10/10 for effort...

on the news just now...

man been had up before the beak (or equivalent) - he'd been booked for 31
mph in a 30 limit, so he took a 40mph sign and erected it and then took a
photo of it to use at an appeal...
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Ask yourself whether you are happy, and you cease to be so."
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

Austin Shackles wrote:
>
> on the news just now...
>
> man been had up before the beak (or equivalent) - he'd been booked for 31
> mph in a 30 limit, so he took a 40mph sign and erected it and then took a
> photo of it to use at an appeal...

What about 10% speedo error? Seems a bit of an urban myth to me...

Stuart

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> on the news just now...
>
> man been had up before the beak (or equivalent) - he'd been booked for 31
> mph in a 30 limit, so he took a 40mph sign and erected it and then took a
> photo of it to use at an appeal...
> --

More info: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5145368.stm

--
Thanks,
Paul

Srtgray wrote:
> Austin Shackles wrote:
>
>>
>> on the news just now...
>>
>> man been had up before the beak (or equivalent) - he'd been booked for 31
>> mph in a 30 limit, so he took a 40mph sign and erected it and then took a
>> photo of it to use at an appeal...
>
>
> What about 10% speedo error? Seems a bit of an urban myth to me...
>
> Stuart
Ah just checked the details - 41 in a 30 zone. Tut, tut. Frankly, he
deserves all he gets.

Stuart

Stuart wrote after...
>> Austin Shackles wrote:
>>
>>> on the news just now...
>>>
>>> man been had up before the beak (or equivalent) - he'd been booked for
>>> 31
>>> mph in a 30 limit, so he took a 40mph sign and erected it and then took
>>> a
>>> photo of it to use at an appeal...
>>
>>
>> What about 10% speedo error? Seems a bit of an urban myth to me...
>>
> Ah just checked the details - 41 in a 30 zone. Tut, tut. Frankly, he
> deserves all he gets.
>
Ah, that depends if the limit is sensible.
There is part of the A30 dual carriageway between Bedfont and Staines that
goes from 40mph to 30mph when it should be 50mph all the way along and
that's the speed the majority of traffic flows at. Some coming off the
bypass in the other direction and not seeing the 30mph sign on the bend just
before the lights are doing nearer 70mph. If you try to keep to the limit as
I do it can become dangerous, I've had fists waved at me etc.
Cops sometimes have a purge but everyone knows they are just money making,
there is no reason for the limits to be so low, any houses along there have
long front gardens and 50mph is the right speed for the road.

So 50mph in a 30 limit, dreadful? Not in this case.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden
17mls W. of London.UK

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> on the news just now...
>
> man been had up before the beak (or equivalent) - he'd been booked for 31
> mph in a 30 limit, so he took a 40mph sign and erected it and then took a
> photo of it to use at an appeal...
> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
> "Ask yourself whether you are happy, and you cease to be so."
> John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

Yes and he isn't the brightest candle in the box having been caught
speeding twice in 48 hours most folk would have slowed down after the first
time wouldn't they
?http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/215/215664_driver_caught_in_speed_sign_con.html
Derek

On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 20:43:27 GMT, "Derek"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes and he isn't the brightest candle in the box having been caught
>speeding twice in 48 hours most folk would have slowed down after the first
>time wouldn't they
>

If you missed the flash from the camera the first you would know of it
would be the letter in the post a week or so later.

AJH

It's the very inconsistency of our speed limits which gets up my nose
-- 2 examples from near me:

The main road from Teesside to Whitby and Scarborough climbs up quite a
steep hill onto the North York Moors -- this section of road has been
designated 50 because of perceived danger from the bends. About a mile
further on there is a quarter-mile stretch with two roads going off.
It's dangerous and deceptive, and there have been a number of
accidents.

The local authority decided to impose a 50 limit there -- no quarrel
with that. But instead of imposing a limit over that short stretch
(which would have reinforced the fact that the area is dangerous), they
decided to extend the earlier limit for another 2 miles. Now everyone
climbs the hill onto the moor, sees a wonderful, almost straight road
and relaxes. NO-ONE drives it at 50, and they all drive blithely
through the dangerous junctions without any realisation that there is
an increased hazard. I pointed this out at the proposal stage, and was
told that "It would send confusing signals to drivers" if the limit
came and went.

Conversely, where the A19 trunk road crosses the River Tees, it's on a
high viaduct. Because of junctions before and after the bridge, slip
roads actually extend onto the bridge itself at both ends, so that
there are a great number of merging/lane-changing movements within a
quarter-mile stretch of road, high up in the air. ANYONE would agree
that this is a prime situation for a 50 limit. But no.... it's 70!

Bonkers!

GRAEME ALDOUS
Yorkshire

On 5 Jul 2006 01:37:14 -0700, Teeafit wrote:

> Now everyone climbs the hill onto the moor, sees a wonderful, almost
> straight road and relaxes. NO-ONE drives it at 50, ...

ISTR that this is a single carriageway, unlit, non-built up, road this
the default limit is 60. Are there not regular, small, 50 repeater signs?
If there aren't either the 50 is unenforceable or you have a lot of blind
drivers in North Yorkshire...

> "It would send confusing signals to drivers" if the limit came and
> went.

Correct, having limits that come and go often, with little obvious reason
(you state yourself the junctions are deceptive) does confuse drivers
and/or cause frustration. "WTF is there a 50 limit on this straight bit?"

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

Dave Liquorice wrote:
> ISTR that this is a single carriageway, unlit, non-built up, road this
> the default limit is 60. Are there not regular, small, 50 repeater signs?
> If there aren't either the 50 is unenforceable or you have a lot of blind
> drivers in North Yorkshire...

Yes, there ARE repeaters... and what a blot on a beautiful, dramatic,
gateway-to-the-Moors landscape they are! Enforcable? Only if scarce
officers can be spared from their more important duties? Blind
drivers? No, not physically blind, but hopefully posessed of that
in-built computer that assesses danger and reacts accordingly... it's
called the Mk 1 Human Brain.

Unfortunately we are no longer allowed to use the Mk 1 Human Brain, but
have to be guided/bullied/terrified-into following like meek sheep
rules which seem to be more and more invented by bureaucrats who know
all the theory and have none of the common sense to put it into
practice in a realistic way. I've corresponded with the guy who
devised this particular scheme, and his letters showed he had no more
idea of what happens in the REAL world than fly to the moon!

OK, so there will always be a minority of people who will act
dangerously -- there are times when I wouldn't drive at 40 on this
stretch of road, but there are others (and bear in mind that after 32
years and maybe 10,000 journeys along it I may know what I'm talking
about) when 80 would be perfectly safe. Lunatic drivers are a social
problem as much as a 'road legislation' one -- my contention is that
the more we impose unrealistic blanket, nanny rules, the less the
'law-abiding citizen' is encouraged to think for himself, and act
responsibly.

To me, people who say "It's the Law so it must be right... and we must
all follow it slavishly because it IS the Law" are the ones who are
encouraging our dumb society. And dumb society makes for dumb
legislators and dumb laws.... and leaving the road between Birk Brown
and Stanghow Road End at an un-neccesary 50mph is DUMB! It's also
counterproductive where the real danger lies.

I feel passionately about this... but it doesn't mean that I am a mad
tearaway. In fact, I can be anally retentive about much of our
legislation on and off the road, recognising and following petty
regulations to the letter. I wonder how many of the "There must be a
reason for this being 50mph so I won't go above 49.5" brigade flash
their headlights to invite other drivers to cross in front of them? A
potentially lethal practice which is advised against in the Highway
Code, and rightly so as it encourages the sheep to take an action
without assessing the whole situation... "He's flashing so I'll go.
Oops, there was a cyclist!"

Sorry for rant. How can I bring that OT? Ah, most of those 10K
journeys will have been behind a green oval!

GRAEME ALDOUS
Yorkshire, North Riding (but not NORTH Yorkshire, because that is an
administrative area which doesn't cover the road in question -- don't
start my other hobby horse!)

Teeafit wrote:
> Dave Liquorice wrote:
>> ISTR that this is a single carriageway, unlit, non-built up, road
>> this the default limit is 60. Are there not regular, small, 50
>> repeater signs? If there aren't either the 50 is unenforceable or
>> you have a lot of blind drivers in North Yorkshire...
>
> Yes, there ARE repeaters... and what a blot on a beautiful, dramatic,
> gateway-to-the-Moors landscape they are! Enforcable? Only if scarce
> officers can be spared from their more important duties? Blind
> drivers? No, not physically blind, but hopefully posessed of that
> in-built computer that assesses danger and reacts accordingly... it's
> called the Mk 1 Human Brain.
>
> Unfortunately we are no longer allowed to use the Mk 1 Human Brain,
> but have to be guided/bullied/terrified-into following like meek sheep
> rules which seem to be more and more invented by bureaucrats who know
> all the theory and have none of the common sense to put it into
> practice in a realistic way. I've corresponded with the guy who
> devised this particular scheme, and his letters showed he had no more
> idea of what happens in the REAL world than fly to the moon!
>
> OK, so there will always be a minority of people who will act
> dangerously -- there are times when I wouldn't drive at 40 on this
> stretch of road, but there are others (and bear in mind that after 32
> years and maybe 10,000 journeys along it I may know what I'm talking
> about) when 80 would be perfectly safe. Lunatic drivers are a social
> problem as much as a 'road legislation' one -- my contention is that
> the more we impose unrealistic blanket, nanny rules, the less the
> 'law-abiding citizen' is encouraged to think for himself, and act
> responsibly.
>
> To me, people who say "It's the Law so it must be right... and we must
> all follow it slavishly because it IS the Law" are the ones who are
> encouraging our dumb society. And dumb society makes for dumb
> legislators and dumb laws.... and leaving the road between Birk Brown
> and Stanghow Road End at an un-neccesary 50mph is DUMB! It's also
> counterproductive where the real danger lies.
>
> I feel passionately about this... but it doesn't mean that I am a mad
> tearaway. In fact, I can be anally retentive about much of our
> legislation on and off the road, recognising and following petty
> regulations to the letter. I wonder how many of the "There must be a
> reason for this being 50mph so I won't go above 49.5" brigade flash
> their headlights to invite other drivers to cross in front of them? A
> potentially lethal practice which is advised against in the Highway
> Code, and rightly so as it encourages the sheep to take an action
> without assessing the whole situation... "He's flashing so I'll go.
> Oops, there was a cyclist!"
>
> Sorry for rant. How can I bring that OT? Ah, most of those 10K
> journeys will have been behind a green oval!
>
> GRAEME ALDOUS
> Yorkshire, North Riding (but not NORTH Yorkshire, because that is an
> administrative area which doesn't cover the road in question -- don't
> start my other hobby horse!)

Hmm. Wasn't it a previous administration of a similar ideology to the current
wastes of space that introduced that and similar abominations.

--
"He who says it cannot be done would be well advised not to interrupt
her doing it."

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!

> Correct, having limits that come and go often, with little obvious reason
> (you state yourself the junctions are deceptive) does confuse drivers
> and/or cause frustration. "WTF is there a 50 limit on this straight bit?"

But he wasn't talking about a 50 limit coming and going often, just one
around the junction, and I have to say I agree entirely. There is a bad
junction around here - it has a 50 limit posted several hundred yards
either side with warnings, on an otherwise 60mph national speed limit.
The 50 limit around the junction make you realise that that specific
place is particularly dangerous, and drivers *do* slow down for that
bit, even though they drive very fast along the rest of the stretch of
(very open, very wide) road. If there are several miles of 50mph limit
for no apparent reason people just ignore it, and will inevitably drive
past the real danger point unaware that it exists.

Matt
(Formerly of the West Riding of Yorkshire until "they" decided
we should live in Cumbria, simultaneously wiping out the great
county of Westmorland!)

In message <[email protected]>,
Teeafit <[email protected]> writes
>
>It's the very inconsistency of our speed limits which gets up my nose
>-- 2 examples from near me:
>
>The main road from Teesside to Whitby and Scarborough climbs up quite a
>steep hill onto the North York Moors -- this section of road has been
>designated 50 because of perceived danger from the bends. About a mile
>further on there is a quarter-mile stretch with two roads going off.
>It's dangerous and deceptive, and there have been a number of
>accidents.
>
>The local authority decided to impose a 50 limit there -- no quarrel
>with that. But instead of imposing a limit over that short stretch
>(which would have reinforced the fact that the area is dangerous), they
>decided to extend the earlier limit for another 2 miles. Now everyone
>climbs the hill onto the moor, sees a wonderful, almost straight road
>and relaxes. NO-ONE drives it at 50, and they all drive blithely
>through the dangerous junctions without any realisation that there is
>an increased hazard. I pointed this out at the proposal stage, and was
>told that "It would send confusing signals to drivers" if the limit
>came and went.
>
>Conversely, where the A19 trunk road crosses the River Tees, it's on a
>high viaduct. Because of junctions before and after the bridge, slip
>roads actually extend onto the bridge itself at both ends, so that
>there are a great number of merging/lane-changing movements within a
>quarter-mile stretch of road, high up in the air. ANYONE would agree
>that this is a prime situation for a 50 limit. But no.... it's 70!
>
>Bonkers!
>
>GRAEME ALDOUS
>Yorkshire
>
They ought to try the A51 from Stone down to Lichfield. I defy anyone to
be 100% sure all the time what limit they're in - and it must have the
highest intensity of speed cameras per mile of any road in the UK.
It's a nightmare in the dark.

--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

Teeafit wrote:

|| and leaving the road between Birk Brown

Thought you were talking about our dear Chancellor for a minute.

Rich
Pembrokeshire (not Dyfed, which it was for a few years until public pressure
forced a reversal)

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

<<Birk Brown>> Sorry, that was a typo -- the location is 'Birk Brow'.
But what a wonderful (unconsious) typo it was!

Glad to see that there is as least one other person out there who
agrees with me about un-necessary (and hence counter-productive) speed
limits. Anyone any thoughts on the point of view that limits can
sometimes INCREASE the danger?

An example: a road on the outskirts of Middlesbrough with excellent
sightlines that was once 50. I'm not aware that it had a particularly
bad record, but now it is 40, so the silver Fiesta/Micra brigade travel
it at 38 and one loses the will to live! I now find that I've reached
the end of it whilst driving entirely on auto-pilot, my thoughts miles
away from the job in hand. At 50 the Mark 1 Human Brain had to be
engaged, and hence driving was possibly safer.

Now THAT'S one to upset the PC brigade!

GRAEME ALDOUS
Yorkshire (N.Riding)

On or around 7 Jul 2006 02:53:18 -0700, "Teeafit" <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>
><<Birk Brown>> Sorry, that was a typo -- the location is 'Birk Brow'.
>But what a wonderful (unconsious) typo it was!
>
>Glad to see that there is as least one other person out there who
>agrees with me about un-necessary (and hence counter-productive) speed
>limits. Anyone any thoughts on the point of view that limits can
>sometimes INCREASE the danger?

yes, but only in a few cases. Speed TRAPS can do so more often, but only
because people are daft, and panic, rather than assessing the speed they're
going at accurately so as to slow down just enough (which generally isn't
much - any half-way decent driver in most cases is not much above the
limit), they stamp on the anchors.

Mind, I hold that *all* speed limits should be unnecessary and that it would
be far better if people drove within their, their cars' and the road's
limits.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to
a great lie than to a small one" Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
from Mein Kampf, Ch 10

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around 7 Jul 2006 02:53:18 -0700, "Teeafit" <[email protected]>
> enlightened us thusly:
>
>
>><<Birk Brown>> Sorry, that was a typo -- the location is 'Birk Brow'.
>>But what a wonderful (unconsious) typo it was!
>>
>>Glad to see that there is as least one other person out there who
>>agrees with me about un-necessary (and hence counter-productive) speed
>>limits. Anyone any thoughts on the point of view that limits can
>>sometimes INCREASE the danger?
>
>
> yes, but only in a few cases. Speed TRAPS can do so more often, but only
> because people are daft, and panic, rather than assessing the speed they're
> going at accurately so as to slow down just enough (which generally isn't
> much - any half-way decent driver in most cases is not much above the
> limit), they stamp on the anchors.
>
> Mind, I hold that *all* speed limits should be unnecessary and that it would
> be far better if people drove within their, their cars' and the road's
> limits.

The problem is that most people have no idea of all these. Every time I
see a survey asking for limits to be increased, I shudder when I see
"people are better drivers nowadays" as a reason. I've misread corners,
not spotted a diesel patch, been listening to fast music too loud, been
chatting to a passenger etc. etc. But most of the time I can scan the
road ahead, my mirrors (all three) and the speedo and keep within the
limits. This simple procedure seems to be beyond most drivers (and it's
just the UK, you should see them in France!)

Stuart

the speed limits imposed on us make very little sense. the limits are the same for a good driver as they are for a bad driver. the same for a well handling car as they are for a rubbish handling car. the same for freezing foggy busy conditions as they are for bright sunny clear not busy conditions.
speed has little to do with accidents. the only thing that causes accidents is driving outside of the limits of a) the car b)the road condition and c) the driver.
but then you can't have different speed limits for every one and every car. you can however have a different limit for different road conditions. having a blanket limit means that the limit is too high for some people and too low for others.
maybe a limit on HP until you pass another more advanced test would help. as it stands you could pass your test on your 17th birthday and go straight out and buy a mclaren F1. How many footballers rush out and buy porches and ferraris then proceed to park them into tree or worst?
it should be 'you want a ferrari testerone? prove you can handle it first' or 'your a crap driver you can only have this 25hp car'

Srtgray wrote:
> Austin Shackles wrote:
>> On or around 7 Jul 2006 02:53:18 -0700, "Teeafit"
>> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>>
>>
>>> <<Birk Brown>> Sorry, that was a typo -- the location is 'Birk
>>> Brow'. But what a wonderful (unconsious) typo it was!
>>>
>>> Glad to see that there is as least one other person out there who
>>> agrees with me about un-necessary (and hence counter-productive)
>>> speed limits. Anyone any thoughts on the point of view that limits
>>> can sometimes INCREASE the danger?
>>
>>
>> yes, but only in a few cases. Speed TRAPS can do so more often, but
>> only because people are daft, and panic, rather than assessing the
>> speed they're going at accurately so as to slow down just enough
>> (which generally isn't much - any half-way decent driver in most
>> cases is not much above the limit), they stamp on the anchors.
>>
>> Mind, I hold that *all* speed limits should be unnecessary and that
>> it would be far better if people drove within their, their cars' and
>> the road's limits.
>
> The problem is that most people have no idea of all these. Every
> time I see a survey asking for limits to be increased, I shudder when
> I see "people are better drivers nowadays" as a reason. I've misread
> corners, not spotted a diesel patch, been listening to fast music too
> loud, been chatting to a passenger etc. etc. But most of the time I
> can scan the road ahead, my mirrors (all three) and the speedo and
> keep within the limits. This simple procedure seems to be beyond
> most drivers (and it's just the UK, you should see them in France!)
>
> Stuart

Can't even drive on the right side of the road over there!

--
"He who says it cannot be done would be well advised not to interrupt
her doing it."

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!

Austin Shackles wrote:
> On or around 7 Jul 2006 02:53:18 -0700, "Teeafit"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>
>> <<Birk Brown>> Sorry, that was a typo -- the location is 'Birk
>> Brow'. But what a wonderful (unconsious) typo it was!
>>
>> Glad to see that there is as least one other person out there who
>> agrees with me about un-necessary (and hence counter-productive)
>> speed limits. Anyone any thoughts on the point of view that limits
>> can sometimes INCREASE the danger?
>
> yes, but only in a few cases. Speed TRAPS can do so more often, but
> only because people are daft, and panic, rather than assessing the
> speed they're going at accurately so as to slow down just enough
> (which generally isn't much - any half-way decent driver in most
> cases is not much above the limit), they stamp on the anchors.
>
> Mind, I hold that *all* speed limits should be unnecessary and that
> it would be far better if people drove within their, their cars' and
> the road's limits.

Agreed, but unfortunately that doesn't include the limits due to the other road
going idiots

--
"He who says it cannot be done would be well advised not to interrupt
her doing it."

If the answer is offensive maybe the question was inappropriate

The fiend of my fiend is my enema!