Be Excellent To Each Other

All very true, markg, and there seem to be two seperate arguments going on that get confused and mixed up -

(1) speed limits are bad, m'kay; and

(2) speed cameras are bad, m'kay.

There are definitely issues with speed cmaeras, but I'm very much in favour of speed limits. I've yet to hear a suggestion from someone that would involve doing away with speed limits and not having teenagers twatting through villages at 60 miles an hour in the absence of policeman to determine that they're driving dangerously.

I think having speed limits plus the laws on dangerous driving/due care and attention are pretty much fine as they are - the former set out an absolute maximum which everyone is aware of, and the latter cover those instances where people are driving within the speed limit but overtaking dangerously, say.

I agree. Let's debate (2), that's much more interesting. What do you think of the statistics I have presented, Mr Chris?

People do twat about at 60 through built-up areas despite the speed limits (and are complete cunts).

I would entirely agree that a well-placed speed limit is good (although I would strongly disagree with current enforcement policies, ie speed bumps). I do think however that speeding should not be the sole basis for a fine/charge on national limited dual carriageways and motorways. Using it as a Bonus Multiplier would be awesome, though*. As would introducing a German/Japanese-style limiter on cars, and I'd go closer to the 112mph of the latter than 155 of the former.

I also don't entirely disagree with cameras - I think SPECS cameras are brilliant**, and every traffic light should come with an RLC. Fixed-point speed cameras I don't like (also unreliable ones, as evidence - provided by people convicted using them, natch - of the handheld laser ones seems to suggest).

* And not even costly to implement; all motorway traffic enforcement cars have calibrated speedometers and a large number, if not all, have video.

** If used appropriately; I definitely would not want national coverage.

Doesn't stop your chavved up Nova doing stupid mph in a built-up area, which is far more dangerous than doing 100mph on a motorway.

I really, really can't decide how to take that. Mostly as a personal affront, at the moment, because it's so badly distorting my post that I can't read it any other way, no matter how I try.

Disagree, strongly. I don't think 'limiting' cars would work. It would only 'work' until a manufacturer broke the deal, as what happened in the IntercontinentalAttackPlatform wars in the motorcycle industies.



I like specs, as it only affects numberplates on the front. It's a good time to make good progress.

I'm sure it wasn't.

Let's keep it as friendly as we can, folks.

None of the German or Japanese manufacturers will normally break it, although I believe BMW would do so in the factory for things like the M3 CSL if you have a good enough racing licence.

Then again the Bugatti Veyron; maybe that rule is falling by the wayside (or maybe they've worked around it by saying it's made in Italy).

I am not much surprised by them. I'm not surprised there hasn't been much of a decrease in road deaths since the 90s, to be honest.

It comes down to whether cameras are an enforcement tool (and in that role they can only ensure people stay within the speed limit in the 100m in front of them, so aren't much use) or a tool to decrease deaths. And it makes sense that the decreases will tail off once you've already stuck them on the accident hotspots. After that the cameras seem to get stuck where people are most likely to be speeding - not necessarily where they are most likely to prevent deaths. Which, of course, adds to the suspicion that they're a revenue raising tool.

I still think that if we're going to have speed cameras, they should be hidden. That way it's not just those 100 metres in front of the camera that are having the limit enfroced, but putatively every metre of every road.

But whether we have cameras or not, we need the traffic police back - there are many more traffic crimes than just speeding. Take the mobile phone thing, for instance - it's been illegalised, but it's impossible to enforce without the bloody police doing so.

Mm, that was the core issue with the rename/paint/expose of Gatsos - that they're supposed to increase safety in dangerous locations; hence the stuff above plus a new camera supposedly only being placed at a location where there is a recent history of severe injury/fatality.

So by that argument, if people know a camera is coming and can see it, they're more likely to slow before the blackspot, as opposed to still careening through the blackspot but getting points and a fine a few days later, if they're not dead.

Which does at least have some logic behind it, which is quite refreshing from Government, even if it's somewhat skewiff compared to the original point of them (as I'm sure you can guess, I agree with this logic over hide'n'fine, which is even more surprising).

If enforcing speed limits doesn't decrease deaths, injuries, and property damage, why would we bother to do so? I don't see these as separate issues at all.

That, however, only compounds suspicion that they are revenue generators, suspicion that is somewhat founded, based on the statistics we have already discussed. I think everyone agrees that using them purely as revenue generators is rather naughty and it would be best if the police were careful to ensure their actions could not be construed like that.

"Illegalised"? Is that fancy lawyer speak for "criminalised"?

I meant reducing deaths in a specific death blackspot - my fault for not being specific.



Indeed. I'd be happy if the revenue from fines went to, say, the NHS instead, which would help reduce that suspicion. Or just have points as the penalty, and no fine.


A deliberate made up word, there. I'm trying to get it to catch on...

The problem there is that it would just make it even "better" to drive without a licence.

Still, at least they're trying to get tough now, with the VLED (really, would it have been so hard to at least have a reasonable acronym for the replacement of "road tax"?) and insurance penalties of crushing your car. Hopefully lapsed MOTs are in or will soon be joining that club as well. Difficult to justify crushing your car for a non-injurous* offence though.

Which is a disgraceful practice (if indeed crushing is what actually happens, and not just for effect); surely any MOTable car should be sent to auction? Fine the offender £40 for an MOT, if it fails off to recycling with a further fine of £150.

* If that doesn't mean what I'm using it to mean, I mean 'an offence during the committing of which no injury was caused'.

for any fixed fine.

A fine of £60 can be crippling to one person, and small change to the next.

Still, 3 points is likely to add £60 to your next insurance bill anyway....



Hmmm. True. So, let's give the cash from the fines to the NHS, or to, I don't know, me.



It does seem ridiculously harsh, especially as the car could be worth somewhat more than the "debt". And that's it - it's just non-payment of a debt, isn't it? Do they come and demolish your house if you're late with your council tax?



I thought they used to do this - they got towed, and then impounded cars got auctioned off if the MOT wasn't paid, or something.

Nah, insurance companies don't care about points until you've got 6-9 of them.

And what do points make?



(Sorry.)

Railway tracks.

Mine bloody did.

So did my wife's.

Yeah but Grim... is like the queen or the NHS, he's so rich he underwrites himself.

Direct Line and NFU are the two companies I insure my cars with - Direct Line cares when you have 6 points, NFU when you have 9.

If you've not got a valid licence or MOT, you have no insurance (and possibly aren't qualified to drive). If you have no insurance, the people you plough into have nowhere to go for recompense but court, which will take ages and return something approaching zero.

Which is all fairly unlikely if you don't pay your council tax on time, and why the Government feels "encouraging" proper documentation is more important for cars. More surprisingly lucid, if somewhat off-target logic from someone in Government. Blimey.
They regularly hide a van behind bushes above the eastbound Eccles exit of the M602. I'm not a fan of that tactic, especially as it blocks the pavement. Even though I'm in a car and am alongside it, so it doesn't affect me in the slightest.

It's also very hard to get away with not paying council tax, as it is attached to a fixed asset that can easily be tracked (i.e. your house). It's a lot easier to get away with not paying car tax, as you can fraudulently declare it SORN then keep driving it. Unless a passing policeman happens to run a PNC check on you, or you pass a semi-auto tax camera, you can potentially get away with this for ages.

The enhanced penalties reflect the risk of getting caught.

I have a great story about the local council towing my old car away, which was declared SORN and parked on a private parking area.

Did you cut it in half like that bloke in Gloucester?

It's a story I would like to archive for the ages. I'll write it up for my blog and post a link here when I'm done.

I had a nightmare time trying to prove to the DVLA that I no longer owned an old car. Because it explosmed on me and I got towed to the scrapyard, I didn't have the V5, so I couldn't get the scrapyard owner to sign the V5 counterfoil there and then. I had to fill in my part and send their bit off to them, which they obviously never bothered completing. I basically had no proof I was no longer in possession of the car. I had to get the AA guy to write me a sworn statement in the end.

It's daft how you have to keep declaring your vehicle SORN every 12 months else face the wrath of the DVLA or whoever is in charge.

I don't think they bother sending notices half the time either if your 12-month period is coming to an end. I'll need to see when my old bike was declared, so cheers for the reminder!

Joke nothing, someone did it.

Bought a Sierra in London, insured and taxed it for 1 month (got a refund afterwards for remaining time), drove 2 people to Scotland for cheaper than the best train price.

Might even have been Top Gear Magazine back in the pre-TV show days.

EDIT : AHA! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1479878.stm

Petrol at my favourite petrol station has now dropped to 112 per litre. I thought, "goodness, that's cheap", then remembered that it was half that about 18 months ago, and slapped myself for being sucked in by their cost cutting tokenism.

We're doomed, aren't we?


DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED.

It's 110.9p here at the moment, down from 115.9p the other week. Morrisons dropped the prices, then everywhere else followed suit. I was hoping they were going to play off eachother, but it doesn't look that way.

Petrol has risen 25p or so a litre since I started driving, and that was fairly recently

I started my new job in june last year, commuting 60 miles a day. It was about 78p a litre back then. A week or two ago it was 120p.

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED

I would really, really hate to be poor right now.

Really? Maybe my memories of such low prices have been worryingly repressed then. I started riding in april last year and could have sworn the prices were in the low 90s, but I didn't pay too much attention.

Shocking

It was either in the high 70s or low 80s, yeah.

I shall look it up, actually, as I may be massively wrong.

Ah, snobbery.

/JPickford

Fair comment though by Ace, a lot of people are very inefficient with their spending, so their level of poverty is often relative to what they're used to. In other words, people don't want to cut back on the essentials like FAGS AND BEER, and this makes them more poor than they'd otherwise be.

Fucking hell, despite earning a fairly decent wage I'd bankrupt myself if I drank and smoked regularly, so I don't know how anyone 'poorer' than me can cope.

Also Chris, when I passed my driving test 8 years ago, the petrol at my local pump was 79.9p, which is about the only time I bothered to remember. Since then it's been on a steady increase, and only jumping to silly degrees in the last year or two.

Up north our 2 star is still 15p a flagon.

How much is that in furlongs per two weeks?

A change in my job means I'm now also commuting 60 miles a day, rather than the 4 that I was doing previously. My employers decided to pay my mileage at the time, rather than give me a payrise.

Since then, I've had a 12% payrise, but am still making the mileage claims in the hope no one will notice and stop me, because I would be severely out of pocket otherwise, even with the payrise. I'm having to buy at least £50 worth of petrol every week, and that's if I do little more driving each week than my commute. And before anyone says, no, I cannot use public transport to get to work unless I want to pay substantially more than £50 per week and add another two hours to my journey time. Each way.