[Closed] 62 points and still on the road

Aracer, your mum was prosecuted for s144 (keeping a vehicle without insurance) not s143 (driving without insurance). No points for the former. for your information, there is no lower limit on fines although for obvious reasons they rarely go below the fixed penalty.

sockpuppet - Member

Please stop doing that too

Bet you're one of those who I regularly follow, think doing 25 in a 20 is abiding by the law. Oh Mr holier than thou.

"There are so many cameras that if you have to drive 50,000+ miles a year you are almost bound to get more than 12 points in three years."

Only if you speed you idiot.

Is this another one of those threads where bad drivers bang on endlessly about how hard done by they are and speeding/being a **** is ok if youre them?

If so I'm out.

"There are so many cameras that if you have to drive 50,000+ miles a year you are almost bound to get more than 12 points in three years."

Not really, I've driven well over 150000 miles in my 24 years on the road and never had any points.

Whilst spped is undoubtable a factor in accidents, so is poor attention to your environment. I'm more concerned not that the chap speeds constantly, but that he is so unaware of his surroundings he hasn't noticed hes constantly getting caught

If I cannot drive I cannot work. I therefore do not speed even on the tedious 30mph country lanes that I would really like to blast down.
Just like not using your phone when driving or paying attention to the road it really isn't something that is hard to do

+1

It's not rocket science. First time you get 12 points = 1 month ban. No exceptions. Your employer has to keep your job for you. With no car you may find it hard to get to work. You may have to take leave. Maybe unpaid leave. Your employer will be inconvenienced as well. They will probably try and impress on you the importance of not losing your license again. Your family may well be inconvenienced. Tarquin may miss rugby training and Jemima may miss riding lessons. Granny may have to find someone else to get her shopping and take her to the hospital. Your family may try and impress on you the importance of not losing your license again.

2nd time to 12 points. Another month ban. Without the employment guarantee. You cockwomble.

[quote=poly ]Aracer, your mum was prosecuted for s144 (keeping a vehicle without insurance) not s143 (driving without insurance). No points for the former.

Fairy nuff - I must have got confused then, because I could have sworn the FPN mentioned points. Maybe she was caught driving then, but it came indirectly? I'll have to find the letter I sent and see if there are any more details in it...

edit: ah found a bit of correspondence I had with a chap who's occasionally on here who's a barrister - he suggested it was probably a DVLA camera which clocked her driving, so I was probably wrong in my previous post and it she was caught driving

It'll be some cardiac surgeon or something

If I lost my license, I'd have to get to and from work on public transport (which is one of my colleagues who chooses not to drive any more does) and stay resident on call, instead of doing it from home. Can't see why the [s]knife monkeys[/s] surgeons would be different.

Didn't the sainted Guy Martin have some silly number of points?

Didn't the sainted Guy Martin have some silly number of points?

"There are so many cameras that if you have to drive 50,000+ miles a year you are almost bound to get more than 12 points in three years."

Yet another in disagreement of that statement (though I can't seem to find who wrote the original). I used to do about 75,000 to 100,000 miles a year for 13 years and in that time I managed to get 3 points for an anger induced heavy-footed blast over in EC2.

Don't drive angry, kids...!

[img] [/img]

How dare you?!

I'll add that as a form of penance or perhaps to assuage a modicum of guilt I didn't drive for about a decade once I'd quit that job.

First time you get 12 points = 1 month ban. No exceptions. Your employer has to keep your job for you. With no car you may find it hard to get to work. You may have to take leave. Maybe unpaid leave. Your employer will be inconvenienced as well. They will probably try and impress on you the importance of not losing your license again. Your family may well be inconvenienced. Tarquin may miss rugby training and Jemima may miss riding lessons. Granny may have to find someone else to get her shopping and take her to the hospital. Your family may try and impress on you the importance of not losing your license again.

2nd time to 12 points. Another month ban. Without the employment guarantee.

you missed 3rd time, though - d'you know what it is yet ?? (/rolf)

As always, this is about to become a driving saint vs's the world type thread.
However, as an average driver, I can say sometimes I go over the limit. Normally I don't. I drive 25k miles per year, I'd guess I drive past thousands of fixed cameras in that time and I see probably 2 mobile cameras a month on top. I've currently got 3 (plus £100) points for driving like a bellend on the way home from work one day. In the past, I guess I've driven somewhere close to 750k miles and I've had 9 points in total
What I really, really don't get is how the bloody hell can someone clock up that number f points and actually still be considered safe enough to drive - I mean purely from the observational skills alone surely there's got to be a time you simply say I'm sorry - you're a freaking liability. Throw your licence away forever.

a driving saint

Just in case that's aimed at my comment above, it wasn't that I didn't speed, it's simply that I wasn't clocked for doing so. Which is pretty good going all considered. All these years later I do drive within the limits because I generally don't need to be anywhere within a set time window.

If the remark wasn't aimed at me, just move along.

Edit : I'm not Moore or Ogilvy

"There are so many cameras that if you have to drive 50,000+ miles a year you are almost bound to get more than 12 points in three years."

As someone who drives 75,000+ miles each year, and have done for many years, I can safely say, that this is bollx.
It's just another excuse (some) people use for speeding.

you missed 3rd time, though - d'you know what it is yet ?

I think it involves a 6 month ban and I don't care if you lose your job, your home, your wife and kids and your granny.

Lie about your medical history that would preclude you from driving, get a job involving driving, kill 6 people, get away with it apart from having your driving licence taken away and continue driving anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-39006862

There are too many drivers out there who think they're safe because they don't speed. We've all seen them, those ones who stand the car on its nose as they enter a 30 zone, who sit there at 38 in a 40.

But the problem is that they proceed at that speed no matter what. Overtaking a cyclist with a 1mph speed differential and a .75m gap but refusing to budge over or either wait behind or pull out, floor it and get the overtake done.

Speed cameras are an easy fix for catching speeders but the only thing that can catch all the other numerous forms of dangerous driving is actual road policing and sadly there's not enough of that these days.

That's why I'm astonished that anyone could actually accrue that many points to start with, their driving must be catastrophically bad to be caught that many times!

I read this today and remembered a video of some famous motorbiker who had a serious number of points on the licence...can't recall the number but it was a lot.
It does make you wonder how so many can be racked up and still be able to drive...

Well if they've got enough money to pay the fines, and they know that the magistrates will always be sympathetic due to their job. After about 16 points they're just gonna go ape aren't they? I mean, why not. What have they got to lose? I would (obviously apply common sense. No speeding in school playgrounds etc).

They've basically got a get out of jail free card. It's probably an in-joke and annual amusing anecdote with the family at Christmas about how many points they've racked up this year. They probably have little games and rules like 'never dip below 90mph' or 'navigate central London whilst watching a DVD in the back of the car'.

Bet you're one of those who I regularly follow, think doing 25 in a 20 is abiding by the law. Oh Mr holier than thou

Feel free to make any assumptions you like about my driving, in the absence of any actual evidence. All I asked was for a couple of people who by their own admission habitually and deliberately break the rules to stop it.

Just like I think people-who-ride-bikes should obey the rules.

In my experience it's those who push the boundaries on one rule do so on many, so habitual disregard for speed limits goes with phone use, green/amber/red confusion/optimism, close passes etc.

Expect everyone to follow *all* the rules, and make it the norm, and roads will be better, for everyone. Set an example with your own behaviour, hope it helps others do similar.

Or, you know, accept the victim-blaming woeful attitudes that seem more and more common if you want. I'll not be doing that.

Oh, and btw, by 'regularly follow' I expect you meant 'get left behind by' didn't you?

On reflection, I will bite at 'Mr Holier than thou'

My driving isn't perfect. I make errors. I admit my errors, review and do my best to change my behaviour where it needs it.

But I try really hard to do it well. I strive to pay attention, drive at a suitable speed for the conditions or a lower speed than that if (as often the case) the posted limit is less. Irrespective of my opinion of that limit.

I try to drive well. It's often tedious. Others who would rather I went as fast as they would like, or that I squeezed past someone on a bike before it's safe so they can do so to, seem to find it so.

It's hard, and I often take a handful of extra minutes to get somewhere. Then again it often makes no difference at all to my journey times.

But at least I try.

Driving is the thing I do that puts me at greatest risk of totally ruining someone else's life, or killing a stranger.

Nothing else I do carries more risk to me or to others than driving, so yes I try to do it well and safely. I think others should take it seriously too, and quit the childishness and selfishness. So yes, holier than thou, with that attitude to routinely and deliberately doing whatever you please without honestly acknowledging the death, chaos and carnage that can be a split second away.

I make mistakes, but at least I try.

You should too.

^^^ Like

Thank you Sockpuppet. Unfortunately you'll probably be lambasted for your sensible approach to driving. It still amazes me that people (on a cycling forum of all places) think that speeding isn't a factor in accidents. that it's perfectly fine to speed and that it's the cameras that are wrong.

A factor. Not the only one though and very much dependent upon conditions. Inappropriate speed needn't involve speeding.

crazy-legs » We've all seen them, those ones who stand the car on its nose as they enter a 30 zone, who sit there at 38 in a 40.

The first example is a bit annoying but shouldn't be an issue if you leave plenty of space and ease off your speed so you roll through the limit sign at the designated speed. The second - I see no problem. In fact, that's probably me. I do about 38 in a 40 because it's within the limit. My dash is telling me 39. My dashcam will tell me it's 40 and that stupid central speedo (MINI) tells me it's quicker still.

Speed is not the only factor, but one that can make an accident much more severe. Not paying attention in itself is dangerous and only made worse the faster you are traveling. I'll agree that driving extremely slowly is also dangerous. I got slightly obsessed with the part speeding plays in fatalities after I lost my brother. It's a very large factor in a lot of road deaths, especially deaths of those on foot.

What's wrong with traveling at 38 in a 40? It's a limit, not a target. If it's wet, raining, icy, foggy or there are other adverse conditions then I'll travel below the limit.

There is no excuse for speeding nor any need. Plan your journeys better or don't travel.
If you selfish idiots had ever been present to participate in the aftermath of a speed related road accident, I think you would take the wake up call.

Sometimes speed is the only reason for the journey. I'm not going anywhere specific, just out for a blast. If you think I'm going to stop just because of your views you need a wake up call.

If you think that everyone involved in a speed related accident never speeds again I think you're deluded.

Yet another in disagreement of that statement (though I can't seem to find who wrote the original).

It was from one of the drivers interviewed in the BBC article which is why I used quotation marks rather than the forum quote option.

The lesson from drink driving is that if we really want to change driving behaviour laws aren't quite enough. The particular behaviour needs to be stigmatized. We're getting there with mobile phone use whilst driving but less so with speeding. Maybe because unlike the others the consequences are less immediately obvious and it is possible to do it accidentally.

In the perhaps not too distant future driverless cars might render this debate obsolete.

Sometimes speed is the only reason for the journey. I'm not going anywhere specific, just out for a blast. If you think I'm going to stop just because of your views you need a wake up call.

also, as is often suggested on the many "sportive" threads - do a proper race, or shut the **** up

Sometimes speed is the only reason for the journey. I'm not going anywhere specific, just out for a blast. If you think I'm going to stop just because of your views you need a wake up call.

Is that a quote from the Paul Walker poster on your bedroom wall? I'm going to go ahead and assume it is because you're clearly twelve.

It was from one of the drivers interviewed in the BBC article which is why I used quotation marks rather than the forum quote option.

Gotcha.

Had a quick discussion with my partner on this subject (the 62 points person not this thread) and her idea was to stick them in those Google cars (or similar) as test dummies, taking the control from their hands completely. And if they go wrong and implode killing the occupant, no great loss... 😉

Well said sockpuppet.

Driving is the most dangerous thing I do - for others as well as me. I have to drive to earn my living. I like to drive as it gets me and my family nice places on holidays and days off.

Therefore, with so much for me to lose, I treat it with the care and respect it requires.

Sometimes speed is the only reason for the journey. I'm not going anywhere specific, just out for a blast. If you think I'm going to stop just because of your views you need a wake up call.

Driving is the most dangerous thing I do - for others as well as me. I have to drive to earn my living. I like to drive as it gets me and my family nice places on holidays and days off.

Therefore, with so much for me to lose, I treat it with the care and respect it requires.

Both you and Sockpuppet have hit the nail on the head. Thank you both for treating driving with the respect and caution it deserves If only there were more people that shared your views.

Was that renewal of an existing policy from one insurer, or consecutive policies provided by two different insurers?

It was through a broker and 20 years ago, I've honestly no idea now. It's not [i]exactly[/i] what happened TBH, see below, it was just quicker to type.

and you were unlucky enough to get pulled over during those 20 minutes? what are the chances of that?

I'd just bought a new (to me) car, literally just picked it up from the garage. I'd got about two blocks down the road, a copper did a random PNC check and it came up as unregistered, which is why I got pulled.

I explained the situation, he went "fair enough" and gave me a producer. When I took my documents to the police station it transpired that the insurer had issued the policy to start at noon that day, and I got pulled over 20 minutes prior. I'd honestly no idea, I'd have waited if I'd known. I should've checked of course, but y'know, new shiny and all that.

Speed clearly makes an accident worse but is not the cause of the accident.

The cause of all accidents is simply bad driving (driving too close, not paying attention, pulling out in front of other cars, overtaking cyclists on blind bends etc, etc,).

The problem is nobody is ever going to stop people driving too close (which I would guess is easily over 50% of drivers) and nobody is going to catch people who pull out, don't pay attention etc,. (well not until they cause an accident).

Speed is the wrong thing to focus on...

I agree to an extent with what you are saying Kerley. Although speed results in greater stopping distances and affects reaction times. Speed is definitely the reason in a lot of single vehicle incidents. Taking corners or roundabouts too fast etc.

When it comes to incidents involving third parties I agree that not paying attention, driving too close, poor driving standards is the catalyst. Doing all that at speed just makes a potentially bad accident into a potentially fatal one.

I suppose speed is the easiest thing to tackle for the authorities. It's a difficult situation all round to be honest. As stated I have similar views to Matt and Sockpuppet. I didn't start driving until I was in my thirties and after my brother was killed. Both of these have undoubtedly had an effect on how I drive, more so the latter. I've seen first hand the long term and far reaching effects bad driving can have. I drive as carefully and considerately as I can.

I'm not convinced that speed is as [i]causal [/i]as you're asserting; rather it has a huge impact of the [i]severity [/i]of an incident. If people paid attention and generally did all the other things Kerley is suggesting there would be very few accidents indeed. Sadly for that to happen would take a paradigm shift in training and policing. As you say, speed is low-hanging fruit, whack up some cameras, job jobbed. Stopping people tailgating, worrying at Facebook, eating a bowl of cereal (as I saw the other day) requires actual bodies.

Incidentally, I don't know if I've said this before but I'm genuinely sorry for your loss. I can't begin to imagine what you and your family must've gone through.

Thanks Cougar. What you are saying is completely right and I've just been putting it across badly. Speed just makes a bad situation a lot worse. Combine it with overall poor driving and you have a recipe for disaster.

I couldn't talk about or deal with what happened for a long time. It's been twelve years now and time makes it easier to talk about it. Still upsets me though and hits hard at times. When my son was born three years ago I actually went to ring my big brother. Stopped me dead in my tracks.

I'll never forget having the Dr explain to the family that my brother was basically brain dead. My mother and older sister were hysterical. It basically came down to me and my estranged father, a man who I've never agreed with on anything, to make the decision to turn the machines off. What happens when you do that is not pretty. Sitting in a corridor holding a nine year old boy and trying to explain to him what's happening to his dad is something I wouldn't wish on anyone.

I'm the only member of my family that holds no ill will towards the car driver. I think they all needed someone to blame whereas I just wanted my brother back. It's sad because he was the only member of my family I was close to. Luckily I'd just moved back to West Yorkshire the week before it happened and spent some time with him for the first time in years. I'll always be grateful for that.

The missus and I moved back to Cheshire not long after. Too many memories in my home town and I wasn't coping with grief too well. Mrs Funkmaster retrained as a driving and then advanced driving instructor partly because of what happened. She's very idealistic and figured she could play a small part by trying to teach people how to drive to a better standard.

The worst fallout was my mother, who's never really recovered. She had my brother when she was 14 in the 60's and had to fight to keep my Grandparents from raising him as their own. Her house is basically a shrine to him and I don't think that's healthy. My brothers daughter is a mess still in her twenties. He was her rock and that got ripped away from her when she was 14.

Sorry to ramble on. I just wish some people would realise how dangerous cars can be and treat them with caution and respect.

Funk, thank you for the frank, open and detailed explanation of the damage caused by one bad driver's selfish attitude to what should always be seen as a responsible task.

Quoting the Dundee Courier today:
"New figures reveal that the number of people injured in accidents on the A9 has dropped by 37% since average speed cameras were introduced."
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/perth-kinross/376300/cameras-help-cut-a9-casualties-by-37/

Thanks for being so open, funk, anything else I can say seems trite now.

But I used to be one of those saying it is a waste of time concentrating on speed when they should be catching the bad driving. Not that I ever speeded in 30 limits, though I've been caught in a 50 and a 70 limit. However whilst I still have my reservations - though that is still more directed towards the limits and enforcement on higher limited roads, I still have a theory that having limits too low on safer roads leads to disrespect for speed limits in general, leads to people speeding in 30 limits - I am now totally happy with speed enforcement in general. Yes, it is just something easy to do, but it's better than nothing. I've also slowed down even on higher limit roads and try not to be in as much of a hurry. Would rather be a bit late than drive dangerously.

I also wonder if it's analogous to the West Mids Police close passing cyclists initiative. In their spiel for that they point out that most accidents and deaths are caused at junctions, yet that's not what they're enforcing because it would be too difficult. Yet we're all happy with what they are enforcing because not only is it something which makes us feel unsafe, it also has a knock on effect on promoting safety around cyclists in general. In a similar sense, at least getting people to stick to one rule for driving might help them stick to others.

zanelad wrote:

Sometimes speed is the only reason for the journey. I'm not going anywhere specific, just out for a blast. If you think I'm going to stop just because of your views you need a wake up call.

I don't need a wake up call: I don't think will will stop.

I do think you SHOULD stop though, and it's a reasoned and heartfelt opinion.

I have some other opinions too, but it would be unseemly too post them here.

Speed clearly makes an accident worse but is not the cause of the accident.

It often is.

People expect other traffic to behave a certain way. This is a crucial part of how we drive and how our roads are designed. If another road user is going twice as fast as everyone expects, this is going to cause accidents.

When you want to overtake a slow moving vehicle on a single carriageway road, you see a gap, you think ok that's enough space, and you go. If someone comes screaming around the corner at 100mph, suddenly you have far less space than if someone came at 60.

There are many junctions where you can't see a long way. So you wait for it to be clear, then you go. Just as you go, a car appears. If that car is doing 50 then you have time to accelerate and there's no issue. If it's doing 90, they have to slam on and there's a risky situation.

Speed CREATES risks. It increases the potential collision radius.

There are too many drivers out there who think they're safe [b]because[/b] they don't speed.

Really? Where's your evidence? Other than the guesswork and interpolation in your post?

Really? [b]Where's your evidence?[/b] Other than the guesswork and interpolation in your post?

There are many junctions where you can't see a long way. So you wait for it to be clear, then you go. Just as you go, a car appears. If that car is doing 50 then you have time to accelerate and there's no issue. If it's doing 90, they have to slam on and there's a risky situation.

This is true, most junctions/accesses etc. are designed according to "Stopping Sight Distance", a calculation based on the speed of a typical vehicle, combined with reaction time and braking force. Go faster than this and the risks increase.

If anyone has not read funkmasterp's last post, please go back and read it.

So you wait for it to be clear, then you go. Just as you go, a car appears. If that car is doing 50 then you have time to accelerate and there's no issue. If it's doing 90, they have to slam on and there's a risky situation.

In the unlikely event that I've misjudged such a manoeuvre as you describe, I'd abort and drop back in where I came from. Just because you start an overtake there's no reason you [i]have[/i] to complete it. For this reason, I won't overtake if there's someone right behind me, in case they close the gap after I've set off.

I'm not convinced that speed is as causal as you're asserting;

In the unlikely event that I've misjudged such a manoeuvre as you describe

How can you misjudge what is invisible?

Do you not read these threads fully?

Care to cite something?

Care to cite something?

I bet you guys are a hoot to ride and/or drink with.

I bet you guys are a hoot to ride and/or drink with.

😀 as long as nobody mentions speeding, or politics or coffee, whether or not it's okay to burn wood, or what type of tyres, or posting poo through letterboxes I reckon it would be okay

Edit - and don't mention religion either

Someone mentioned the war in another thread but I think they got away with it.....

How can you misjudge what is invisible?

How can I hit what is invisible?

How can you misjudge what is invisible?
How can I hit what is invisible?

It's taking a philosophical turn in here.

How can I hit what is invisible?

[quote=Cougar ]How can I hit what is invisible?

Indeed, which is why it's perfectly safe to ignore double white lines as long as you can't see anything coming the other way.

Sure, that's exactly what I meant.

If I was overtaking something I'd do it where I believed it was safe to do so. Crossing solid white lines clearly isn't such a case.

The situation posed was going for an overtake and then an oncoming vehicle appearing in view going faster than expected. In which case, as I said, I'd abort the manoeuvre.

Contrary to popular belief, hazards don't "come out of nowhere," ever. Bikes do not teleport into your path, cars are not invisible.

The reason there is so much focus on speed..

Is that it's one of the easiest ways to reduce RTC's & improve road safety.

Hoist that concept on board & you'll begin to understand why the emphasis!

Is that it's one of the easiest ways to reduce RTC's & improve road safety.

Of course. I'd just rather they focused on the most effective way rather than solely on the easiest.

The situation posed was going for an overtake and then an oncoming vehicle appearing in view going faster than expected. In which case, as I said, I'd abort the manoeuvre.

That could cause all sorts of havoc. Especially if the thing you are overtaking also brakes because he sees the imminent collision.

Anyway - what about the other scenario? Or are you asserting that speed never causes an accident? My general principle is that by going fast, you are behaving unexpectedly in a way that introduces greater risk.

I'd just rather they focused on the most effective way

And that is?

Incidentally, I wonder why you know so much more about road accidents than the police? I wonder what would happen if they came around your workplace and started telling you about network security?

The reason there is so much focus on speed..

Is that it's one of the easiest ways to reduce RTC's & improve road safety.

What is actual the reduction and improvement based directly on speed ?

Incidentally, I wonder why you know so much more about road accidents than the police? I wonder what would happen if they came around your workplace and started telling you about network security?

What is actual the reduction and improvement based directly on speed ?

I couldnt tell you - all I know is its the most cost effective way of improving road safety.

There are other ways but are they as cost-effective?

After all, cash is king.....rightly or wrongly!

Again, the usual Brake advocates failing to understand the difference between breaking a speed limit and inappropriate speed within said limit. It's not difficult, if you are travelling faster than a speed where you can safely stop in the event of a stationary object entering your path or safely negotiate a bend you are going too fast.

Everything else is semantics.

Again, the usual Brake advocates failing to understand the difference between breaking a speed limit and inappropriate speed within said limit. It's not difficult, if you are travelling faster than a speed where you can safely stop in the event of a stationary object entering your path or safely negotiate a bend you are going too fast.

which model of human is driving said corsa or porsche

Again, the usual Brake advocates failing to understand the difference between breaking a speed limit and inappropriate speed within said limit.

You what?

Are we assuming they're implimenting road safety policies based on unlimited budgets, or policies which are the cheapest and easiest to get through due to limited budgets?

Well given that they have a limited budget, and will always have a limited budget, I imagine that's what's being discussed. This being the real world and everything.

if you are travelling faster than a speed where you can safely stop in the event of a stationary object entering your path .... you are going too fast

Which particular part of my path is the stationary object going to be appearing in ?

Half a mile away. No worries. 155mph.
Six foot away.... could be an issue at more than 1mph.

I think your simple explanation may need some tweaking.

Well given that they have a limited budget, and will always have a limited budget, I imagine that's what's being discussed. This being the real world and everything.

So they're not actually the best positioned to determine road safety policies, as you claimed, due to budgetary constraints

Not sure how you arrived at that.

This is no longer productive.

Keep your ****ing speed down and watch what the **** you're doing. End of thread.

Incidentally, I wonder why you know so much more about road accidents than the police? I wonder what would happen if they came around your workplace and started telling you about network security?

I have no appetite for the minutiae. There's a general point somewhere that you don't seem to care about in favour of nit picking.

Speeders like to speed, which is fair enough. It's great fun. But because a lot of people are shit at driving, there are speed limits. Rules that apply to everyone.

It's that simple. Suck it up. There's no point going on about other kinds of bad driving - no-one's excusing any of that or suggesting it's not important.

Anything else in this argument is *irrelevant*.

😆

Just pushing this to test the theory behind it and your assumption that Cougar has less money than plod.

That wouldn't be difficult. Lend me a tenner?

because a lot of people are shit at driving, there are speed limits.

Pretty much the point I've been making TBH.

Surely the solution here is "make people less shit"? If you're shit at driving, the solution isn't speed limits, the solution is to learn or to not be allowed drive.