Safe Speed Forums

statistically to have the same thing happen what.... 4 times to lose a license would seem either very bad luck, or sugest that something else is going on.

does anyone claim to have lost their license purely because of illogical or poorly marked speed limits? not even a few points from obvious driving above the limit in an obviously marked zone?

I'm afraid you are all talking complete bol*#cs apart from BW.

All you need to do is refer to this http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 and the following few articles, it's all in there.

From what a lot have said it's obvious you haven't done that, apart from SS His policy is in there.

Bye for anothe couple of months y'all.

ah so i'm not talking absolute bol*#cs then? good good.

for passenger cars it seems the only speed limit options are 30, 60 & 70 (now that would be good!).
care to explain how all the 40 & 50 zones i drive through got there then?
or the dual carraigeways with 50 & 60 limits?

I'm sorry M3RBMW, I'm afraid I can't do that. I know you and SafeSpeed were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen. Although you took thorough precautions in the Clubhouse against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Except it isn't all in there, is it. You know as well as any of us that the rules regarding what is and isn't a street-lit road are bloody confusing and aren't aided by local authorities who are seemingly unable or unwilling to perform simple maintenance of speed limit repeaters. If we were to interpret the HC literally, then what speed limit would apply in the following scenario?

A dual carriageway with street lights. On entry to the dual carriageway the driver passes a pair of NSL signs marking the end of the previous lower limit. Along the entire length of the dual carriageway the driver passes NO OTHER speed limit signs until they reach the end of the dual carriageway, at which point they pass a pair of 30 signs marking the start of a new lower limit.

Before you idly dismiss this as a completely fabricated and unrealistic scenario, I should point out that whilst I realise the chances of every single repeater being missing is remote, even with the current average level of sign maintenance, it's NOT uncommon to find a stretch of road where sufficient repeaters are missing/obscured/faded into illegibility such that the distance between visible repeaters is greater than required. Thus, whilst a driver may eventually pass a repeater and have confidence in the actual limit, it is quite possible for them to spend an unacceptable length of time driving along such a road with NO clear guidance as to the limit.

But does it matter whether all of their points were obtained whilst driving in badly-marked limits, or only the last set which was sufficient to result in a ban? If someone is on 9 points from previous offences where they had no argument about being caught, it's no more acceptable for them to receive another 3 points and a ban for being caught in a badly-marked limit than it is for someone with a clean licence to receive their first ever points for being caught in the same spot.

If points/fines are to be dished out as the immediate punishment for breaking the limit, with the potential for far greater knock-on effects (e.g. increased insurance premiums which act as a significantly harder financial penalty than the 60 quid the SCPs extract from your wallet, loss of job due to number of points on licence exceeding the level stated in your contract, or as a result of being banned and having no feasible alternative way to get to work), then the system HAS to be 100% certain that the punishment is being dished out only when absolutely appropriate. There should never be a case of someone being incorrectly prosecuted for speeding, the benefit of doubt should always lie with the motorist. But that's not how things are working at the moment. People ARE being penalised incorrectly. Who knows how bad the situation really is, the people who do successfully dispute a prosecution may only be the tip of the iceberg - how many people receive a NIP and simply assume they must have been in the wrong otherwise they wouldn't have received a NIP...

Yes. There was a report in the local paper a few months ago about a woman who racked up 12 points in the space of a few hours, on the same road.
And there have been others I've heard about as well, although cannot remember the details.

Cheers
Peter

That's the funniest thing I have heard so far today!

Incidentally JJ, go back and read my quote of the DfT advice on street lighting. Things aren't as clear cut as you try to make them out and even the DfT say its a matter of intepretation by the courts (some of whom are of course members of those wonderful co-conspiratory partnerships that pay your wages). Then of course there is the ongoing moves to change the rules on speed limit setting that are receiving as little publicity as possible. Why all the secrecy?

Why not remove all doubt and put up clear signage - go on, give me a good reason not to if compliance is the stated aim?!

As long as the people who set the limits continue to ignore rule 104, "The speed limit is the absolute maximum", I can't see why they continue to quote these rules at us. The definition of the limit is the maximum speed in best conditions and a clear road, not someone's idea of a good average speed when there are children around.

That's very good Hal. Always beware of secret mission objectives. They can have unexpected consequences.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

See nothing has changed, You do not have a clue what goes on and you quite readily make false claims (re magistrates) with no evidence at all.

http://www.humberside.police.uk/News/camera.htm

In April 2003 Humberside Safety Camera Partnership was formed bringing together East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Highways Agency, Hull City Council, Humberside Magistrates Courts Committee, Humberside Police, North East Lincolnshire Council and North Lincolnshire Council with the aim of reducing the number of speed related accidents.

So who are the Magistrates Courts Committee, and what do they do?

They are the people who administer the courts and the courts buidings as well as employ the admin staff. This is VERY different from the Magistrates who are nothing to do with safety camera partnerships and for that matter are not allowed to be.

It's simple really I just can't quite see how you people can't comprehend the difference.

Who pays the magistrates??

JJ - don't preach to us about facts and evidence and the rights and wrongs of speed camera partnerships. You have no information about our backgrounds, interests or legal status so anything you say about us is presumption. However, you (and the people who cowardly borrow your account every once in a while) are in the pay of a partnership therefor you are biased - simple unequivocal fact. Resign your post or start working for free and then you might at least have a platform to preach to us from.

PS. For those who are unaware - JJ is an employee of the Cumbria Safety Camera partnership.

I can see how people can make a link: (quick google search)

[Quote]
The magistrates' courts committee role

A magistrates' courts committee (MCC) is a body corporate, comprised of up to twelve magistrate members selected by a statutory selection panel for each magistrates' courts committee area. The detailed powers and duties of MCCs, and the requirement for the selection process, are laid down in legislation. MCCs have no power to own or lease land or premises - all committee premises are owned or leased by the paying authority, which also provide 20% of MCC finding, with the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) responsible for 80% subject to a cash limit. each MCC is responsible for the provision of an efficient and high quality service to the public within its area.

Each MCC has a strategic plan with specific direction and aims identifying objectives and targets covering the following areas:

* staff management
* premises management
* resources management
* information technology
* organisation of petty sessional divisions
* justices' training
* service efficiency and quality

In discharging these responsibilities the MCC considers

* setting targets
* reports on progress in meeting objectives
* performance against identified benchmarks.

Each MCC also tales local decisions making specific provision for:

* local budget preparation and management arrangements, in line with cash limit, including delegation of budgetary responsibility
* committee arrangements regarding use of sub-committees or panels, and patterns of meetings
* production of an annual report
* determining staffing complements and policies on such matters as terms and conditions of service and equal opportunities
* arrangement for committee involvement in appointment of the justices' chief executive, the clerk to the justices and other senior staff
* arrangements for the committee to visit all court premises at least once a year, accompanied by appropriate professional advisers, to ensure that existing courts and officers meet minimum standards and to identify priority schemes for repairs and improvements
* review of courthouse usage based on identifies utilisation criteria
* arrangements for the magistrates' courts committee to ensure that it is fully informed about the views of both magistrates and staff in its area.
[Quote]

People may make links between where the money comes from to run the court? The more people who get caught, the more money the government gets, the less it has to find for the Local Authorities perhaps?

I've also heard quite a few stories about how the "clerk to the justices" can be far from impartial? (unless I've got that mixed up with somebody else)

I note on the same page that the stopping distance given for 70-0mph is 315 feet. I also note that my MR2 can perform the same in 161 feet. Am I allowed to drive a bit faster please?

'You people' !!! ??

Please have the common courtesy to be polite to new users. He's just another human being and has not declared that he represents any group. On the other hand you do represent a group and your tone reflects very badly on the group.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Why is the magistrate's court committe a member of the partnership? What is the benefit of having them in it?

There was a nurse in Lancashire called Carol Harrison who was caught no less than 11 times by a camera in a 40 zone which had been reduced to a 30. No signs were erected to warn of the reduction, and the signing beforehand had not been the most obvious, with many missing repeaters. It's all to easy not to notice that a 40 sign that was there one week has gone the next. Even if you spotted it, you might just think vandals had removed it.

When it came to court, she managed to get 8 of the 11 NIPs cancelled, as they were for speeds below 40 mph, but she still got 9 points for offences of 41 and 42 mph

See this link

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed