accident is caused by the person obeying the speed limit, not the people exceeding it by 10 to 20mph?
If you're doing 90mph in the outside lane you'd better be taking even more care about what's going on around you.
Maybe realise that by doing 20mph over the limit you might be the major contributor.
If the car in front is doing 70 and so are you, if you've left the corect braking distance, your scenario will never happen.
So what causes the accident? Two things, one person obeying the limit but not paying attention, one disregarding the limit and not paying attention. Wake up.
Absolute genius to blame the person obeying the law and absolve all responsibility from the twat doing 90 and not watching what's going on ahead of him.
Can you let me know when you're next on the motorway, I'll stay home......
Sorry but clearly you don't really do much motorway work the outside lane is nearly constantly at 80+ unless there's heavy traffic.
But sure I could sit in the middle and go "Yep right I'm doing my 70 our I go" and become a long red streak om the motorway for it because after all I was right and legal and that's all that matters?
You've been going on about advanced motoring and from the tone I'm guessing IAM not rspoa? (No sense in doing the hard one where you have to get regularly tested when you can do it once and Lord it over everyone for ever right?)
Well they should have taught you that it isn't about what's legal, stay within the law yes but don't be dumb enough to believe everyone is going to never expect people to be doing as they should and don't assume having right of way means you're going to get it.
But as for safety advanced riding courses teach me that it's often sensible to go around corners on the wrong side of the road, because I can see further same with stepping out to get a _iew around a large vehicle infront of me.
Are you going to go tell the police that they should be staying on the correct side of the road?
I wouldn't normally get into a black dog discussion but as you asked a question about my driving;
Firstly, pursuit police are appropriately trained to use the road that's available to them. The key word there is trained. The training is also ongoing and their driving is regularly assessed.
Joe public is not.
I do in excess of 40,000 miles a year, the vast majority of it on the motorway.
How about you?
I am a professionaly trained and qualified level 1 driver, same as the motorway pursuit police.
How about you?
I teach defensive driving.
How about you?
I am authorised to carry out E and E procedures if required.
How about you?
I'm an IAM assessor.
How about you?
I have 9 ROSPA awards.
How about you?
I have an exemption.
How about you?
My driving is assessed and tested 3 times a year.
How about you?
You point is wholly invalid. Yes people to travel at 80+mph in the outside lane. That doesn't make it right and it means they are complicit in an accident.
No, it's not legal and the vast majority of them are woefully ill equipped to travel at that speed. I'd go as far to say lots of them are woefully ill equipped to be on a motorway at all.
Obey the speed limit.
Keep the correct braking distance.
Improve car control.
Improve observation.
Improve forward planning.
And nowhere did I say it was ok to sit at 70 in the middle lane.
The correct lane to drive in on a motorway is lane one. The rest of the lanes are for overtaking.
I'm only 16k a year but on a bike where I've learned doing the legal and sensible thing isn't really the safest it gets you killed.
You don't sit in the DSA approved central position because you vanish, keep moving around (not lane weaving) always move to the point of maximum visibility as the movement hhe's you get seen as well as helping you see.
Always always filter, on the motorway if traffic slows below 50 lane split probably most organisations will not advise that at that speed but the amount of people texting and suddenly breaking when they don't realise traffic has slowed means having a car behind you either side keeps you safe.
And I didn't absolve the guy doing 90 I was pointing out what's legal isn't always what's safe.
Something like more than three quarters of motorcycle accidents are right of way violations.
People are going to kill you staring at your speedo to make sure your bang on 3 0 will cause more harm than keeping eyes open for an escape route when the guy tries to kill you"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My 2 pence worth now.
For the argument of speed cameras causing accidents.… several years ago myself and the driver of our van were doing the stated 50mph on the A40 in Greenford heading towards B&Q when all of a sudden a woman slams her foot on the break because she suddenly sees the speed camera we narrowly missed rear ending her. I drive a lot and it amazes me how many people slam their foot on the break when they aren't even near the speed limit all it takes is a split second and bang your in the back of someone.
I'd say you guys were driving too close to the car in front then now replace camera in your statement to a child and lady slams on her brakes and just avoids hitting the stunned child then you plough through the back of her because you were too close taking her out and the child wouldnt be ladies fault it would be yours
But if the woman stopped for no reason at all it would be hers. But I don't get were this fault comes into it. It's meant to be about road safety, not punishment and blame. If more accidents are happening now than before the camera was there then it's not safer. Simples really.
If you crash into another vehicle from behind the legal stance is that you are too close - end of discussion. Whether the car in frint stopped or braked for a reason you approve of is irrelevant
No not true hence why a lot of people have dash cams after the spare of people slamming on to get rear ended then them an all thier mates claiming whiplash
If you just slam on without reason and get rear ended because of it if they have a cam to show you had no reason you'll be the one fucked as you'll be prosecuted for dangerous driving..
If you were driving the correct distance away from the vehicle in front.... It wouldn't matter what the fuck they do, you'd stop before crashing into the back of them...... End off by law... Your dashcam proves nothing except your negligence for driving to close to the vehicle in front!
Nope, law is all based upon the belief of a reasonable person in the situation no reasonable person would expect a car to deliberately try to cause a crash and so you are not liable. The other person however is guilty of dangerous driving."
. How could these be deemed to be dangerous driving . Assuming you are a competent driver , you will be leaving a safe distance between yourself and the vehicle in front . I.e. adhering to the two second rule . The only instance where I can think of where you might not be at fault would be if someone overtook you , cut in very sharply , and then braked . I once had van slam on his brakes at a roundabout in a road rage incident. I simply drove around him as I always leave a wide gap between myself and the vehicle in front.
K |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's not hard to know the limit on a road and of unsure er on the side of caution.
I've had speeding tickets nut never moan about them. My choice to speed my penalty to pay.
As for being revenue generators...they wouldn't generate revenue if people didn't speed. Easy way to stop lining their pockets.
I also think the cameras shouldn't be so identifiable.
"
Speed traps have been in europe for years . They used to set up a broken down car on the hard shoulder, with a radar gun . And the police would pull you in down the road , and fine you for their lunch money . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"And all is fine right up until somone doing an "appropriate 70mph" moves out into the outside lane without taking into account the speed of traffic there.
Just remember
"But I was right"
Doesn't mean shit when it's carved on your headstone.
Which is precisely why I mentioned people who are not aware of what they are doing, not paying attention, not planning ahead.
And by your logic the accident is caused by the person obeying the speed limit, not the people exceeding it by 10 to 20mph?
If you're doing 90mph in the outside lane you'd better be taking even more care about what's going on around you.
Maybe realise that by doing 20mph over the limit you might be the major contributor.
If the car in front is doing 70 and so are you, if you've left the corect braking distance, your scenario will never happen.
So what causes the accident? Two things, one person obeying the limit but not paying attention, one disregarding the limit and not paying attention. Wake up.
Absolute genius to blame the person obeying the law and absolve all responsibility from the twat doing 90 and not watching what's going on ahead of him.
Can you let me know when you're next on the motorway, I'll stay home......
Sorry but clearly you don't really do much motorway work the outside lane is nearly constantly at 80+ unless there's heavy traffic.
But sure I could sit in the middle and go "Yep right I'm doing my 70 our I go" and become a long red streak om the motorway for it because after all I was right and legal and that's all that matters?
You've been going on about advanced motoring and from the tone I'm guessing IAM not rspoa? (No sense in doing the hard one where you have to get regularly tested when you can do it once and Lord it over everyone for ever right?)
Well they should have taught you that it isn't about what's legal, stay within the law yes but don't be dumb enough to believe everyone is going to never expect people to be doing as they should and don't assume having right of way means you're going to get it.
But as for safety advanced riding courses teach me that it's often sensible to go around corners on the wrong side of the road, because I can see further same with stepping out to get a _iew around a large vehicle infront of me.
Are you going to go tell the police that they should be staying on the correct side of the road?
I wouldn't normally get into a black dog discussion but as you asked a question about my driving;
Firstly, pursuit police are appropriately trained to use the road that's available to them. The key word there is trained. The training is also ongoing and their driving is regularly assessed.
Joe public is not.
I do in excess of 40,000 miles a year, the vast majority of it on the motorway.
How about you?
I am a professionaly trained and qualified level 1 driver, same as the motorway pursuit police.
How about you?
I teach defensive driving.
How about you?
I am authorised to carry out E and E procedures if required.
How about you?
I'm an IAM assessor.
How about you?
I have 9 ROSPA awards.
How about you?
I have an exemption.
How about you?
My driving is assessed and tested 3 times a year.
How about you?
You point is wholly invalid. Yes people to travel at 80+mph in the outside lane. That doesn't make it right and it means they are complicit in an accident.
No, it's not legal and the vast majority of them are woefully ill equipped to travel at that speed. I'd go as far to say lots of them are woefully ill equipped to be on a motorway at all.
Obey the speed limit.
Keep the correct braking distance.
Improve car control.
Improve observation.
Improve forward planning.
And nowhere did I say it was ok to sit at 70 in the middle lane.
The correct lane to drive in on a motorway is lane one. The rest of the lanes are for overtaking.
I'm only 16k a year but on a bike where I've learned doing the legal and sensible thing isn't really the safest it gets you killed.
You don't sit in the DSA approved central position because you vanish, keep moving around (not lane weaving) always move to the point of maximum visibility as the movement hhe's you get seen as well as helping you see.
Always always filter, on the motorway if traffic slows below 50 lane split probably most organisations will not advise that at that speed but the amount of people texting and suddenly breaking when they don't realise traffic has slowed means having a car behind you either side keeps you safe.
And I didn't absolve the guy doing 90 I was pointing out what's legal isn't always what's safe.
Something like more than three quarters of motorcycle accidents are right of way violations.
People are going to kill you staring at your speedo to make sure your bang on 30 will cause more harm than keeping eyes open for an escape route when the guy tries to kill you"
I genuinly feel sorry for people who ride bikes. I stopped riding years ago and did think about getting another one a while ago. But the poor standard of driving awareness put me off.
It sounds like you've taken some additional training that's improved your awareness and skill.
Bloody good for you, I wish all road users would. There'd be less accidents and speed/safety cameras would be superfluous.
Now, don't get me started on cyclists......... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I've been in the motor trade for a long time and I feel there should be a small choice of cars available to under 21s that can't exceed 60 miles per hour that will reduce the insurance premium and hopefully produce safer drivers for the future. Not all young drivers are haphazard but it would be a great benchmark.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Well this has been the most fascinating thread of the morning...
Some worrying comments but thankfully most seem to get that being aware of your surroundings, not tailgating and driving to the conditions and speed limit equals far less likely to have a problem.
As Cal says when he's on his bike... Assume everyone is out to kill you!
I've never had a speeding ticket and rarely speed but have had minor accidents. The accidents were my fault for not concentrating properly... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"ive been told that if you ride a motorbike and don't ride over the lines a speed cam cant calculate your speed"
I think you'll find this is totally wrong. often, the index marks are at the edge of the carriageway anyway, so not even cars drive over them.
Using phase doppler and standard displacement equations, the software calculates your speed automatically. The index marks are used as a secondary calculation made by hand, in order to corroborate the software calculation by the camera. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andS66Couple
over a year ago
Derby |
"Speed itself doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed kills. Driving at 50 MPH on a 70 MPH motorway is more likely to cause an accident than driving at 70 MPH.
With regard to people breaking at 'hidden' cameras, many people do this even though they aren't speeding... it's a natural reaction. However, we have a camera in a 50 zone not far from use, on a dual carriageway. I quite often see police cars driving toward it doing at least 70, and then braking just before the camera.
Here's a novel idea; get rid of speed cameras in towns giving people points and fines. Instead, still have the cameras, but linked to the next set of traffic lights. If someone speeds through the camera, then turn the traffic lights red. Have a secondary camera on the traffic light, if someone runs the light, it should be 6 points and a much larger fine.
Also, why not make all new cars with a black box in them that is linked to sensors by the road, so that cars can't do over the limit in built up areas? Over a period of time this will mean that all speed limits are adhered to.
They have a similar system to this in Portugal. When you reach a certain speed on some stretches of road, the traffic lights ahead of you, are activated and turn red.
"
Yes, that's where I've seen it, and it works, doesn't it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My 2 pence worth now.
For the argument of speed cameras causing accidents.… several years ago myself and the driver of our van were doing the stated 50mph on the A40 in Greenford heading towards B&Q when all of a sudden a woman slams her foot on the break because she suddenly sees the speed camera we narrowly missed rear ending her. I drive a lot and it amazes me how many people slam their foot on the break when they aren't even near the speed limit all it takes is a split second and bang your in the back of someone.
I'd say you guys were driving too close to the car in front then now replace camera in your statement to a child and lady slams on her brakes and just avoids hitting the stunned child then you plough through the back of her because you were too close taking her out and the child wouldnt be ladies fault it would be yours "
1 you weren't there so how would you know? 2 we were a safe distance. 3 what would a child be doing walking across a motor road? If we were on a 30/20 limited rods chances are we would have stopped as we were doing speed limit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
