Doing 60 in a temp 50 on M4

[dx100uk]

yep must agreed

 

one final point.

 

no-one has pointed out that if we do keep changing the speed limitthrough roadwork if/if not work is going on. people will probably moan just as loud about why cant they keep it the same, i went thru at 60 yesterday, now i've got nicked at 50!

 

nuff said

 

dx

[freakyleaky]

So in conclusion if you stick to the speed limit that has been set you don't get fined or receive points.

Simples!

 

This is Danny's thread. Do you want me to close the thread now?

I think it has run it's course.

[Fair-Parking]

Why has this thread run its course? If certain people do not wish to contribute any further then that's their choice. Move on guys and leave the rest of us to debate the issue.

 

Don't apply one blanket rule to the rest of us, which I think was one of the salient points that the OP was trying to put over.

 

For moderators - moderate, don't dictate and control, which is a point that I have put over.

[Fair-Parking]

To continue with this thread. 'Perfectly safe' can be defined by being able to stop within the distance a driver can see and to kill two birds with one stone on this, yes I do know the roadworks very well, living just 20 miles from them and yes the M6 at the point is long and straight.

 

As for 'there must be a good reason for putting the limit there', yes there is, for periods of normal and heavy traffic, but nobody - least of all the authorities - has put forward one compelling argument why such a restriction should be applied at 2am when the motorway is empty.

[freakyleaky]

Do you not agree that this thread is going round in circles now??

 

Who is applying blanket rules for anyone ??

 

And what exactly makes you think that I am dictating or controlling? I expressed an opinion (I presume I am allowed one?) that I thought the thread had run it's course and I asked if the OP wanted it closing!

How exactly is that dictating or controlling anything???

 

If the OP wants it closed then it will be closed.

If anyone else wishes to start their own thread debating the issues discussed here then that is up to them.

[Fair-Parking]

What exactly is the point of a forum if nobody is allowed to contribute?

 

If you close a thread then nobody can add to it - ie blanket and that equals control.

 

The fact that a moderator felt the need to reply rather briskly suggests there is life in this thread.

 

Are the points I am making unworthy of this debate?

[MARTIN3030]

"As for 'there must be a good reason for putting the limit there', yes there is, for periods of normal and heavy traffic, but nobody - least of all the authorities - has put forward one compelling argument why such a restriction should be applied at 2am when the motorway is empty."

 

Maybe you should ask them ?

 

Rules are Rules-we dont always understand them.

Smoking is banned in pubs-but does that mean that it should be ok to smoke when theres not many people in ?

[patdavies]

To continue with this thread. 'Perfectly safe' can be defined by being able to stop within the distance a driver can see and to kill two birds with one stone on this, yes I do know the roadworks very well, living just 20 miles from them and yes the M6 at the point is long and straight.

 

As for 'there must be a good reason for putting the limit there', yes there is, for periods of normal and heavy traffic, but nobody - least of all the authorities - has put forward one compelling argument why such a restriction should be applied at 2am when the motorway is empty.

 

Since you know the roadworks, what is their nature?

 

Contra-flow; missing crash barriers; no hard shoulder; narrow lanes?

[Conniff]

 

Smoking is banned in pubs-but does that mean that it should be ok to smoke when theres not many people in ?

 

Yes

 

I think non smokers should go outside while smokers have a drag.

[Fair-Parking]

Why should I ask them? It won't change anything, which I believe is the point I'm making, they just apply these things without full use of common sense. Having protected people from enforcement of PCNs and S172s for precisely that reason and having an accident and conviction free lifetime of motoring, as I say what do I know?

 

Pat. The nature of the roadworks is irrelevant, it doesn't warrant the same consideration at 2am as it does during busier times.

[crem]

Let's have the 85th Percentile system back!

[freakyleaky]

What exactly is the point of a forum if nobody is allowed to contribute?

Of course people are allowed to contribute. Who said otherwise?

 

If you close a thread then nobody can add to it - ie blanket and that equals control.

If the person who started the thread wants it closed thats his choice. If other people would like to express an opinion that the thread should be closed then that is there choice also. I really don't know where you get this idea of blanket control from. If I closed the thread because I felt like it then maybe you would have a point.

The fact that a moderator felt the need to reply rather briskly suggests there is life in this thread.

Rather briskly? Do you mean quickly?

 

Are the points I am making unworthy of this debate?

 

I have no opinion on the worthiness of the points you are making. I do know that they have been made many times in the past and will be made many times in the future. These points have been argued against many time before and will be again. There will never be a conclusion to a debate on this issue. (Or at least there hasn't been on these forums in the past)

 

Maybe this time is different. We shall see.

 

In the meantime please can everyone stay with the site rules when posting.

[Fair-Parking]

Oh dear, it seems that the OP's original concerns have been forgotten.

[freakyleaky]

Oh dear, it seems that the OP's original concerns have been forgotten.

Not forgotten just flogged to death.

[patdavies]

Pat. The nature of the roadworks is irrelevant, it doesn't warrant the same consideration at 2am as it does during busier times.

 

Sorry, I disagree. The time is irrelevant. Consideration should revolve around traffic density regardless of time.

 

If the central barrier had been removed as a part of the roadworks, for example, two vehicles in opposing directions are sufficient to warrant a speed limit - to reduce the closing speed.

 

Also, at 2:00 am on a motorway there is a preponderance of heavy vehicles due to the need for early morning deliveries, overnight drops and general ability to make better progress in lighter traffic.

[TD27]

All, new to the forum and a serving traffic officer (police) I've read with interest everyone's view.

 

I'm not sure there is an answer that satifies all for a number of reasons; (and I don't wish to patronise etc etc, please take my post in the spirit it's intended);

 

1. The limits (temporary or otherwise) are there to reduce the risk of a collision of any kind happening. In the main, lower speed, more time to react and take avoiding action should the need arise. Should a collision still occur then, as Pat has pointed out several times, lower closing speeds may help to avoid a fatality and / or serious injury. It's all about 'What if?'.

 

Most, if not all of us drive to a level to which we feel safe. The point is that for the most part collisions (or accidents as they used to be) by definition are not expected. They can be caused by factors outside our terms of reference, ie what we don't expect. So 60, in a 50 limit at 2am may be perfectly safe and reasonable, as long as nothing happens. The point is that should something occur, the increase in speed over the limit is more likely to have a detrimental affect than if you were travelling at the speed limit. If its a pedestrian it may make no difference. If its colliding with the central reservation it could be enough to take you over onto the other carriageway. Either way there are no guarantees. It's all about mitigating risk. Think about seatbelts and the law. Most rarely if ever need them, but the impact of not having one on should a collision occur moves from minor with belt on (in many cases) to life threatening / changing without it. And of course no one went out expecting to be in a collision.

 

Finally on limits, think about the 30mph limits. 5mph over takes a further 11 feet to stop in good conditions and average brakes. Small factors, at the wrong time and place have massive consequences. 50 in a 60 is no difference.

 

2. Discretion

 

I full understand where the OP is coming from here. Were he likely to be stopped by police he may well have got a ticking off, or still the EFPN. The point is the officers could show discretion under the circumstances. But here then we have inconsistency. One officer could let you off with a warning and a slap on the wrist, the other issue the fixed penalty, everybody reads things differently. One only needs to look at situations and speeds you perceived as hazardous when you passed your test compared to those you perceive as hazardous now. Or maybe review the range of opinion on this matter on here. It's vast and the police are no different, since its made up of individuals. May be the answer is to have no discretion? But thats the position the OP found himself in in the first place.

 

3. No one is immune. Even to the advanced standard that Police officers are trained to they can and do get it wrong. Most on traffic will have had something like 7 -8 weeks of intensive driver training to get them to a level which is deemed 'safe' and 'competent' for their role. This followed up with refreshers, eye sight tests etc etc. But still situations occur even with a much heightened state of anticipation, vigilance and driver skill that cause everything from minor injury to fatality, both in response and non response situations. Ultimately we're back at mitigation and reducing risk.

 

These are my own thoughts and views, they're not intended as 'the answer' and the only way of looking at things. I do stand behind them, although I'm willing to be challenged and educated. I am after all still learning like most of us.

[gwc1000]

Hi, TD27. Good post. Can I ask your opinion as an officer, do you believe speeding fines are all about raising revenue and nothing else, or are they intended to make the roads safer?

[wheelergeezer]

All, new to the forum and a serving traffic officer (police) I've read with interest everyone's view.

 

I'm not sure there is an answer that satifies all for a number of reasons; (and I don't wish to patronise etc etc, please take my post in the spirit it's intended);

 

1. The limits (temporary or otherwise) are there to reduce the risk of a collision of any kind happening. In the main, lower speed, more time to react and take avoiding action should the need arise. Should a collision still occur then, as Pat has pointed out several times, lower closing speeds may help to avoid a fatality and / or serious injury. It's all about 'What if?'.

 

Most, if not all of us drive to a level to which we feel safe. The point is that for the most part collisions (or accidents as they used to be) by definition are not expected. They can be caused by factors outside our terms of reference, ie what we don't expect. So 60, in a 50 limit at 2am may be perfectly safe and reasonable, as long as nothing happens. The point is that should something occur, the increase in speed over the limit is more likely to have a detrimental affect than if you were travelling at the speed limit. If its a pedestrian it may make no difference. If its colliding with the central reservation it could be enough to take you over onto the other carriageway. Either way there are no guarantees. It's all about mitigating risk. Think about seatbelts and the law. Most rarely if ever need them, but the impact of not having one on should a collision occur moves from minor with belt on (in many cases) to life threatening / changing without it. And of course no one went out expecting to be in a collision.

 

Finally on limits, think about the 30mph limits. 5mph over takes a further 11 feet to stop in good conditions and average brakes. Small factors, at the wrong time and place have massive consequences. 50 in a 60 is no difference.

 

2. Discretion

 

I full understand where the OP is coming from here. Were he likely to be stopped by police he may well have got a ticking off, or still the EFPN. The point is the officers could show discretion under the circumstances. But here then we have inconsistency. One officer could let you off with a warning and a slap on the wrist, the other issue the fixed penalty, everybody reads things differently. One only needs to look at situations and speeds you perceived as hazardous when you passed your test compared to those you perceive as hazardous now. Or maybe review the range of opinion on this matter on here. It's vast and the police are no different, since its made up of individuals. May be the answer is to have no discretion? But thats the position the OP found himself in in the first place.

 

3. No one is immune. Even to the advanced standard that Police officers are trained to they can and do get it wrong. Most on traffic will have had something like 7 -8 weeks of intensive driver training to get them to a level which is deemed 'safe' and 'competent' for their role. This followed up with refreshers, eye sight tests etc etc. But still situations occur even with a much heightened state of anticipation, vigilance and driver skill that cause everything from minor injury to fatality, both in response and non response situations. Ultimately we're back at mitigation and reducing risk.

 

These are my own thoughts and views, they're not intended as 'the answer' and the only way of looking at things. I do stand behind them, although I'm willing to be challenged and educated. I am after all still learning like most of us.

 

Excellent contribution. As an ex class one driver, government driver and now driving instructor I agree with everything you have just posted.

[crem]

Hi, TD27. Good post. Can I ask your opinion as an officer, do you believe speeding fines are all about raising revenue and nothing else, or are they intended to make the roads safer?

 

Of course TD27 may have an opinion on this to which he is entitled, but I'm not sure it will be any more valid than anyone else's.

 

Why do you think he would have more expert knowledge on this question? I presume he would not be involved in any financial transactions whether the revenue went to the local police, local council, central government or was split amongest them bt some unspecified central body.

[TD27]

Hi, TD27. Good post. Can I ask your opinion as an officer, do you believe speeding fines are all about raising revenue and nothing else, or are they intended to make the roads safer?

 

Still learning the technical aspects... hopefully the quote will appear!

 

To answer the question my personal view is that it lies with the person administering the penalty. That's why I'm in favour of more traffic officers with the ability to use discretion and detect offences which technology cannot.

 

However, when camera's were introduced I'm sure they were seen as a way to impact excessive speed. I think today the almighty dollar is too much of factor in their use. If that money were ploughed back into more traffic officers and more education of motorists then I'd feel a little more at ease. The challenge there of course is that then the public really would see it as a revenue generation exercise for the police, and rightly so. (I mean the public would have a fair point, not that we should have more money in this way!)

 

Equally the central funding would diminish by a comparable amount I'm sure!

 

The alternative would be to have no financial penalty if caught by a camera but uprated points against your DL, then there could be no suggestion of revenue benefits?

 

I think ultimately we differentiate between minor infringements, significant infringements and the downright dangerous and criminal. I'm afraid only humans can do that and their aren't enough of us.

Edited July 8, 2009 by TD27
my gramar let me down!

[jed52]

All, new to the forum and a serving traffic officer (police) I've read with interest everyone's view.

 

2. Discretion

 

I full understand where the OP is coming from here. Were he likely to be stopped by police he may well have got a ticking off, or still the EFPN. The point is the officers could show discretion under the circumstances. But here then we have inconsistency. One officer could let you off with a warning and a slap on the wrist, the other issue the fixed penalty, everybody reads things differently. One only needs to look at situations and speeds you perceived as hazardous when you passed your test compared to those you perceive as hazardous now. Or maybe review the range of opinion on this matter on here. It's vast and the police are no different, since its made up of individuals. May be the answer is to have no discretion? But thats the position the OP found himself in in the first place.'

 

Hi,TD27, at last, a post from somebody on the front line, so to speak.

 

The problem with discretion, as you rightly say, is fraught with too many variable factors. Do we really want the police's time taken up by sifting through every similar case to see if there was any mitigating circumstance's? I dont think so. And discretion could only be exercised by officers that have actually stopped you surely, not by fixed cameras.

 

Also, I dont buy into this 'revenue making' thing. I think this is something that somebody thought up because they were miffed at being caught.

 

The point is, if you get caught speeding, tough, dont speed.

Good post TD27.

jed

[dx100uk]

agreed

 

dx

[citizenkain]

Just a wee chip in from someone thats worked in a lot of roadworks,M4,M25,M40,M3 and various others,one of the main reasons why the traffic is slowed is to protect the workers from vehicles screaming past them!one of the other main reasons is to protect the motoring public,when you have a lot of earthmoving machinery moving around even in a coned off area lumps of mud can get flung up,some vehicles carrying peashingle can spill a bit on the adjacent highway,that is why you always see roadsweepers at roadworks and other vehicles not travelling at 70mph! Also these vehicles need to slow right down to enter and leave the site access,there would be chaos if there were vehicles hammering up and down.

[TD27]

I think Jed you raise a valid point around mindset, in particular around the financial penalty.

 

I know plenty of traffic officers who have points on their licence for excess speed, although usually it has to be said its no more than 3.

 

Almost all of these have been camera related and all for minor infringements of the limit. I have to include myself here too sadly ().

 

But my point is I was exceeding the speed limit on the piece of road, it was a loss of concentration on my part and consequently the NIP etc was issued. I paid the fine, accepted the points and got on with life. Annoying? Yes. But I have to accept I was travelling over the posted limit.

 

Without question, on a personal level, one of my biggest frustrations is the lack of basic accountability certain members of the public have for their actions. Absent minded or not. It's no one elses fault. Just as it was no one elses fault when I was caught.

 

The point the OP made here was indeed reasonable and valid and of course he took personal responsibility for his actions - no problem with that. And being so reasonable, why not write in, admit the offence and ask someone to use some discretion. Sadly that's not the way it works, but its fully understandable why he took that reasonable course of action.

 

Equally, no problem with someone who feels the officer / technology / process has a legitimate fault / error or has not been operated correctly and feels they were not comitting the offence. Please contest it, but with some sort of legitimate basis and / or evidence. The vast majority of us go to great lengths to explain things to those we stop so they know how we have detected the alledged offence. We are happy to answer questions. Equally we look on nearly all people we come into contact with in this role as law abiding individuals who have made a mistake. We are, for many usually the first and hopefully the only contact they have with the police. Whilst the news could be bad in terms of the offence, we do try to leave a good professional impression and give a little bit of education.

 

What does really narc are those immediately seeking a technical defence. Calibration, user error, anticipation / reaction times and many, many more I could go into. Asking such pointed questions as to fundamentally challenge your personal integrity. You could think of it as going to work every day and knowing more or less at least one person that day is going to call you a liar or incompetent or at best mistaken. Sadly, mistaken doesn't seem to be high on the agenda until the defence is running out of options.

 

But hey, its the job we do, its worthwhile so I'll put the violin away now .

 

As I said, it all comes back to mindset.

[jed52]

I agree TD27,about mindset, but does it go further? There would seem to me, to be two types of mindset when somebody gets caught speeding. One will take it on the chin and say, ok, I got caught, fair cop. And the other one will wriggle like a worm on a hook. Is it something to do with a dislike of authority or control? 'Why should I do 50, when it looks perfectly safe to do 70 or 80?

(I am not one of the latter, I hasten to add.)

 

I have been driving HGV's for nearly 32 years, and am quite proud of the fact that I have got only one speeding conviction in that time. But, sadly, I think that the attitude nowadays is completely different. Points on your licence seem to be some sort of 'Badge of Honour'. I find this a strange way of looking at things, after all, more points on your licence inevitably means more money coming out of your pocket for the fine and increase in insurance premiums etc.

 

Education is, I think the way forward, but do you not think that you are banging your head against a brick wall sometimes TD27?

jed