Conference terri::cars_uk

    From today's "Daily Telegraph" on the Duke of Westminster's conviction
    yesterday for speeding at 106mph on the M5 in Gloucestershire.
    
    ".... Mr Patrick Upward, defending, said "He wanted to get home
    with a view to going to a commitment with the Queen's Own Yeomanry
    in Newcastle the following day."
    
    "He does not claim to be any different from any other defendant
    appearing before this court on matters such as this.""
    
    
    
    In my view, the second paragraph only confirms the first and
    vice-versa!

    Fined #120 and banned from driving for 14 days.
    
    The article also says, out of interest:
    
    "The Duke's fortune is estimated at #3 billion, second in Britain
    only to the Queen .... City sources say that the Duke's total wealth
    could earn him around #14 a second if invested, allowing his fine
    to be paid during 18.5 seconds of his court appearance."
    
    * It's just as well he didn't appear before Basingstoke Magistrates,
    isn't it?!!!! *
    

I had sat at the terminal thinking of unbelievable things to put in my firsat
reaction reply to .120 ....... but what's the point?

For comparison, M.D. of local company fined #150 and banned for 3 months for
doing 60 in 40 limit (countryside road!) and lost his plea that he needed
his car to keep his business going.  I think the business  folded and 7
people lost their livelihood.

makes me sick.

None of my aquaintences in the police like the way that the Upper Crust (can't
think of a better term right now) get away with speeding (remember Mark 
Phillips last year?).

The North report recommended fines in line with income and compulsary 
retraining for motoring offences.  North makes the point that money fines are 
treated by some as additional road tax, so compulsary training makes more of an
impact on rich recidivists (even royal rich recidivists).

Dave

It's a pity speeding isn't made a criminal offence - then you could quote
"precedent" in defence!

>It's a pity speeding isn't made a criminal offence - then you could quote
>"precedent" in defence!


	Yes, I see your point. But I'm sure many noters here, myself included,
	would now have criminal records if the above was the case. How about
	another solution !

	Gordon

    IMHO, the only motoring offences should be dangerous driving, and
    driving without due care and attention. After all, we all know of
    roads with (say) a thirty limit, which are criminally lethat at
    specific times at walking pace, and the same roads at other times
    as safe as the Bamk of England at 70. By the same token, the M4
    is limited at 70, and is used habitually at 90, without undue danger,
    but at times 10 would be insane.
    
    So, why not do away with speed limits? Put in place advisory limits,
    and thus the onus would be on a driver to justify why his speed
    was safe if an incident occurrs over that speed. Something like
    the electronic signs on Motorways should do it.
    
    If a driver cannot demonstrate that his speed is safe at higher
    speeds than the signs, he has to be guilty of one of the two possible
    offences.
    
    Steve

    Re: .126
    
    I agree totally!
    
    It mite be hard to implement, but lets face it - a speed limit is
    someone elses interpretation of "maximum safe speed" at some given
    point in time. The REAL issue is whether a speed is dangerous for
    a GIVEN stretch of road, at a GIVEN point in time, under GIVEN road
    conditions for a GIVEN vehicle. Thus DANGEROUS DRIVING would apply
    under the RIGHT circumstances.
    
    Proving it is more difficult. It is SO EASY to clock someone at
    a given speed and prosecute (eg 80 mph on an empty motorway), yet
    SO DIFFICULT to prove it was dangerous (apart from the speed).
    
    I really CAN'T BELIEVE that in 100 years time we still will have such
    pathetic speed limits on motorways, but with the current way the
    law works, it will remain so forever!
    
    mb

>>    point in time. The REAL issue is whether a speed is dangerous for
>>   a GIVEN stretch of road, at a GIVEN point in time, under GIVEN road

	I thought this is why we have speed limits, so that there is no 
	  interpretation of what is safe and what isn't.

	Driving a Seria Cossie 4wd round the back roads would a fair bit safer
	 than I do at present with my 205D. (at similar speeds)

>>    conditions for a GIVEN vehicle. Thus DANGEROUS DRIVING would apply
>>    under the RIGHT circumstances.

	What are right conditions ??

	I would like to see more tighter controls of the speed limit.
	People seem to think it wrong, or just bad luck,
	   getting caught doing 80 on a motorway.
	Why?? The law is quite clear on speed limits. If there were more 
	  traffic police, with backup from the courts, I am quite sure
	  peoples driving habits would change for the better. They already
	  have done through the drink-driving campaign, so why not a speed 
	  campaign ??

	

       According to the local news on TV last night, Hampshire police are
       already mounting a speed campaign, at least for selected streches
       of motorway. 

       They no longer stop drivers for speeding, they merely take the
       car's registration number, and follow up with a prosecution later,
       at the owner's home. They've already had 1000 convictions on the
       M27, and are now using the same method on the M3 roadworks near
       Winchester.

       Ian.

    Re: .128
    
> Driving a Seria Cossie 4wd round the back roads would a fair bit safer
> than I do at present with my 205D. (at similar speeds)
    
    Precisely, thus SPEED is not necessarily a DANGER, the RISK is
    determined by conditions - ROAD, TRAFFIC, CAR etc.
    
> What are right conditions ??
    
    That is the difficult bit!
    
    Driving at 65mph on the motorway is NOT breaking the speed limit,
    thus in the eyes of the (simple) law, totally legal.
    
    Driving at 65mph, 12 inches behind the car in front IS VERY DANGEROUS,
    but in a court of law it is difficult to prove (if it even gets
    to court!!!).
                                         
    The law thus takes the EASY way out, and books people for exceeding
    some simple numerical value. It cannot easily give a "severity"
    to driving style, thus only prosecutes in very serious cases (and
    usually only as an addition to another offence!).
    
    
    The FACT is that MOST driver SUBSTANTIALLY exceed the speed limit
    on open roads, especially motorways. Some exceed the speed limit on
    more urban (thus dangerous) roads.
    
    Having clampdowns on speeding only p*sses off drivers, and increases
    the workload on the courts. Why can't someone open their eyes and
    see that drivers go as fast as they FEEL is safe. What is needed
    is more education to show drivers what ACTUALLY IS SAFE!!!!
    
    I was nicked for speeding under PERFECTLY SAFE CONDITIONS (imho)
    and what is worse is that they clocked me going 12mph faster than
    i was actually going. I was a danger to nobody, yet i was punished!
    
    The w*nkers who pull out without indicating or even looking, the
    outside and centre lane hoggers, the unstable vehicle drivers very
    rarely get punished.
    
    Whats a fine for a single bald tyre? - a few quid and a few points
    - YET this is INFINITELY more dangerous than the guy doing 100mph
    on a clear day in his Porsche!
         
    You mentioned drink-driving, but as i have mentioned before, those
    who are a real threat to safely can be spotted a mile off - DANGEROUS
    DRIVING!!! There should be no need for random breath tests, just
    stop those cars who are driving dangerously!!!!
    
    
    Isn't life simple in the world of VAXnotes ;^) !!!
    
    
    mb

    I have two points to add to this interesting debate :
    
    1. I agree that speed, in itself, is not the problem many people seem
    to think it is (except when you hit something hard). Accidents are
    caused more by ignorance/carelessness/downright stupidity than speed
    (as explained by the fact that some 75% of accidents occur within 3
    miles of the starting place). Speed traps are a fairly convenient way
    of reminding a few "unfortunates" (I've been caught a couple of time,
    too, many years ago but I would tend to call them "idiots"!) that the
    limits are enforced, though not always in a uniform manner.
    
    2. I think what is needed is a MUCH higher profile from the police to
    catch and prosecute ALL drivers doing STUPID/DANGEROUS manoevres. There
    are not many trucks caught speeding on our motorways but a lot of them
    sure do some dangerous manoevres (eg pulling out with no warning
    whatsoever after they have been tailgating the truck in front for the
    last 15 miles).
    
    
    	It works very well in Holland, where the Polizie drive white Targa
    Porsches while wearing white uniforms and orange crash-hats. They will
    often pull someone over for a dangerous manoevre (rather than sheer
    speed) and on-the-spot fines are quite common. Quite often they will
    simply give you a very polite dressing down which is reputed to leave
    you with a warm, wet feeling in your pants. 
    
    	Our M-way police seem to try to "hide" in the inside lane (usually
    travelling at 60 mph) with the seemingly sole purpose of catching the
    odd 90 mph+ victim. Why don't they use tannoys to "advise" people to
    move over into the vacant nearside lane where appropriate, pull them
    over and berate them for driving too close to the car in front, fine
    them on  the spot for a particularly dangerous piece of driving. I am
    sure that on-the-spot fines would surely pay for the increased
    presence.
    
    	I am also for encouraging people, through reduced insurance
    premiums, etc, to join one of the advanced driving institutions. In
    fact, why should this not be compulsary? It may require that "active
    duty" police officers be available to carry out testing dutues but this
    must surely be a good thing if it makes more effective use of their
    time.
    
    	I think the problems we encounter today on the roads are all
    solvable if the Government would get up off its collective backside and
    instigate some worthwhile programmes in conjunction with our
    continental friends.
    
    Colin
    for 

Re .130
>> Driving a Seria Cossie 4wd round the back roads would a fair bit safer
>> than I do at present with my 205D. (at similar speeds)
>    
>    Precisely, thus SPEED is not necessarily a DANGER, the RISK is
>    determined by conditions - ROAD, TRAFFIC, CAR etc.
 
And what about pedestrians?

I got the shock of my life a few weeks sgo when I was driving along an open,
although twisty, country road (the A82 alongside Loch Lomond for those who
know it) at night.  *I* was in perfect control.  The car was handling like
a dream, even if it is a Volvo. Then I came round a gentle bend to be confronted
with two pedestrians wobbling their way home from the local hostelry.  There
was a great deal of traffic coming the other way just at that point and if the
pedestrians had not had the presence of mind to dive into the hedge, I would
probably be in court by now.

What speed was I doing?		20 MPH!!!   On an unrestricted major road!!!

Was that a dangerous speed for those conditions?  On the surface, no, but I
was almost proved wrong.

Abolishing speed limits altogether is the most crassly stupid idea I've heard
proposed in this conference for a long time (apart from pouring petrol into a
carburettor!).  There will never be two magistrates who will agree on what
constitutes a danger under specific conditions - darn it, they can't even
agree on the sentence for rape!

The 70 limit for motorways and dual carriageways should be kept and enforced
more rigorously.  The 60 limit on good A-roads is OK if the road is good
enough for it.  I would like to see a maximum of 50 on all other roads.  Any
area of 40 in towns is too fast these days and they should all be reduced
to 30.  In town centres, there should be a new speed limit of 20, if only
to slow the busses down.

Enjoy the scenery (or what's left of it before the famers destroy it :-) 

Brian

>>If you were correctly positioned on the road ( i.e. on the wrong the side)


Didn't I just say there was traffic coming the other way???????

Reading seems to have many roads with speed bumps in the road; I don't like
them BUT they do seem to work in keeping the speed of traffic down. And since 
these tend to be on roads near schools I think that they would have a major 
on the safety of those roads.

...art

    
    Oh, come on Derek - Who said it was a left hand bend? Would you really
    approach a Blind (I think we can deduce it was a blind bend) left hand
    bend from the far right of the road? If you do, then all you'll get is
    an earlier view of the car thats going to hit you! 
    
    If you're interested, the general concensus is that you should only use
    the full width of the road for positioning / cornering when you can see
    that the road is clear, and going to remain clear, of opposing traffic.
              
    Bi||.

This is interesting. I was involved in an accident a couple of years ago with
a Jeep coming the other way round a blind left hander. Looking at the corner,
I realised that there was nothing I could have done to avoid the accident.

Travelling at 5 mph all the while would not have avoided the accident, and would
have a considerable effect on journey time!

Sometimes, I find that using more of the rhs of the road helps visibility, but
if visibility is good, then I will stick to the lhs.

Mark.

    
    As you quite rightly say, approaching a blind left hander on the
    wrong side of the road does give you a better view through the
    bend - you may think this allows you to approach it faster.
    
    The problem is that you'll be travelling too quickly when you see
    the fast car coming the other way (ever imagined that you were
    going to meet a similar driver coming the other way?). As soon as
    the opposing driver sees you on his side of the road, he or she will
    probably react to the brakes or steer toward the hedges - technically,
    at this point you've broken the law. At best, you've woken them up
    and given them quite a shock.
    
    You, meanwhile, may be perfectly in control but you have to "turn
    harder and/or brake and so avoid the obstacle". Essentially, its
    anyone's guess which way you'll be pointing when you come to rest.
    
    Ever wondered why they sometimes paint double white lines down the
    middle of the road before blind bends?
    
    Bi|| (incidentally, I'd love a seat in the 23 sometime... - which
    driving course will you take?)
    
    

The end of reply .140 was interesting to me as a pilot as one of the things
most of the instructors round here have noted is that in single engined
aircraft you have a much better chance of surviving a crash than in a multi.
Reason?  You can't go as fast in a single! (Unless it's a racing special,
in which case "23" rules may apply :-) ).  Of course, singles generally
have better glide characteristics too, and they are all subject to catasrophic
failure.

Of course, even single-engined aeroplane pilots and passengers have been killed
because they flew in to hillsides blindly.

    
    Another side to the arguement - how fast do the other road users
    _expect_ another vehicle to be travelling.
    
    ie, they see another car coming but judge it's speed according to
    assumtions of how fast it _should_ be going, eg, on the German Autobahns
    you know that the dot behind you in the distance may be doing 120+mph, 
    and you drive accordingly - in this country you would not expect anyone
    to be doing more than 90mph on the motorway.
    
    Elaine

    
    Derek,
    	Take it from personal experience that driving round a corner
    on the wrong side of the road is one of the easier ways to start
    claiming on the PHI.  ;-)
    
    Depends how wide the road is but...
    
    What must the driver coming the other way think when he sees some
    idiot careering from one side of the road to the other ?  I would
    think you were drunk. (and if it were a police car coming, then
    you may have problems)
    
    Nigel 

Of course, we could all put balloon tyres on our cars and Derek could drive
underneath us all!

    I have been out, and am catching up!
    
    Re .128
    
    One of the problems about speeding law is that drivers do not believe
    that they are realistic. Drink driving has an effect because it
    is generally seen as dangerous, whereas several people in this
    discussion seem to agree that arbitrary speed limits do not necessarily
    make for safer driving. Even the protagonists of speed limits cannot
    agree on the correct level.
    
    Re .129
    
    If Hants Police spot a speeder, if they are dangerous, why don't
    they pull them over and stop them doing it? If the speeder is not
    dangerous, what is the point of prosecuting?
    
    Re .140 and others.
    
    Speed does not kill. Hitting people kills. The trick is to produce
    driver discipline and behaviours which prevents the hitting people.
    I do not believe arbitrary speed limits does this. It is merely
    easy for the Police to produce lots of prosecutions.
    
    Steve

    In Overton (nr Basingstoke), they have recently installed traffic
    lights at a notorious junction.  Prior to the lights themselves being
    installed, I noticed that workmen had cut two or three "boxes" in the
    road surface (spaced approx 25 feet apart) before each light position.
    
    These boxes were made with a cutting tool, wires laid in the road, and
    the boxes sealed with hot tar.  On closer inspection, the wires lead to
    a junction box in the pavement and eventually to the traffic lights
    themselves.
    
    Now, logic tells me that these control the synchronisation of the
    lights - ie, dependent upon how much traffic is queued up on a red
    light dictates when it changes to green and so forth (see additional
    note at end of this entry).  
    
    Perhaps I'm a bit slow off the mark here, and doubtless someone will
    rush to tell me so, but I've also noticed these "boxes" on stretches of
    open carriageway (A34, A303, M3 as examples).  Am I right in thinking
    that these are being used as permanent speed traps by measuring a
    vehicle's speed and transmitting the information to a nearby police car
    or something?  
    
    Everyone's seen the white blobs on main roads, but has everyone seen
    these boxes?
    
    Back to the traffic lights, at Tesco's in Andover, there has been a
    great hoo-ha of late about new traffic lights on the A343 near the
    store with people complaining how long it takes for a particular filter
    light to change to green.  A spokesman for Hampshire CC said in the
    "Andover Advertiser" that it is important for the motorist to move
    right up to the white line when the light is displaying red, as doing
    this will trigger the light to change to green.
    
    This must mean that the "box" in the road controls this functionality?
    Any comments?
    

>    This must mean that the "box" in the road controls this functionality?
>    Any comments?
    
That's been around for a long time, along with light sensors on many traffic 
lights.  Try approaching an empty junction at night when the lights are red and
switching on full beam for a few seconds...

>><<< Note 306.148 by SHIPS::ALFORD_J "an elephant is a mouse with an oper. sys." >>>

>>>    This must mean that the "box" in the road controls this functionality?
>>>    Any comments?
    
>>That's been around for a long time, along with light sensors on many traffic 
>>lights.  Try approaching an empty junction at night when the lights are red and
>>switching on full beam for a few seconds...

    RE the box's on the top of the lights.
    Most of these are now motion sensors similar to the type that are used
    on automatic doors (microwave I think)
    
    Re the buried wires.
    They've been in use a decade or more. They are suppose to influence the
    sequencing. 
    1 they are usually placed further back than the white line, so you
    don't HAVE to park on it.
    2 sometimes they are placed very far back (like several hundreds of
    yards) when it's a fast road.
    
    
    Richard

>    IN Liverpool the emergency services have transmitters which can 
>    automatically turn the lights to favour them.

    Bath has had emergency vehicle light control for years.
    
    On the subject of wire detector loops - anyone else remember the rubber
    pads they replaced?
    
    Jeff.

Reading Fire Service have a system whereby they can set all the lights along
any route through Reading to favour them.

So if you find all the lights in your favour one day, be wary of a fire engine
steaming up behind you!

Scott

    Yuppie::fox,
    
    Traffic lights in Overton?  .. Presume outside the White Hart pub?
    Seen many accidents in the 11 years I lived there... remember car
    being hit on all sides ending up inside the post office!

    RE: Traffic light controllers.
    
    There used to be one of these things near where I live that actually
    had three buttons on, one for red, one for Amber and one for Green.
    
    Very handy indeed...
    
    ..Craig

    Re .156
    
    Yep!  The traders are up in arms because the lights are stopping people
    from parking (they say), whilst the motorists, generally I believe,
    approve of the change, I certainly do.
    

    Hi John,
    
    So they opted for traffic lights...I knew there was a debate as to
    whether to put in a roundabout or traffic lights, but as I haven't been
    out that way for eons I didn't know what had been done, does it make
    much of difference..?? eg: journey time/traffic congestion
    
    Paul

    
    
    As an Overton resident, I'm well pleased by the addition of the lights
    to the junction. 
    
    It means I can get onto the main road from Winchester Street without
    having to wait for the rush-hour to finish ! :^)

    This seemed the nearest note...
    R4 this morning reported the start of an MoT campaign to reduce
    pedestrian accidents.
    Did you know that 45,000 children are killed and injured on British
    roads each year? In a collision between car and child at 20 mph 1 in 20
    (may have been 40) are killed at 40mph it is almost 1in1. The emphasis
    was stated to be speed reduction in residential areas, coupled with
    20mph zones around schools and traffic calming measures.
    
    Andrew

Re: .161

A couple of things bug me about government statistics like this (no offence
to yourself though Andrew).

Firstly to bundle children being KILLED in with children being INJURED is
a cheap way of making big numbers (like the 45,000). I bet that some of the
kids only suffered scraped knees and the like - and you name me one child
who has never falled over and done that!

Secondly, the statistics imply that cars drive at EXACTLY 20, or 30 or 40mph,
and never vary their speed. If a child runs out in front of a car, almost
every driver will hit the brakes, and thus their speed at impact will be less
than, or even MUCH less than, their original speed. It is true that the driver
doing 20mph will cause much less damage (if any, 'cos he could probably STOP
if he/she was going at that speed), but let us not take all these statistics
as gospel (like Highway Code stopping distances).

mb

    re .-1 
    
    No offence but there is no 'cheap' way to quote child accident
    statistics!    Okay, so they change their figures and say (e.g.)
    487 children killed in 1991,   does that make it easier to swallow?
    
    It Shouldn't do.    
    
    The DOT are making a laudable effort at reducing accidents invovling
    children, and as far as I'm concerned they can use every gimmick and
    scare tactic in the book, as long as it has the desired effect.
    
    Huw. 

    
    So we say 487 isn't acceptable? Is 1?
    
    Sensationalist statistics (anyone remember the Gulf War oil slick which
    would take 25 years to clear up?) do nothing to help a genuine cause.
    
    The DOT are spending MILLIONS on an advertising campaign, which could
    surely be spent more wisely (such as on speed bumps outside schools or 
    on more education of children on the dangers of crossing the road).
    
    Of course, it's hard to satisfy everyone, but presenting sensible facts
    is much better than sensationalising the issue. Maybe 487 wouldn't be
    easier to swallow, but perhaps easier to comprehend?
    
    I have a friend who probably didn't give any more thought to his drive
    past a school everyday than anyone else does, until one day a young boy
    ran straight out into his path (EVERYONE said he couldn't have done
    anything to avoid the boy). Fortunately the child was only shaken, but
    I'd never seen anyone as shocked as my friend was that day at work.
    My point is that that one case was easy to relate to. I could have been
    my friend, but figures like 45,000 are just too immense to make an
    impact on the individual - almost as if to say that many thousands will 
    be killed or injured, how can one driver affect that?
    
    Mark

    
    While I aggree that needless accidents can be avoided, and the car
    driver can do something about that ie: don't do 60 in a 30 limit past a
    school, I wouldn't put anymore that 50% of the blame on car drivers. Ok
    sure someone could quote that in this area this happens blah,blah. But
    what would be more intresting with the statistics is where the numbers
    relate to. It probably goes without saying that 75% or more are in urban
    area's, and more intresting would be how many are where unsupervised
    children have run out infront of a car. Not to get away from that fact
    that people do do silly speeds in the most stupid of places and drive
    in the most diabolical ways. But I have seen it time and time again
    where unsupervised children run out into the road and get knocked down.
    
    
    Bad drivers should pay the penalty for thier actions but I don't think 
    that in the case of children getting knocked down the car driver can be
    blamed all the time. Parents have a responsibility too!!!!! Why not
    bring back adverts like the Green Cross Code and the ones where an
    unsupervised child runs out into the road. Maybe then some of these
    accidents would not happen.
    
    
    Garry 

    I enjoy driving fast.  I am also quite happy to keep to urban speed
    limits, since they serve an obvious function (national limit is not
    of such clear purpose).
    
    I would welcome moves to impose 20mph speed limits in residential
    areas (eg, housing estates) and outside schools.  I would also like
    to see consideration to allowing traffic to go faster on 'open' roads
    where conditions dictate.
    
    Don't they have all sorts of 'chicanes', speed bumps, etc in Germany
    in built-up areas ?  Where they also have no-limits autobahns ?
    That seems to be the right idea.
    
    Even if we only implement the restrictive parts of this, then fine.
    
    Improving road safety is a good thing.  Justifying the money that it
    costs is always going to be awkward, hence the use of 'shock statistics'.
    
    J.R.

    In some parts of Leeds there speed control ramps on residential roads
    commonly used as short cuts. These roads have a speed limit of 20mph (I
    think), but even at this speed it feels like hitting a brick wall.
    Certainly seem to be effective.
    
    Clive

    
    Do they not also have simular things in London. I know that in
    Greenwich/Blackheath where I live they have width restricters which
    have the same deterent effect as speed bumps in slowing traffic down.
    
    Garry,
    Who has to drive an extra 2 miles to get home cos his Diablo wont go
    through these bloody things.
    

    How do you implement a speed limit around a school.....offending
    drivers are always gonna say "the speed limit doesnt start till over
    there...I hit the child here !!"
    
    Those speed bumps are all well and good but my car which is VERY close
    to the ground (spitty), scrapes along the top of the bump on some of
    the ones in Lower Earley. Should I have to change my car......or
    perhaps I should be forced to change where I live ??
    
    Barry
    

    Maybe the powers that be should divert their investment in persecuting
    drivers on the safest roads in Britain, motorways, and spend some time
    clamping down in the areas where speeding matters most, towns.
    
    Laurie.

    One of the (few) good things about drivers in the U.S. is that they
    tend to be sensible going past schools. In most states there are 20 mph
    speed limits in "school zones" (signs tell you where these start and
    end, and often there are flashing lights to tell you when the limit is
    operating). 
    
    Drivers usually obey these limits. This could be partly because of
    enforcement - a few years ago when I was working at Spitbrook my drive
    to work was past a school (Camp Sargeant Road, Merrimack). At least one
    morning a week there was a radar trap enforcing the 20 mph limit (and
    they mean 20, not 25-ish).
    
    Speed bumps are certainly another way to "enforce" such limits - the
    news yesterday gave quite a bit of coverage to various schemes in
    Oxfordshire (where I live).
    
    Dave.

Advertising these things doesn't help much.

The only way to ensure these things is speed traps and
speed bumps. To pay for this, we should divert more police 
from the motorways to urban areas, where there are pedestrians

Mark.

    One other way to slow down traffic in certain areas would be to put up
    Width restricters... at least this way, none of the low-on-the-ground
    car drivers would be worried

    Rather than have speed bumps (my Frogeye is allergic to those too), why
    not a series of 'bumps' no more than an inch or so high, but so many of
    them that it makes driving in excess of 20mph extremely uncomfortable.
    Sort of cobbled road effect, but worse.
    
    Laurie.

    Along the Esplanade in Ayr they have had to reduce the width of the
    road after the introduction of speed bumps did not have the desired
    effect. The drivers who had been speeding (mainly 'boy-racers') had
    actually been speeding up to the bumps for effect - I'm not sure they'd
    be much left of their suspension but that's what they were doing.
    
    The idea of having a series of bumps instead seems one of the best
    ideas. They have that in the entrance to the Tesco supermarket, and it
    really works ! It feels like your going across a cattle grid (now's
    there's another idea).
    
    dave.
    

The road into Newbury Leisure Centre uses long speed bumps (a cars lenght). 
These should not cause low cars to ground but are effective. Judging from marks
 in the road, going over too fast does cause the front to ground.

Short speed bumps suffer from the problem identified in -1. Taken at speed,
only the wheels go up and down, not the car body. This defeats the object. With
the longer speed bumps (more humps) this does not happen. Rather the whole car
goes up and down.

	Dave

    
    Re Cattle grids.
    
    The best way to take a cattle grid is FAST! They're designed to keep
    hooved animals out (or in), not to slow cars.
    
    Mark

    How about gravel beds?
    
    Laurie ;^)

    Speed bumps are a pain in the a@#$. Why ? Because they inconvenience
    everybody, even the driver conscientiously obeying the 20mph (or
    whatever) limit.
    
    I wonder what the chances would be of claiming compensation for any
    damaged caused by them to the car (or bike) of someone travelling
    within the legal limit ?
    
    I would much prefer any of the following:-
    
    - Width restrictions/chicanes.
    - Banning parents parking cars by schools in such a position that they
      obstruct the visibilty of drivers / children to each other.
    - Radar guns.
    - Re-introduction of "lollipop ladies/men" were they have been stopped
      due to funding cutbacks.
    - Perhaps even school buses, or if the children live near enough
      persuade the parents (with an electric cattle prod if necessary) to  
      get out of their volvo's and WALK with them to school, now thats a
      novel idea :-)
    
    Stevie.

    I agree.........speed bumps really are a pain and there MUST be a
    better way of stopping excessively fast/dangerous drivers !!
    
    Barry
    (speed bump paranoid spitty owner )
    

... of course, most of the problem is that schools are always directly beside
some road, with nowhere for parents to drops kids off.

It is about time that "whoever" recognised that MOST adults have cars, and
that schools (like cinemas, supermarkets etc) need proper vehicular access.

The REAL problem around most schools is not the "through traffic", but all
those parked parents jamming the road and pulling in and out without due
care and consideration for other road users!

mb

Re :.-1

Well said Martin,

Make 'em walk is what I say!  I had to,  we didn't have a car for my mother..... 
(sob sob .... violins....)

_Richard

    
    Just got done for 152 kph in a 120 kph limit. Mr. Simpson informs me
    that I might be walking for a month ...
    
    Good job they didn't catch me at 280 kph last weekend :-)

    Where in the UK was that ?

    We have a lot of speed bumps in Milton Keynes... the entrances to most
    residential areas, throughout the city centre etc.
    
    The Fire Brigade are campaigning for their removal as they slow down
    the time it takes them to respond to calls.
    
    You can never please all of the people all of the time..
    
    Xtine
    

    
    While at highfield the other week, there was something on the local 
    news that said that the ambulance service for hampshire wanted them
    removed as there were so many now that vehicles needed to be serviced
    more frequently.Also suspension more frequently needed attention.
    They considered that real serious as it is very important that an
    ambulance gives a smooth ride.
    
    
    Garry
    
    
    Garr

Forget the chappie who was recently jailed for 6 months for doing a
mere 150-odd mph in a BMW.

Recently the Police has a purge on the A38 Sutton Coldfield bypass
(between Minworth and Bassetts pole), which is a few miles of dual
carriageway with no turnoffs. They caught a couple of dozen drivers
going over the ton, but one (poor) fellow was nabbed for doing, wait
for it, ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY EIGHT POINT NINE MILES PER HOUR!!!!!

I bet that he won't get a fixed penalty fine   ;-)

mb

    Aaah! The sutton coldfield bypass! Notorious for 'seeing what your new
    baby will do'. I can't believe anyone's stupid enough to fall for
    speeding on that road, it's well known that everybody goes along it to
    Vmax their cars.
    
    Mind you the police have turned a blind eye for a while it seems. Now
    they're out for their revenge!

"The word on the street" is that the biker regularly Vmaxed his bike
along the bypass, but at 2:00 in the morning. It seems that somebody
gave the Police a tip-off, and they set a trap just for him. This must
have been quite a feat, as i don't think that radar guns read over
140mph, and Vascar would be tricky to use at night.

The guy is currently on bail, charged with exceeding the speed limit
and dangerous driving.

I'll keep you posted with any more news,

mb

    It wasn't a ZZR-1100 was it? Purple one? Guy lives around Coleshill...
    oh wassis name.... Leon/Liam somebody ....
    
    ???? He's a nutter, wouldn't surprise me if it was him :-)

I think that the bike was only a 750, Honda Firebird or Firefly or
something like that.

mb

    Fireblade.
    
    Oh well. Maybe Liam/Leon has sold his ZZR for better things ..... :-)

Re: 178.9mph speeder

The poor biker was Anthony Pearce, 31, of Penns Lane, Walmley.

His case has been adjourned until 3-Jan-1995 to allow for speed
tetss to be done on his machine (Honda CBR900 Fireblade) - he
denied dangerous driving.

Bet he has a bummer of a Christmas

mb

    This isn't a standard Fireblade, then.
    
    My bike-nutter-housemate doesn't reckon a Firebalde can do nigh-on
    179mph.
    
    If he hasn't modified it, he could get out of this. I've heard of cases
    in the past where cars have been clocked at speeds they are incapable
    of achieving, and the court case has fallen though.
    
    Let me know how he gets on!
    
    Dan

    Dan,
    
    	Top speed (listed) for a fireblade is 165 mph according to the last
    bike mag I picked up. It wouldn't take much to increase this by 15 mph,
    my brother races his FZR600 and added 10 mph+ plus heaps of acceleration
    simply by polishing/gas-flowing the head, putting a different exhaust
    on and re-jetting the carb. He knows it's 10 mph+ because he also knows
    the speedo's accurate, a friendly policeman caught him at 125 when the
    speedo said 125 a couple of years back !! and he didn't get a fixed
    penalty fine either !
    
    	Euan

    Yes I know. I did say "standard".

    So what are the thoughts on this 'poor biker' that is going to
    have a miserable xmas waiting for his court case.
    
    Personally I think he took his chances and will have to pay for it.
    
    I half hope though he gets away with it on the grounds they can't
    prove the bike is that first.
    
    Royston

Well, I've got a "Fireblade" and on a blast down an empty A10 one
morning trying to catch the TGV - for miles and miles and miles flat
out - it wouldn't show more than 170 on the clock pulling max revs in
top (meaning that any faster has to have a gearing change too by the
way). With speedo inaccuracy this probably equals low 160's and this
ties with the manufacturers claimed maximum of 162/3ish and also with
all the magazines that tested it. 

Contrary to a previous reply - to add 15 mph to get to 180 from 165
you need a hell of a lot more power. A bikes about as aerodynamic as a
block of flats you see and the relationship between 1mph more/hp isn't
linear. So 180, I doubt it very much, he'd need 50hp+ more. 
    
Adding 10mph to an FZR at 140 isn't the same as adding 10/15 mph at 160.
    
I hope he gets away with the charges. The punishments dished out for
speeding on motorways are out of all proportion to the crime when you
condider that most road deaths are in towns. 

David WOOD 
(what am I doing in the CAR conference ? - bye bye)

    Well, I know the Sutton COldfield Bypass and, provided we're not
    talking rush hour or anything, there's parts of it (if not all of it)
    which are safe to speed on. Okay, there's a long sweeping bend which at
    180mph is probably dangerous, but other than that......
    
    If he was riding dangerously/drunk/stupidly/without due care and
    attention, then fine, throw the book at him.
    
    If he's a good rider, knows what he's doing, it was safe, none of the
    above, lets hope he gets off but learns his lesson.
    
    :-)
    
    Dan

    
    A programme on TV this week called 'Ride On' had a feature on the
    police and their driving skills.
    
    The police killed 24 people last year responding to incidents. I 
    find this horrific. 
    
    One woman who was killed was walking across a pedestrian crossing
    when the traffic lights were red. The policeman was only prosecuted
    careless driving. One rule for us, another for them.
    
    Richard.

    24? That's not too bad.

    OK, totally wrong again, point I was trying to make (badly) is that
    modifications can be done that make that speed possible(obvious really), 
    and if you can afford a fireblade and the extortionate bike insurance 
    associated affording the extra to get that extra mph out isn't out of the
    question.
    
    Time to shut up and go back into read-only mode !
    
    Euan

    RE .199
    
    Fireblades. Do you find it comfy for long distances? 
    
    Huw. (who probably can't afford one anyway, might get a 2nd hand VFR or
    CBR)  

Laurie, please restrain yourself!

Chris.

    I try, really I do, but it was gaggin' for it!
    
    Laurie.

Copied from the Sutton Coldfield News, 20-Jan-1995 (without permission)


Speeding charge man changes plea

A Sutton Coldfield motorcyclist accused of speeding at almost 180mph
on a dual carriageway changed his plea and admitted driving dangerously
at the town's magistrates court this week.

But a charge of speeding against Anthony David Pearce (31), of Penns
Lane, Walmley was dropped after the defendant claimed he was doing no
more than 160mph.

Pearce was remanded on bail until February 14 for pre-sentence reports.

Magistrates said that they were considering a custodial sentence.

Police video equipment had allegedly caught Pearce speeding on his
Honda CBR900 Fireblade along a 1.5 mile stretch of the A38 Sutton
Coldfield by-pass on June 18.

It was part of a police crack-down on the by-pass where the limit is
70mph.

Mr Ian Whitney, prosecuting, said police claimed Pearce was travelling
at 178.9mph.

Mr Whitney said that had any wildlife stepped into the road, Pearce
would have been forced to swerve to avoid contact.

He said this could have forced the defendent on to the opposite
carriageway and against the flow of traffic.

The consequences could have been very serious, said Mr Whitney.

Mr Whitney dropped the charge of speeding without a plea being taken.

Mr David Munro, defending, said his client had pleaded guilty to the
charge of dangerous driving because of the excessive nature of the speed.

Mr Munro said extensive tests had been carried on the bike by Motorcycle
News and in equivalent conditions it could go no faster than 160mph.

    Cheers, Martin.
    
    Thought so....... although no, I don't know the guy, though I know
    where he lives (daaa daaaaaa!).
    
    ;-)
    
    Dan

    
    I think I heard earlier that a snooker player was caught doing 133 on
    the M3 this morning/last night after losing a match?  Anybody got
    anymore details?
    
    Chris.

Ronnie was caught doing "above 133 mph", as the radar gun topped out at 133.  
The police say it was probably more like 150.  The lad's reg plate is CUE 13OY.

pah!

    Speeding: the pro's and con's
    
    pro's
    -----
    It's a bloody good laugh
    
    con's
    -----
    The police don't like it
    
    
    
    I think that about sums it up.
    
    Cheers,
    Dan
    
    P.S. I didn't know radar guns 'topped out'... you learn something every
    day. Maybe I can coat my next car in radar absorbant paint, and have a
    stealth vehicle :-)

Apologies if this has been mentioned before...

Top Gear magazine have been testing radar/gatso combatting equipment.  The 
concluded that there is no way to beat a gatso - short of removing all 
odentifying features from your car e.g. reg plates etc.  The only way they 
managed to beat the gatsos was by driving past them at over 158 mph.  
Apparently, this is too high a spped for the readings to be taken, and the 
camera activated before the car leaves the range!

    There was a piccy of such a Stealth car in one the cheaper auto rags
    several months back. Looked extremely cool, a bit like an F117. 
    
    I don't think was coated or anythink, but it did look smart.
    
    paul 

    Are all these trendy-font plates an attempt to make the Gatso photo's
    unreadable ?  (I guess they certainly would fool the
    character-recognition type of speed traps)

    
    >>(I guess they certainly would fool the character-recognition type of
    >>speed traps)
    
    So that's how they do it!  I always thought there was somebody manually
    entering the registration plates and displaying them on a board (as
    seen on the M1 near Sheffield during the recent huge road-works up
    there) about half a mile down the road - I thought the staff just had a
    trigger, then decided which car to target to scare the hell out of.
    
    Chris-who-ever-said-I-was-technically-minded.

    re.216
    
    No, they're just sad.

    
    re.216, .218
    
    Wonder if the Merc 190 with standard issue XR3i bodykit type thing I
    saw in London with a bright pink neon(!!) border to the rear number
    plate would get past a Gatso?!!
    
    (yep, it did look sad as well)
    
    C.

    With regards to the character recognition.
    
    Preprocessing sorts all the problems of special fonts and italics etc.
    
    Chris

a) that's not *beating* the gatso, it's obscuring your number plate.

b) I've been stopped twice for obscuring my plate.  They just told me to be 
more careful, and to either adjust the position of the rack, or to put a copy 
of my plate on the bike.  

It seems that you're better off obscuring your number plate (getting stopped 
every once in a while for a light ticking off), and driving very fast past 
Gatsos.  It's better to get a light caution than a little slip through the post 
informing you of the need for some more ink wastage on your license.

Or, of course, you could drive within the speed limit.

    > you could drive within the speed limit.
    
    Now there's a new idea.

    I had to do a quick dash through London yesterday and passed many of
    those road side speed monitoring cameras.
    
    Would a driver be aware that the speed monitoring camera just passed at
    the roadside had taken a picture of the car?
    
    Also, what is the penalty these days for about a 50% excess of the
    speed limit if you're caught on these camera's? 
    
    When can you expect to get some notification? 
    
    Dave

>>>Would a driver be aware that the speed monitoring camera just passed at
>>>the roadside had taken a picture of the car?


Nope.

>>>Would a driver be aware that the speed monitoring camera just passed at
>>>the roadside had taken a picture of the car?
    
    ...depends if you're looking in your mirror or not - if you are you'll
    see a very bright flash (sometimes two).
    
    BTW, the pictures taken are supposedly all examined by a panel of
    officers, who determine whether or not to prosecute - at least this is
    the case where traffic lights etc appear to have been jumped.
    
    Graham

According to Top Gear magazine, and Which?, I think, all boxes are equipped 
with a flashing mechanism, but the actual cameras are "rotated" between boxes 
at regular intervals.  A friend of mine was caught by a Gatso in Portsmouth.  
His friend actually worked for the traffic dept, or summat, and told him that 
he'd been incredibly unlucky, as of the 20 or so Gatsos in and around the town, 
only two had cameras in them.

    
    Gatsos in Portsmouth?  Sounds more like it should have been
    Southampton, tons of Gatsos there...can't remember ever having seen any
    in Portsmouth.
    
    Chris.

    Also, the camera can flash - but the film may have run out!
    
    I was told by a friend that on certain road stretches a new film only
    lasts a day or two...
    
    
    
    Xtine

    Well I didn't see any flashes in my mirror. I guess I'll have to wait
    now. 
    
    I didn't jump any lights by the way, I was driving a very anxious
    mother to a very distressed daughter and getting ear-ache for not going
    faster!
    
    How much is the fine and how may points are gained through speeding?
    
    Dave

    i) As said, not all cameras have films, but they *always* 'take' a
    picture. Thus, a flash doesn't necessaryily mean you've been nailed.
    
    ii) 30mph over the designated speed limit is, technically, a
    lose-your-license offense.
    
    Cheers,
    Dan

    
>>    I was told by a friend that on certain road stretches a new film only
>>    lasts a day or two...
    
    one of the first places they tested the Gatso cameras was on the Chiswick
    flyover, I heard the first time it was used they set the limit at 33mph
    or thereabouts (it's a 30mph limit) and it took a picture of every car
    that passed until the film ran out ! A couple of hours for what should
    have been a weeks worth of film.
    
    Graham

	FYI - 

	3 -> 6 penalty points per offence for excess speed.

	Helpfully,
	Kevin.

    oh s?#t.
    
    For those who have been here before...
    
    How long did it take before the dreaded letter dropped through the door?
    
    and then what happened?
    
    Dave
    

re .228

Definitely Portsmouth...The number of gatsos quoted could conceivably have been 
across the whole of Hampshire's (?) area, but he was definitely done in 
Portsmouth.

    re 204
    
    Letter on the 1st December
    Offence on 25th November
    
    However I know people who got letters after 3 months.
    
    The courts have guidelines that indicate a 7 - 14 day ban if you are
    caught at or just over double the limit.  
    
    Regards,
    
    
    Chris
         

    Here's a question that's been on my mind for a while (apologies if it's
    been done before - I haven't read the whole notes string).
    
    If it's the driver who is charged with speeding or jumping the
    lights, how can the photograph of a car be used to prosecute unless it
    clearly shows the identity of the person driving? 
    
    Or, put another way, if I lend my car to someone and they get
    photographed, who gets prosecuted?
    
    Or, put another way, if I deny being the driver in the photograph and
    say 'prove it was me', what happens?
    
    I presume there must be a straightforward answer otherwise this dodge
    would have been tried already.
    
    cheers, 
    
    Tony I

    
    I believe it's a case of Guilty until proven innocent.
    
    You have to prove it WASN'T you driving...ah, the delights of British
    justice.
    
    Mark

    I guess it would be a good idea if lending your company car out to
    anyone for business use or whatever to get somthing in writing so that
    if they were photographed speeding you have some proof.
    
    Its very worrying as if you can't prove it was someone else you are 
    stuck with the offense.
    
    Royston

I wonder what happens in the case of pool cars, if the company doesn't
keep a log of who's using the vehicles.  Who's responsible if the
identity of the driver at a given time is unknown?

Chris.

    How is this any different to providing an alibi?
    
    A trick which has been tried in the past is immediately after commiting
    an offence, report your car as stolen and abandon it somewhere and get
    the bus home. It rarely works.
    
    Isn't this why there is some form of words on things like hire
    certificates etc to say you accept responsibility for tickets etc. I
    would assume pool cars must do the same.
    
    Andrew

    The trick is that they made it an offence to refuse to say who was
    driving your car at the time, with (I understand) similar penalties to
    the actual offence itself.
    
    In a similar way to refusing a breath test.
    
    Graham

	Lord North (he of the North Report which led to gatsos) would
	have liked to photograph the driver from the front and not
	just the plates from the back.  He was blocked as this would
	have been a violation of civil liberties; who's that women in
	the car with my husband?  So, they photograph the plates and
	you have to prove that you were not driving the car that you
	are the registered keeper of (not owner, keeper, there's a difference
	particularly with lease cars).  

	Let's face it, you played the game, you lost so you have to
	pay.  Don't whinge and squirm about it.  You took a risk when you
	flaunted the rules.  If you don't like the odds, don't take the
	risk.  Just think yourself lucky that there are warning signs and
	that some gatsos don't have cameras in them.

	Just for the record, I don't wear a flat cap and drive a Maestro.

	Dave

    
    I think the only good thing to come out of placement of speed cameras
    is the variable speed limit on the Southern M25.  Because there is
    potentially a camera mounted on each gantry/bridge section you go
    underneath (notice they've marked out the distance lines under every
    single one) and they're free to move around whenever, you never know
    where there will be one so take it easier than you would do normally. 
    Coupled with the variable speed limit which aims to keep the traffic
    moving rather than having large stop/start areas because of the
    different speeds of traffic.
    
    Normal speed cameras just help create more polution as cars slow down
    and speed up again afterwards, similar to speed humps and certain other
    traffic calming measures.
    
    Chris.

re.243:

>and drive a Maestro

Blimey!

Dave.

    re.243
    
    Yup. As I've always said, there's a time and a place for speed.
    
    Cheers,
    Dan

    Yeah, at about midnight, at a party.
    
    Laurie.

re .243

I heard that the reason they gave into this bloke about the photos of the front 
of cars, was actually because the cameras are more unreliable, for some reason, 
when taking photos of the front of cars.  I don't remember exactly why, but it 
was cited as a technical difficulty, but this chap claimed it as a moral 
victory.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't see why it matters if there's a picture of the 
front of the car.  You don't get to see the picture unless you dispute it or if 
you're prosecuted, so if you've got half a brain, and realise that your 
mistress/whatever was in the car with you at the time, you just pay the flippin 
fine.  You only get sent a photo if you ask for it.

    
    Here in Switzerland they send you a copy of their photo with the driver
    / passenger masked out. I know........'cos they sent my wife one 8-)
    
    JBG
    
    (cost us an arm 'n a leg for a crappy black 'n white photocopy of her
    car 8-)

    
    Re: .248
    
    There could be various reasons why they photograph from the back!
    
    o Motorcycles don't have front numberplates.
    o Stops people getting blinded at night and crashing (unless
      you happen to be driving on the opposite carriageway whilst
      another car gets nicked!).
    o Can hide the Gatso out of drivers normal field of vision.
    o Less chance of a radar detector getting a clear signal.
    
    Oh, and i thought that the Police were *not* obliged to send you the
    picture (unless it actually taken to court), so you don't have any
    way of knowing whether the Police actually got _your_ car unless you
    contest the summons.
    
    Life is soooooo unfair   8-(
    
    mb

>>>Police were *not* obliged to send you the picture (unless it actually taken 
>>>to court)

That's correct.  Always contest it, or ask for the photo (if you're not 
positive that you were speeding at that particular time/place/day).

    You can see which of the M25 gantries have cameras as the show as grey
    rectangles above the speed limit sign. I checked very carefully a week
    ago, driving on the limit and checking each gantry in my mirror.
    
    Currently, some of the cameras are not installed and you can see light
    though the hole where they go.
    
    Also, I don't think they are working until the varaible limit starts,
    as thyey have to be set to the correct spedd by the computer that
    controls the speed limit signs.
    
    Dave

    Last night the southbound camera on Emmer Green flashed when a Mini 
    turned right in front of it (outside the range markings on the
    roadside). There were no other cars around, and certainly none in the
    southbound lane. Either the sensors are such that lateral motion across
    the front of them can trigger them, or it just likes pictures of Mini
    Coopers!
    
    I'm sure I'm going to have an accident one day while I drive along
    looking in my mirror to see if the camera has flashed!
                                                          
    DaveT

You could sue the local police constabulary...

Our two local gatsos have now been sprayed (the lenses have, anyway) with black 
paint.  I had a look at them last night (whilst trying to set them off, on my 
bike), and someone had covered them up!

    
    This happened a few years back now but.......some joker here in Bern
    took a dislike to a camera (presumably after being snapped by it) and
    took his saw to it. The police found the remains of the pole & box in
    the local river some days later - but no sign of the camera!
    
    JBG

    The report also said that if you are caught by a speed camera,  you
    have a one-in-eight chance of it actually being followed up...
    
    mikef 

    re -.1
    
    Do you want to take the risk though ?
    
    In my experience very few are active anyway - my radar & laser detector
    went off for a week solid travelling past the Gatso on the way into
    Warrington from the M62, in the last three months I havent had a peep
    out of it going past it. So my impression is that there are a lot of
    boxes but very few with anything inside.
    
    But again, even with the radar detector, I dont really want to take the
    risk.
    
    Rick