What Lucybc says would be fine, but the 10% + 3mph is only a guideline. A lot lower tolerance is used in some parts of the country, particularly North Wales. I personally know people who have been prosecuted for being only 3 or 4 mph over the 30 limit, or have been sent on awareness courses.

Most drivers do not think.

Well they damn well should, because driving without thinking is dangerous. Perhaps that is the real problem? And of course some of these non-thinkers drive dangerously fast, while not paying attention, and eating a ham sandwich, and fiddling with the radio.

The law sets a speed at which it is generally agreed to be safe to travel on the road in question

And as I explained, that idea of a speed at which is is generally agreed to be safe to travel is nonsense. I bet a lot of accidents happen at bends, where the limit is all too often far too high. And what do the authorities do? They erect speed cameras on the straight part, to catch people doing a reasonable speed, when the problem is people doing the speed limit around bends, where the speed limit is excessive. Speed limits require people to think, unless you set them absurdly low.

And as others have explained, your comments on the excess speed at which you can be done are quite often not true.

Leif, can you tell me what problem you have with that?

Yes, as I have explained already, I find some arguments here simplistic. They can be summarised as "Drive at the speed limit, and you are safe. Exceed the speed limit, and that is your own fault if you get caught." I prefer to consider what improves road safety. Addressing dangerous driving is the issue, and of course excessive speed is included.

And by the way, I was not referring to special events such as fun fairs. It could just be that there is a group of kids playing near the road. Or a man with a big dog, which suddenly pulls him into the road. I've had that happen, and as I was going slow, there was no problem. I've also had a child cycle at high speed into my path. As I was going at well below the limit (30mph) the child was okay. You have to be alert all the while, and not just blindly obey speed limits.

Most drivers do not think.

...and therein lies the problem. They should be encouraged to think. The State endlessly dumbing things down does nothing to achieve that. Some or even many speed limits (amongst many other things) have been dumbed down, so that the average motorist 'just obeys the speed limit' rather than properly assessing the road for hazards. This means at times of little hazard a law abiding driver is unnecessarily held up..but..when even that low speed is inappropriate an unthinking driver will still press on at the limit, oblivious to the dangers.

The law sets a speed at which it is generally agreed to be safe to travel on the road in question and grants some leeway ..

Yes. But set to a lowest common denominator or fairly low common denominator in many cases. E.g. 20mph past a school 24/7. What is wrong with 30mph or 40mph at 0500 on a sunny Sunday morning?

(10% + 3mph) over that limit before anyone thinks of bringing a prosecution. You need to be doing 36mph in a 30mph, 47mph in a 40mph, 58mph in a 50 mph etc etc or nothing will happen on speeding - no ticket, no caution, not even a letter.

There are some roads that used to be NSL, then 40mph and now 30mph. 30mph AT TIMES is painfully slow for that road and wholly unnecessary.

Leif, can you tell me what problem you have with that?

I'm not Leif, but I have a problem with that. If the law is an ass, people will ignore it or be tempted to ignore it. I dare say a fair few people thought Emily Pankhurst was wrong to break the law at the time...yet many nowadays applaud her and think she was correct to do so.

The endless dumbing down of our Road Traffic laws does very little ultimately for road safety, because a generation of people drive around with their brains in neutral and DO NOT THINK. We need to encourage them to be able to judge speed and distance, to think for themselves when things are dangerous, etc, etc....something akin to the experiment I think in Holland, where all urban safety measures for pedestrians have been removed, making car drivers worry about pedestrians..what an excellent idea.

Our British roads, in general, can be likened to this example:

- If you drove at the NSL in a small Devon country lane, you'd likely kill someone or yourself, or at the very least badly damage yours or another's cars. So why aren't those lanes subject to a very low limit, say 30mph . Well that's because the drivers are expected to exercise some judgement and drive to the conditions. That way, on an open bit, with good vision, good weather etc, you might well achieve 50 or 60mph...and why not.

-If a blanket low limit was imposed, then you'd be restrained from opening up a bit when you could and wished to. However, the truly illegal or criminal classes wouldn't be hampered at all...because they do what they want, whenever they want and always have done and will continue to do so, so it's only the law abiding or conscientious that are hampered....as is the case in the rest of the country.

-Guess who the statistics say are the most likely to be involved in a serious or fatal accident?

Most drivers do not think.

...and therein lies the problem. They should be encouraged to think. The State endlessly dumbing things down does nothing to achieve that. Some or even many speed limits (amongst many other things) have been dumbed down, so that the average motorist 'just obeys the speed limit' rather than properly assessing the road for hazards. This means at times of little hazard a law abiding driver is unnecessarily held up..but..when even that low speed is inappropriate an unthinking driver will still press on at the limit, oblivious to the dangers.

The law sets a speed at which it is generally agreed to be safe to travel on the road in question and grants some leeway ..

Yes. But set to a lowest common denominator or fairly low common denominator in many cases. E.g. 20mph past a school 24/7. What is wrong with 30mph or 40mph at 0500 on a sunny Sunday morning?

(10% + 3mph) over that limit before anyone thinks of bringing a prosecution. You need to be doing 36mph in a 30mph, 47mph in a 40mph, 58mph in a 50 mph etc etc or nothing will happen on speeding - no ticket, no caution, not even a letter.

There are some roads that used to be NSL, then 40mph and now 30mph. 30mph AT TIMES is painfully slow for that road and wholly unnecessary.

Leif, can you tell me what problem you have with that?

I'm not Leif, but I have a problem with that. If the law is an ass, people will ignore it or be tempted to ignore it. I dare say a fair few people thought Emily Pankhurst was wrong to break the law at the time...yet many nowadays applaud her and think she was correct to do so.

The endless dumbing down of our Road Traffic laws does very little ultimately for road safety, because a generation of people drive around with their brains in neutral and DO NOT THINK. We need to encourage them to be able to judge speed and distance, to think for themselves when things are dangerous, etc, etc....something akin to the experiment I think in Holland, where all urban safety measures for pedestrians have been removed, making car drivers worry about pedestrians..what an excellent idea.

Our British roads, in general, can be likened to this example:

- If you drove at the NSL in a small Devon country lane, you'd likely kill someone or yourself, or at the very least badly damage yours or another's cars. So why aren't those lanes subject to a very low limit, say 30mph . Well that's because the drivers are expected to exercise some judgement and drive to the conditions. That way, on an open bit, with good vision, good weather etc, you might well achieve 50 or 60mph...and why not.

-If a blanket low limit was imposed, then you'd be restrained from opening up a bit when you could and wished to. However, the truly illegal or criminal classes wouldn't be hampered at all...because they do what they want, whenever they want and always have done and will continue to do so, so it's only the law abiding or conscientious that are hampered....as is the case in the rest of the country.

-Guess who the statistics say are the most likely to be involved in a serious or fatal accident?

Most drivers do not think.

...and therein lies the problem. They should be encouraged to think. The State endlessly dumbing things down does nothing to achieve that. Some or even many speed limits (amongst many other things) have been dumbed down, so that the average motorist 'just obeys the speed limit' rather than properly assessing the road for hazards. This means at times of little hazard a law abiding driver is unnecessarily held up..but..when even that low speed is inappropriate an unthinking driver will still press on at the limit, oblivious to the dangers.

The law sets a speed at which it is generally agreed to be safe to travel on the road in question and grants some leeway ..

Yes. But set to a lowest common denominator or fairly low common denominator in many cases. E.g. 20mph past a school 24/7. What is wrong with 30mph or 40mph at 0500 on a sunny Sunday morning?

(10% + 3mph) over that limit before anyone thinks of bringing a prosecution. You need to be doing 36mph in a 30mph, 47mph in a 40mph, 58mph in a 50 mph etc etc or nothing will happen on speeding - no ticket, no caution, not even a letter.

There are some roads that used to be NSL, then 40mph and now 30mph. 30mph AT TIMES is painfully slow for that road and wholly unnecessary.

Leif, can you tell me what problem you have with that?

I'm not Leif, but I have a problem with that. If the law is an ass, people will ignore it or be tempted to ignore it. I dare say a fair few people thought Emily Pankhurst was wrong to break the law at the time...yet many nowadays applaud her and think she was correct to do so.

The endless dumbing down of our Road Traffic laws does very little ultimately for road safety, because a generation of people drive around with their brains in neutral and DO NOT THINK. We need to encourage them to be able to judge speed and distance, to think for themselves when things are dangerous, etc, etc....something akin to the experiment I think in Holland, where all urban safety measures for pedestrians have been removed, making car drivers worry about pedestrians..what an excellent idea.

Our British roads, in general, can be likened to this example:

- If you drove at the NSL in a small Devon country lane, you'd likely kill someone or yourself, or at the very least badly damage yours or another's cars. So why aren't those lanes subject to a very low limit, say 30mph . Well that's because the drivers are expected to exercise some judgement and drive to the conditions. That way, on an open bit, with good vision, good weather etc, you might well achieve 50 or 60mph...and why not.

-If a blanket low limit was imposed, then you'd be restrained from opening up a bit when you could and wished to. However, the truly illegal or criminal classes wouldn't be hampered at all...because they do what they want, whenever they want and always have done and will continue to do so, so it's only the law abiding or conscientious that are hampered....as is the case in the rest of the country.

-Guess who the statistics say are the most likely to be involved in a serious or fatal accident?

If drivers could be relied upon to think and drive with proper consideration for other road users there'd be no need for speed limits at all much less any enforcement.

I have no problem with speed limits, but what really annoys is that they appear to be applied inconsistently by different authorities. It would help EVERYBODY if speed limits were subject to rigorous examination and brought into line across the country. You all know the sort of thing: you cross the county boundary and suddenly the type of road that has been 40 limit is now 30 limit etc etc etc. I suspect that the limits have been adjusted locally in accordance with local lobbying and the whims and prejudices of those in control and we all know how erratic that can be. To say that everybody should observe the posted speed limits doesn't help: they are not always obvious and can be hidden or washed out by the many other signs vying for our attention.

I've said what i've got to say, i won't change anyone's mind

Re-read what you put.

OK, so the camera is bright yellow. What happens if they see it? They slow down, and then speed back up again after.

And i certainly am not lazy. I take driving very seriously and i'm a very observant person. Yet, on several occasions on new roads i have found myself not noticing the speed limit as i've entered a road, either because it's a continuation of the limit from the previous road OR i missed the sign for whatever reason. So that argument is a falacy. It's too generalising, too sweeping to call people dangerous or lazy.

Deterrent's unless harsh don't work. Even prison, most prisoners don't care, in fact a lot of them have a better life in prison, that's how they fit in. Without going off the point too much, a camera or van does not prevent speed, or enforce it because when your caught out your already speeding!

Better measures are needed if the idea is safety. A lot of people would respond better to improved singage and speed boards.

I'm not a speeder and i dont have and have never had points or any driving offences. I just don't agree with cameras being there to prevent speeding, the implementation is flawed through and through.

I'd much prefer it if the Police had the resources to police the roads effectively, since speeding is only one of a whole range of problems on the roads, almost all of which goes unpenalised. But they haven't and in this environment, speed cameras are a cost effective way of speed enforcement.

I just don't believe that they are. They do not catch uninsured drivers with unregistered cars (quite common apparently), and those in stolen cars (not uncommon, as a friend who was beaten up by a criminal gang in a stolen car discovered). And they do not catch the dangerous but manipulative who slow down at cameras, and then speed up afterwards. It might surprise you that I am in favour of hand held speed cameras in residential areas. That might catch the dangerous ones. (Opinion, not fact.) The problem is that they put cameras where they will catch a lot of speeders, and hence generate revenue, which is not the same as catching dangerous drivers. You do not see cameras on back streets in residential areas, because they would not generate revenue. In my view people who speed in such areas are really dangerous. But the accidents are spread around at random, rather than there being black spots. I'm afraid that cameras are all about supporting an empire, consisting of the speed camera partnership management, and staff, funded from the fines. I might add that the cameras in our area are fine. But I live in an affluent area. I suspect cameras are more common in poorer areas, such as Luton where I once lived, because they are seen as 'self financing', and hence a cheap way to supposedly improve road safety. They are certainly cheaper than alternatives due to the income generated. If I saw more spot checks with hand held speed cameras in residential areas, rather than on main roads, then I might be less cynical.

You make a good point that resources are stretched. I hear they will have to make big cuts, and apparently you cannot lay off a police officer, so they will have to lay off civilian staff, and this will make them less efficient. So a senior copper said on the radio anyway.

He would say that Leif :)

Actually he did express a lot of positive thoughts about the current government plans for policing, such as an end of targets.

They are going to spend 30 million on a new police station.Thats where their priorities lay.

That is a ridiculously overly simplistic thing to say. You do not know for how many years (or even decades) that decision has been pondered and what other elements come in to play e.g. current cells not fit for purpose (i.e. unsafe) or not enough of them etc, etc.

Decisions like those are made in conjunction with other organisations i.e. not solely Police and are most carefully scrutinised.

I went to a new posting in 1991 and was told we wouldn't be there long as a new nick was going to be built....well guess what, it's still there and the new one is no nearer starting now than it was then...and in my opinion it will still be there in 20 years time, despite the inadequate (Portakabin type) cell annexe, limited owned office space and having to lease local office space nearby (which obviously can be subject to change) and that's without the flat concrete roof that periodically leaks, the inability to have it comply with Disability legislation and various other fairly fundemental 'make do's'.

They are cutting 30 million on front line services and the same money is spend on a new police station.We suppose to be in a recession,decades? To decide on a new building and then decide to get writ of fronline services.I understand that decisions are made with the council but i rather pay my council tax money on front line services than at this moment of time on a new police station.Just my ridiculous and simplistic opinion.

The overly simplistic bit was the statement 'they'd rather spend money on a police station than front line services' (or similar), without knowing why that decision was made e.g. it could be essential; who is paying e.g. it could well be subbed by the Home Office; when the decision was made i.e. well before the current financial difficulties; whether there are contractual issues that would cost too much to cancel when the goal posts have changed; etc, etc.

It is rare that someone has the financial leeway to make frivolous spends at any time, yet alone in this current climate. You might get the odd Chief Constable raise an eyebrow with a couple of grands worth of office alterations or the odd detective abuse a credit card....but the usual realities are having to 'make do'....big time...and a £30 million spend would have to have some form of govt agreement somewhere.

Dutchie,

R?e-reading my first post, I think I was a bit rude?.? ??H??a?v?e? ?a?n? ?a?p?o?l?o?g?y?.