[Closed] Driving standards/sense of entitlement.

Mini RABs slow traffic down due to the tight geometry of them. If you're just straightlining it in your car then you don't need to slow down, which makes the junction more dangerous. A coach or lorry would have to slow right down to get around it and still touch the paint, but the speed and danger have been reduced.

Why would they then stick a 15 mph roundabout in the middle of a 50 mph zone ???

What will boy wonder in his WRX do immediately after a roundabout ??
The same with the block half the road off ....

This seems to be the problem with traffic calming measures.... they seem to end up doing the exact opposite and become traffic irritating measures...

Worse quite often these measures are put into places where the driver is then navigating between traffic calming and trying to get to the next gap before the car coming the other way... and not watching for a kid chasing a ball....

Our old street had speed ramps and 1/2 blocked road and the reason we moved was the danger the traffic calming created and my son getting older.

Of course the cars also then diverted and ended up going 3x the distance and trying to make up lost time so all thge other surrounding residential streets ended up more dangerous.

The barrier for the 1/2 road block is a good 2' high.... they just kept increasing the height every accident. It never occurred to them I suppose this is what caused the accidents....

It's like the bars designed so trucks can crush cyclists against them (or stop pedestrians getting OFF the road) - they are meant to stop pedestrians wandering into the road but serve just as well to kill cyclists against or prevent pedestrians getting [b]onto[/b] the pavement.

Perhaps better public transport would help if people who shouldn't be driving had a realistic alternative.

Catch-22 - there's little point in improving public transport if no-one's using it. If you removed those who shouldn't be on the road, more people would use public transport, public transport would have more money and more demand.

this roundabout has no purpose anyway.... its on a 50 stretch and just suddenly appears if you don't know its there....

Nothing "suddenly appears" out of thin air unless it's a TARDIS or you're not paying sufficient attention / driving to the conditions.

[quote=johndoh ]Then there was the time I was a pedestrian walking down the pavement right outside the same schools and a woman mounted the kerb and drove fully on to the pavement (all four wheels) right in front of me as I was walking towards her as she (in her words) 'can't park on the zig zags' of the crossing she was seeking to avoid as she dropped off her kids at school.

Parking is definitely the thing to give people a sense of entitlement. Even people who's driving is otherwise fine, when challenged on parking inconsiderately (on the pavement more often than not), the stock response is something along the lines of "there's nowhere else to park".

Though that reminds me of a stand off I had when there was a building site off our road - artic lorry delivered something and I watched as it ran over the pavement to get onto site. Spotted it about to leave and went and stood on the corner of the pavement. "Can't get off site without driving over the pavement" - "well you'll have to stay on site then". Driver threatened to call the police on me for obstruction which I laughed at, but eventually they realised they could move some cones in order to do it legally.

There does seem to be some sort of cognitive disconnect here that nobody realises it's illegal to drive over the pavement, but everybody knows it's illegal to cycle on one.

nobody realises it's illegal to drive over the pavement

Surely you are allowed to drive on it for access?

Or are all residential driveways basically illegal?

You're allowed to cross the pavement to access a driveway. But parking with two wheels on the pavement shouldn't happen without a crane to lift your car into the pavement, otherwise you must have driven along it.

[quote=GrahamS ]Surely you are allowed to drive on it for access?

Yes, but only direct access to a property by driving on the bit immediately in front - can't remember the exact wording and CBA checking, but it's certainly made fairly clear. Not the bit on the opposite corner because your vehicle won't otherwise fit, or indeed most other pavement driving.

Nothing "suddenly appears" out of thin air unless it's a TARDIS or you're not paying sufficient attention / driving to the conditions.

It doesn't really answer the question as to why it exists though...

the whole point seems to be to slow the traffic down.... but why not just make it a 40 or 30 zone ???

The same with the NSL sign outside Clitheroe.... the river frequently has fog ... of course locals know this as well as the 90 degree bend but this road is used by lots of tourists.... the bridge often has pedestrians as well.

Anyone seeing the end of the 30 zone without knowing the road is far more likely to start accelerating than predict a dangerous bit of road right after the speed limit goes from 30 to effectively 60.... for the life of me I can't see why they didn't keep the speed limit at 30 mph for another 100' AND put up warning signs ....

My point really is all these things should be about improving SAFETY.... but in many cases they have nothing to do with safety....

An example I always respect the people at work speed restrictions but it can be pretty frustrating when actually noone is at work.....

Fresh in my mind is something that [b]seems completely unrelated[/b].. which is how bad we are at accurate signs/information... I was in Denmark all yesterday... passport control sign says EU/EFTA and Swiss citizens.... whereas Heathrow says "European passports" (There is no such thing as a "European Passport".... which might seem to be picking at straws but why can't we actually do it right)

(I was in Kiev a couple of weeks ago and sat next to a woman from Iceland...and she got very confused at Heathrow passport control.... when she ASKED she got told "Well Iceland is in the EU" (which is obviously incorrect but it was also the way the immigration offical seemed to be muttering "you stupid bint" and rolling his eyes)

Then I remembered same passport control being practically forcibly seperated from my kid... and forced through the electronic gates.... because I had a biometric passport and he is under 18.... whilst the 6yr old was told to queue up alone (and being pressured to just get on with it as i was holding people up)... then some snap decision by the supervisor and I was allowed to queue in the manual line with him

That got me all thinking that in the UK we are just really bad at rules and signs.... we have the police saying they will clamp down on cyclists who ride across a pavement and a transport minister saying "if you feel unsafe on a bit of road then ride on the pavement" and last year a bill almost went through to allow PSCO's to issue on the spot fines to kids riding on the pavement... (It went through the commons and the Lords stopped it ???)

We have pavements, footpaths etc. and the two are mixed up and not the same...

It's technically illegal to get in and out of a drivers seat on a road.... unless you leave the car in reverse.... (or it is an emergency services vehicle) etc. because there is a second you are not wearing a seatbelt (if I remember)

Tens of thousands of people are sent PCN's for illegal box junctions... yet the council know it's illegal and send them anyway...

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/Steve.html

(ps the steve part is not me)

I just find the whole thing vague.... surely it's fraud if a council issues a PCN when a court already decided their box junction is illegally marked...? and while we are at it what's with the NSL sign, its an invitation for misunderstanding.

Anyway /rantoff ... My point is I think most people will follow clear rules but if they feel the rule is vague, contradictory or unsafe then they not only don't try and obey THAT rule but others...

Not long ago I had a bus honking the horn and trying to force me to enter a box junction illegally (practically touching the car)... at some point you just wonder why bother?

Cameras and automatic fines really don't help... I'm not pulling over into a bus lane again just because a fire engine is approaching on the wrong side of the road ... (sorry.. got screwed over once)

outdated laws like the lighting up act.... how many people have reflectors on egg beaters ??? (and what is the point when you have lights) ... yet I'm perfectly allowed to use a how ever many lumen light on my bike that's way brighter than a car headlight so long as the LED's draw less than 110W..???

(or has that changed??)

Not to mention the [b]deliberately hidden speed signs[/b] where they change the speed limit and put the sign behind a tree then make thousands a month just catching people who are trying to obey the speed limit they can see.
My mum is a very slow driver ... a few years ago she got a ticket for doing 40 in a 30 zone... (along with tens of thousands of others) because the road was a [b]50 mph road they silently changed to a 100m stretch of 30 mph with sign hidden.[/b]...

Oh the police may not have sent you advance written notification of the speed limit change, but the signs would have been visible, assuming you are actually observing things correctly, not just wafting along the road not paying attention to your surroundings.
Familiarity breeds contempt etc etc.

Surely you are allowed to drive on it for access?

Or are all residential driveways basically illegal?

Its more confusing than that.... It's legal in a car for access (there is some specific wording but it must be a motor vehicle from memory) BUT NOT A BIKE.... You also can't park next to any lowered pavement... (Even when the house has a big wall in front so the lowered pavement can't be used or its your own house)

the driver of the car (and Van the second time) has both executed a close pass and tried to undertake at the same time. In-****-credible.

I've had this - waited behind a bunch of cyclists until it was safe to overtake (going up twisty hill, perhaps 3 mins or so). Bloke tailgating me then decides to try to undertake me after I give the riders a full lane's wide to overtake. Quite mindblowing. First and only time I've lost my temper in a car. He was driving a people carrier with his young family on-board.

Oh the police may not have sent you advance written notification of the speed limit change, [u]but the signs would have been visible[/u], assuming you are actually observing things correctly, not just wafting along the road not paying attention to your surroundings.
Familiarity breeds contempt etc etc.

Nope the sign where my mother got done was completely INVISIBLE from anywhere except climbing up the tree (they had managed to somehow get the pole between two branches).... there was a photo in the local paper... and you couldn't SEE the actual sign let alone read it...

If that was the case then as bigyinn pointed out, everybody who got a ticket should have taken it to court where they'd have won.

[quote=bails ]Also, as GrahamS has mentioned, knowledge of speed limits was atrocious. This sign:

Means a limit anywhere betwene 40 and 80mph if you believe the attendees!

Well they're not so far off - until recently it was between 40 and 70 (and still is in Scotland).

Heading towards a road narrowing (Cold Ash) I have priority on bike. Dum bint in car gives way to the car in front of me then starts to pull away. I move over to make sure she doesnt have room so she goes the other way to try and get through on my inside. I just stop blocking her path. She then starts giving me abuse...

Well they're not so far off - until recently it was between 40 and 70 (and still is in Scotland).

Wut?

Well they're not so far off - until recently it was between 40 and 70 (and still is in Scotland).

Where on earth is the NSL 40? It's sixty on a single-carriageway and 70 on a dual-carriageway. It's never meant 40 anywhere in England in the 25+ years I've been driving (and I wasn't aware of Scotlandshire being any different).

[quote="aracer"]If that was the case then as bigyinn pointed out, everybody who got a ticket should have taken it to court where they'd have won.

Should or could ?

If I remember the automatic letter comes with a "If you take this to court we will do everything we can to TOTALLY screw you.... but if you just shut up and pay we will give you a discount" the whole wording is designed to scare people like my mum into just paying....

If it was me I'd be far more likely to challenge it.... my brother he'd relish challenging it and would gladly pay 10x the fine just to challenge (but he's like that) my mum on the other hand would just want to pay it and make it go away.... but she'd change her electricity/gas (and has) just to get rid of an aggressive sales person....

[i]Where on earth is the NSL 40?[/i]

HGV, single carriageway, Scotland?

https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

when she ASKED she got told "Well Iceland is in the EU" (which is obviously incorrect

It's in the EEA, which is basically the same thing as far as passports are concerned.

Then I remembered same passport control being practically forcibly seperated from my kid... and forced through the electronic gates.... because I had a biometric passport and he is under 18.... whilst the 6yr old was told to queue up alone (and being pressured to just get on with it as i was holding people up)... then some snap decision by the supervisor and I was allowed to queue in the manual line with him

Nonsense. No one is "forced" to use the electronic gates.

I travel a lot and there is absolutely nothing wrong with signage in UK airports and the immigration officers are very pleasant and sensible.

Where on earth is the NSL 40

I suspect aracer is talking about Goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes MLW which in Scotland are restricted to 40mph on single carriageways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_speed_limits_in_the_United_Kingdom#National_speed_limits

It's in the EEA, which is basically the same thing as far as passports are concerned.

I travel pretty much weekly and it is [u]never[/u] safe to assume something is basically the same with visa's and passports....

here is absolutely nothing wrong with signage in UK airports

Well which one is it? The signage is obviously wrong as Iceland, Norway and Litchenstein are in the EAA but not EU and Switzerland is neither but "is basically the same as far as passports are concerned"

But the point is [b]the sign say's European Passports[/b] which is a nonsensical term.... it means nothing as there is no such thing as a European Passport... Lots of countries are in Europe (including part of Turkey to be pedantic) but including Romania for example... Obviously a Romanian has a European passport.... (as it was issued by a European sovereign state)... but I'm fairly certain that is ot what they mean by European passport.

[b]But they are not basically the same.... [/b]
Which queue for example should a Swiss or Norwegian traveller go into in the Ukraine.... the Ukraine + EU queue or "other"

Nonsense. No one is "forced" to use the electronic gates.

[img] [/img]

Top thread tangent action!

That got me all thinking that in the UK we are just really bad at rules and signs

We're really not. You should try the USA.

Re 'European passports' maybe they meant anyone with a passport from a European country? After all most of them will be EU so the queue will be quicker - but they can still check non-EU ones. Seems a reasonable way to divide up the queues, somewhat.

What we are really good at in the UK is moaning, which you seem to be demonstrating quite nicely.

but I'm fairly certain that is ot what they mean by European passport.

See now you're second guessing the signs.. which is what pepole do all the time here. 50mph in roadworks at 7pm? Well, they've clearly all gone home, haven't they, so that doesn't apply any more of course, so I can speed... oh dear what's this ticket.. those damn revenue generating cops how dare they? etc etc

I travel pretty much weekly and it is never safe to assume something is basically the same with visa's and passports....

The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation covering the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — throughout the 31 EEA States.

So in case of the EU and EEA passports being the same thing it's very safe to do so.

But the point is the sign say's European Passports which is a nonsensical term.

But they don't.

Gatwick

[img] [/img]

Heathrow[img] [/img]

Heathrow

The one at T5 [u]now[/u] say's European Passports....
Your examples are what they [u]should[/u] say.... (or perhaps it's one sign)....

The reason I checked yesterday was because the last time at T5 I was with the Icelandic woman (well just walked from the plane together not like married) then on the flight BA distinctly announced "European Passports" which i figured was them making a mistake... but then when I landed I got told "European Passports" (by the official guys wearing the purple)... and the NEW sign said as I remember European Passports .. so even if some of the signs are still correct the people directing everyone are contradicting the signs....

The reason this was bouncing round my head was because when I landed at CPH the Hilton at the airport has changed hands but every single sign has been updated.... to the new name...(Clarion)

When we left T5 my colleague (with a European but not EU/EEA passport) had his boarding card already issued.... went to the check-in and got refused by the machine... then had to go and queue up to get his visa checked...

Luckily his visa was in English.... whereas last time I had to queue for the visa check you can't get the boarding card issued until you queue at the visa check.... but then the T5 visa check is for "Moscow, St Petersburg and Kiev" flights + long haul only....but it took an extra few minutes as the guy at the visa check can't read cyrillic and had to call a guy over???

The whole thing is just poor.... just the idea you can issue a boarding pass then refuse it because of a procedure that's not available to the customer... [b]How hard would it be when you check-in to warn you you need to do a visa check? [/b]

The one at T5 now say's European Passports....
Your examples are what they should say.... (or perhaps it's one sign)....

Google Terminal 5 and check the images. I think you're mistaken.

You do understand the Border is controlled by the Border Agency and not bu the airport and that the signage is standard throughout the UK?

. How hard would it be when you check-in to warn you you need to do a visa check?

I'm not sure what you mean here? Whenever I check in and I'm flying outside the EEA, the staff check I have the correct visa and introduction letter if necessary. They won't let me check in without it. Even having to give a hotel address when using an ESTA to travel to the US.

We're really not. You should try the USA.

That's a pretty low bar....

Re 'European passports' maybe they meant anyone with a passport from a European country? After all most of them will be EU so the queue will be quicker - but they can still check non-EU ones. Seems a reasonable way to divide up the queues, somewhat.

50mph in roadworks at 7pm? Well, they've clearly all gone home, haven't they, so that doesn't apply any more of course, so I can speed
Except the EU/EFTA/Swiss ones are all automatic machines.... (which it seems have joined a union so that 1/2 of them are not working and on strike at any point?)

[b]See now you're second guessing the signs.. which is what pepole do all the time here[/b].

That's my point....

50mph in roadworks at 7pm? Well, they've clearly all gone home, haven't they, so that doesn't apply any more of course, so I can speed

Why put workers in the road if there are not workers in the road...

oh dear what's this ticket.. those damn revenue generating cops how dare they? etc etc

After the 40 it went to 50 then 60 then no speed limit... with no reason I could see for it having ever been reduced to 40 in the first place??? It was about 07:00 in the morning on a Sunday (on my way to a race)

This overall has changed my perception from "it's a speed limit for a reason" to someone is sat in a control centre just flicking buttons... or selecting drop downs or however its done and now I watch my speed to avoid getting a ticket unlike the previous decades of driving when I kept to speed limits for safety or because that was the speed limit.

It's changed me into focusing on not getting caught instead of just driving well. The PCN for the bus lane has left me unwilling to repeat good driving and pulling over for emergency services...

Google Terminal 5 and check the images. I think you're mistaken.

You do understand the Border is controlled by the Border Agency and not bu the airport and that the signage is standard throughout the UK?

That is what I understood, my most recent trips however I have Terminal Staff (BAA) telling people which queue.... and T5 has changed the border control part...

I'm not sure what you mean here? Whenever I check in and I'm flying outside the EEA, the staff check I have the correct visa and introduction letter if necessary. They won't let me check in without it. Even having to give a hotel address when using an ESTA to travel to the US.

And that has been my PAST experience but I can assure you yesterday my colleague had a boarding pass... and when I flew to St Petersburg last month I got issued a boarding pass then got to the machines and got refused and sent back....

I've always worked with the rule you can't actually get a boarding pass until the visa checks are done.... both of these were BA flights and from T5....

Why put workers in the road if there are not workers in the road...

Trying to bring this somewhat back to topic:

How do you know there aren't any workers? You might not see them, but that's kind of the point isn't it? It's because you might not see them that they have to put the speed limits up. They might be there late in the evening, in fact they often are - even overnight. And it's a lot of work to put the roadworks away ever day.

After the 40 it went to 50 then 60 then no speed limit... with no reason I could see for it having ever been reduced to 40 in the first place??? It was about 07:00 in the morning on a Sunday (on my way to a race)

Why do you need a reason? Questioning everything is great, and an admirable activity in general - but when you are a single part of a huge complex system that needs to run perfectly otherwise people die - it's not such a great idea, is it? Just stick to the limit and get over yourself.

If the limits don't seem reasonable, write to someone.

Steve - Sorry mate but are you Richard Littlecock taking a break from the Daily Mail?

You just seem to be ranting and exaggerating non-existent problems and blaming "them" for the non-existent problems.

There are loads of mistakes in what you are saying.

If an auto gate doesn't work you don't have to queue up again, you go through a manned desk very quickly. Besides, the majority of delays at the auto gates is operator error and complete stupidity. Not the machines.

This mythical, suddenly appearing mini roundabout, I have never seen one, in the way you describe. Do you have a Google link?

A lot of 3rd hand tales about ridiculous policing and traffic calming.

I could go on.

[b]stevextc [/b]: Please share a streetview link for the mini-RAB you mentioned.

Is that like the guy in the spanking new Audi coupe on the M4 earlier?
The one who thought it was acceptable to sit in lane 2 of 2.
Refusing to move
With lane 1 empty.
Who then swerved to block both lanes to stop anyone passing.
Who then decided to go purple gesticulating
Whilst deciding to use said Audi as a ram.
To try to force me off the road.
Considering I was on the bike.
With a pair of cameras recording.
Strangely enough he didn't want to pull over and talk about it.
Images are currently being downloaded

Parking is definitely the thing to give people a sense of entitlement. Even people who's driving is otherwise fine, when challenged on parking inconsiderately (on the pavement more often than not), the stock response is something along the lines of "there's nowhere else to park".

[IMG] [/IMG]

Down the bottom end of my road, at the point where it curves through roughly 90°.
Reinforces my antipathy towards BMW drivers. #eyeroll

Heading downhill into Edenfield on Saturday (on the road bike) doing 35+mph in a 40 zone. It's a fairly bendy road, I look over my shoulder just before a bend to find a Rover sat 2ft off my rear wheel at 35mph.
I'm taking Primary, there is oncoming traffic & I'm moving fast downhill. He STILL attempts an overtake, passing within 18" of me whilst glaring at me as he passes.
He was perfectly happy to put my life at risk simply because (I've no doubt) he considers himself better than a mere cyclist.

After the 40 it went to 50 then 60 then no speed limit...

well, firstly there's no such thing as a 'no speed limit' section, and I'm sure you know that, but if you're going to be so picky about everything you should at least be factually accurate yourself 😉

with [i]no reason I could see [/i]for it having ever been reduced to 40 in the first place??? It was about 07:00 in the morning on a Sunday (on my way to a race)

What a perfect demonstration of the thread title! A sense of entitlement right there if ever I saw it, the rules apply no matter what time you happen to be travelling or the reason for your journey.

And just because [i]you[/i] cannot comprehend or recognise a reason doesn't mean there wasn't one, sure you [i]could[/i] be right, but based on your contribution to this thread so far I'm putting your descriptions and opinions firmly in the 'take with pinch of salt' category, that might make you might form your own opinions of me, but I'm OK with that.

It's changed me into focusing on not getting caught instead of just driving well

Why not be awesome and do both?

I wonder why some other countries don't have similar issues?

Was in the car with the Mrs a few days ago, residential street, fairly typical situation with parked cars so it's single file traffic, with the odd place to pull in if you are lucky, on this occasion there wasn't, so we're driving down as the road was clear, and a car turns in from a more main road at the bottom.

There's clearly no where for them or us to go, but they still looked like they were going to try. Lots of beeping and gesturing from them.

No harm done but a complete lack of awareness coupled with a sense of entitlement seems to be a regular occurrence these days.

it curves through roughly 90°.
Reinforces my antipathy towards BMW drivers. #eyeroll

It's not just BMW drivers though. I'd boot thier wing mirror off personally, what if someone in a wheelchair needs to get by?

I'm not against parking on the kerb if there's still a good amount of space, but if you are forcing people to walk, or roll into the road then there's no excuse.

with no reason [b]I could see[/b] for it having ever been reduced to 40 in the first place???

That doesn't discount that there could have been something that was removed/crawled off the carriageway before you arrived. Perhaps some debris removed by the police before they shot off with it in their boot. Who knows - I doubt there's some bod flicking a switch just for shits and giggles.

Worrying about the "no limit" perception, too...

Edit : Sorry, just banging on without reading Amedias' post, who basically wrote the same thing. Consider yourself told, young man. 🙂

Stop me if it's already been covered but.....women with too much make-up driving Chelsea tractors, and their inability to park sensibly. Our little town street seems to be a particular favourite for such creatures.

After a trip up the A9 at Easter, I'd put forward cars with boot mounted bike racks and no lighting bar (goes for flame proof suit). Covering your brake lights isn't cool. Also cars towing caravans without extension mirrors. Illegal and makes rear visibility worse than it already is.

Roundabouts seem to be treated as race circuits. Just as you think it's clear out pops another boy/girl/middle-aged/granny/grandad racer from round the corner.

On a dual-carriage way the other day, motor home overtakes a tractor as do I and we approach roundabout at same time in each lane. My ego was a little hurt by this bloody motor home almost out-accellerating me. Was a struggle but I just managed to beat the swine in our C5 (but not the fiat punto right up my aris).

I think there are two issues , one is ... perhaps elderly drivers who are so hesitant they seem petrified and who arguably should not be driving due to poor vision, nervousness /hesitancy

[quote=GrahamS ]I suspect aracer is talking about Goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes MLW which in Scotland are restricted to 40mph on single carriageways.

I thought "until recently" and "still is in Scotland" would be sufficient clues! It's not a completely pedantic point - I thought one of the reasons for using the NSL sign rather than a specific speed limit is that the limit varies depending on what vehicle you're in (the other being that they don't have to post speed limit signs at the start and end of D/Cs - except of course for the rare cases like this: https://goo.gl/maps/JFSY2ovWadx - intriguingly there's about 50m where the limit is 70!)

So basically everybody else is a poor driver?

Its not that motor vehicles are now an extension of out bodies and we see any restriction on them is a restriction on us?

Or that that we have a fractured society with little sense of cohesion- you are not part of my community just another adversary to overcome.

Got my driving test in a minute....

Cross your fingers 😉

driving is just one version of society.
Selfish.
No one really cares as long as they get what they want.
Shops open all week, faster paying, better access to land they don't own, riding bikes on footpaths, faster broadband, all living in the countryside extending small houses to make big ones, going on holiday when they want to, having anything they want and hang the expense to their pocket, body or country, riding en masse when it doesn't fit the road, digging up perfectly smooth natural trails, chucking litter out of windows.
And you know what. Its condoned by the rest of us. Serves us bloody well right.

[quote=Molgrips"]Why do you need a reason?
Because driving doesn't work if you simply follow the "speed limit" ...

How do you know there aren't any workers? You might not see them, but that's kind of the point isn't it?

But why do I need a reason ?
Because I am not going to follow a rule that doesn't make sense or worse is actually dangerous.

I had to slam the brakes on at 70 .. hard enough to rattle the bike frames together when the sign came up 40 mph ... luckily there were no other cars behind me.... otherwise I would have had to make a snap decision of speeding ticket or potential crash.
(or perhaps the camera has some delay from the speed limit changing to the camera limit changing - I don't know so I would have been trying to avoid a ticket anyway) - This whole automated thing (from speed limits changing to bus lane violations) has not in a lot of cases been properly thought out as regards actual safety... I find it hard to believe the police would issue a ticket if they observed you pull into a bus lane to let a fire engine through.. but the automated system doesn't care.

Equally I'm more than happy to use lights after lighting up hours but I am not going to change pedals to comply with a pointless law.

[quote="wilbert"]
I wonder why some other countries don't have similar issues?

Well I'm not saying other countries do or don't.... but what I have perceived from the last 35 yrs driving in the UK

A couple of illustrations ... Molgrips didn't know that it is actually an offence to touch the centre of a mini roundabout. I'll be honest, neither did I until a couple of years ago when I looked it up having seen the police stopping cars and issuing fines. I'd guess most people who passed their test 30 yrs ago wouldn't know.

What is the difference between a pavement and a footpath and why it's illegal for a bike to ride over a pavement but not a car...?

For years it was illegal to use LED lights on a bike (unless they were so bright as to be actually dangerous) as the law said they had to use a fixed amount of power that was designed in the times when EverReady was state of the art bike lighting... again... why do something that puts me in danger just to uphold some law that no-one bothered to update.

I thought "until recently" and "still is in Scotland" would be sufficient clues! [b]It's not a completely pedantic point[/b] - I thought one of the reasons for using the NSL sign rather than a specific speed limit is that the limit varies depending on what vehicle you're in (the other being that they don't have to post speed limit signs at the start and end of D/Cs - except of course for the rare cases like this: https://goo.gl/maps/JFSY2ovWadx - intriguingly there's about 50m where the limit is 70!)

It's a point that is open to creating a lot of confusion.... even ignoring the 40 mph part for Scotland.

intriguingly there's about 50m where the limit is 70!

well, firstly there's no such thing as a 'no speed limit' section, and I'm sure you know that, but if you're going to be so picky about everything you should at least be factually accurate yourself

good point ... however luckily I don't write the Acts.... and on this forum it seems a review process actually picks up on this... [b]unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case in traffic regulations[/b].

If an auto gate doesn't work you don't have to queue up again, you go through a manned desk very quickly. Besides, the majority of delays at the auto gates is operator error and complete stupidity. Not the machines.

Frequently half the machines are not working.... (or are working but turned off) ... when the queue gets longer they get turned back on... because it's all about creating a delay ... the aim is actually to create a delay because studies have found that one of the major complaints in frequent fliers is waiting for baggage so airports deliberately introduce as much delay as possible before the baggage collection.

There is some management study done on this where it is easier to delay everyone that get the baggage to the carousel faster.... (I can't remember where I read it and don't have time to google) and this results in less dissatisfaction score than people arriving at the carousel early. This is similar to fake buttons on crossings... again studies show if you add a fake button people will wait before crossing even though the button does nothing to change the actual timing but just lights up.

If an auto gate doesn't work you don't have to queue up again, you go through a manned desk very quickly.

But you have already caused delay/cost* to everyone behind you.
*charges for parking/taxi parking etc.
But this is more revenue for the airport just as there are deliberately not enough seats to force people into shops and food places it's by design not accident and it's there to actually inconvenience people to make more profit.

This just seems a similar thing to traffic regulations.
It's lost its way ... and the focus has turned to revenue not safety.

It's only about a decade ago the government quietly announced a change to guidance for traffic lights inside towns... this was previously to cause as much delay and acceleration/deceleration to traffic as possible to burn extra fuel.... to generate more revenue... (this was guidance not forced but this is what the guidance previously stated) Even ignoring the environmental impact this just sounds UNSAFE....

I remember a decade ago in Sydney... pretty much everything in Sydney seems to be regulated by fines.. There was an old sign on the train and pulling the communication cord without reason was something like $20.... then there were a set of newer fines... including leaving articles of clothing on the train that were something like $100 (it was litter but then went on to define litter as left including clothing or bags)

It was almost tempting to pull the communication cord as it seemed like such a bargain which is where revenue generation becomes a business!

Mobile phones etc. were banned in hospitals etc. right until they had a revenue stream... then suddenly it turns out every life support in the hospital doesn't suddenly stop working...

The whole point of this is twofold....
1) Many regulations are based not of safety but revenue (or bribes in the case of traffic calming) - one of the local business owners told me months ago who the contractor was going to be for the speed bumps... I was told they paid off their inside people before the "residents consultation" was even undertaken. As of yesterday he was spot on with the chosen contractor!

2) If people consistently don't see the point in following something and they can get away with it they increasingly do.

How many people can hold their hands up and say they have never ridden after lighting up hours without pedal reflectors?
Who would seriously walk a bike home 10 miles if they had lights but no pedal reflectors? (Just cos its the law)

I think it's pretty well determined that a decade ago police and local councils started installing hidden speed signs and cameras for revenue detection .... there are numerous cases where this has been proven in court but a VERY high percentage of people never challenge. There are numerous documented cases of councils continuing to issue PCN's that they have already had proven to be illegal... the reason being because so few get challenged it still provides revenue....

[quote="wilbert"]
I wonder why some other countries don't have similar issues?
Well to give one example.... In Norway you cannot park within a distance of a bend... a friend of mine did by about 2-3mm... but it was pretty clear all the same and the bends have a specifically marked point from which to measure....

Whilst in the UK

http://www.****/news/article-3973644/Contractors-painted-double-yellow-lines-garage-owner-s-car-dragging-leaving-parking-ticket.html

driving is just one version of society.
Selfish.
No one really cares as long as they get what they want.
Shops open all week, faster paying, better access to land they don't own, riding bikes on footpaths, faster broadband, all living in the countryside extending small houses to make big ones, going on holiday when they want to, having anything they want and hang the expense to their pocket, body or country, riding en masse when it doesn't fit the road, digging up perfectly smooth natural trails, chucking litter out of windows.
And you know what. Its condoned by the rest of us. Serves us bloody well right.

This is all true.... to different extents.
Which is why I think that laws etc. need to be clear AND have a reason (that isn't revenue generation)

What you describe is broadly self accountability.... and taking responsibility for our own actions. No-one initially forced people to use out of town supermarkets but the same people then complain when their local services disappear....

Driving seems to me to have have changed from driving safely and considerately to fine/point avoidance...

When i had my driving lessons back in the 90's my driving instructor told me the golden rule is nothing you do should cause someone else to brake or swerve etc. even if they are actually in the wrong...
Today it seems far more like "but I'm in the right so damn it" and increasingly "there is no camera so what the hell"

Is the two second rule still relevant on today's roads? Or has it been amended to two car lengths irrespective of speed without me being informed? I honestly think some people are unable to match the speed of the vehicle in front unless they are within spitting distance of it.

two car lengths

That's a bit lax - they get within one around these parts; small herds of 'em trundling along.

[tangent thread]

I've always worked with the rule you can't actually get a boarding pass until the visa checks are done.... both of these were BA flights and from T5....

not my experience if you check in on line and use automated bag drop - recent trip hadn't realised older daughter didn't have electronic visa for Canada (she'd been just before introduced, I assumed had been around a while like US one and as still had passport with Canada stamps in she had one) got phone call from airline on way to gate, we were last on the plane
Canada to Aus' pulled aside right at boarding by airline staff and phone call made quoting passport numbers to god knows who to but got an OK - UK citizen, resident in Aus, Uk passport, electronic visa for Aus, boarding pass in hand

In old days you produced a piece of paper to a person at check in [end tangent}

Nice example on this morning's (car) commute. I'm driving along, there is a white van approaching in the opposite lane with a parked car in his way. The road isn't wide enough for 3 vehicles.

Sensible approach: van should wait behind the parked car till I am out the way.

Actual approach: van swings out at the last second forcing me to mount the kerb to avoid hitting him. 👿

Is the two second rule still relevant on today's roads? Or has it been amended to two car lengths irrespective of speed without me being informed?

Yep! I've made this point many times before. Practically no one observes the two second rule.

[url= https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2+seconds+at+30mph ]Two seconds at 30mph[/url] is a distance of over 26 meters.

[url= https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2+seconds+at+70mph ]Two seconds at 70 mph[/url] is a distance of over 62 meters!

But the reality is you're lucky to get two car lengths, regardless of your speed.

Small wonder then that we get pile ups on motorways or cyclists getting killed on urban roads because the car behind couldn't see them till it was too late.

In old days you produced a piece of paper to a person at check in [end tangent}

Which is kinda my point ... "progress" has been made but in many cases simply at the expense of the customer based on process flowcharts that have a single parameter of cost.

The result just seems to be people will end up missing flights etc. but that's OK as they overbooked the flight anyway...

But the reality is you're lucky to get two car lengths, regardless of your speed.

I'm fairly convinced this is because leaving a safe gap is now interpreted as an invitation for someone to pull out in front of you ... which then itself leads to unsafe situations as you brake then the car too close behind you brakes etc.

Because driving doesn't work if you simply follow the "speed limit" ...

Why the hell not?

But why do I need a reason ?
Because I am not going to follow a rule that doesn't make sense or worse is actually dangerous.

So how do you know if it makes sense or not? We are already arguing about whether or not these rules make sense, so it's clearly not cut and dried is it?

I'm glad I don't work with you 🙂

[quote=stevextc ]Because driving doesn't work if you simply follow the "speed limit" ...

It works just fine IME (as the recipient of two speeding tickets, in both cases I'm happy to admit I was speeding).

What is the difference between a pavement and a footpath and why it's illegal for a bike to ride over a pavement but not a car...?

The first bit is quite simple (apart from that the technical term for what you're calling a "pavement" is a "footway") - a footway runs alongside the carriageway of a road, a footpath is independent of any road. Meanwhile we already did the second part and as discussed it's illegal for both. It's not really terribly confusing. Though having double checked the relevant law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 it appears the exemption "to gain lawful access to property" mentioned in the HC https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158#general-advice-rules-144-to-158 and discussed above doesn't exist in law.

It's a point that is open to creating a lot of confusion.... even ignoring the 40 mph part for Scotland.

Only if you don't bother to read the HC 🙄 - which TBH applies to most of your points.

intriguingly there's about 50m where the limit is 70!

Again, like the bridge .. WHY ????
Surely it would be clearer, less open to someone missing the sign etc. if they only had the 60 mph sign on exiting the roundabout...

I only mentioned it as a point of interest - in fact it would be far more daft to put the signs where you suggest as people would be far more likely to miss them. The only daft thing here is bothering with the 60 limit in the first place - I doubt having it makes the slightest difference to road safety on that short bit of road.

CBA with the rest of your rant, especially when your source is the Daily Fail.

[quote=stevextc ]I'm fairly convinced this is because leaving a safe gap is now interpreted as an invitation for someone to pull out in front of you ... which then itself leads to unsafe situations as you brake then the car too close behind you brakes etc.

Do you? I can't remember ever having to brake when somebody pulls out in front of me, but then I tend to leave a gap sufficient that it's quite easy for somebody to pull into it, in which case I'll just lift off the accelerator a bit to regain the gap. Maybe you're not actually leaving as much gap as you think (given you seem to think it important that other people don't pull into it). Maybe you should have a good think about your driving standards, because you're not exactly coming across as being as good as you seem to think you are here.

BTW I'm sure we did something recently about how irrelevant it is to your journey time having people pull into the gap you're leaving - something which got mentioned at a speed awareness course somebody did? edit: here we go http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/speed-awareness-course-tomorrow/page/2#post-8418565

Frequently half the machines are not working.... (or are working but turned off) ... when the queue gets longer they get turned back on... because it's all about creating a delay ... the aim is actually to create a delay because studies have found that one of the major complaints in frequent fliers is waiting for baggage so airports deliberately introduce as much delay as possible before the baggage collection.

Sorry this is just more BS.

I fly frequently, \I guess between 20 and 30 times a year. I have never seen more than one or 2 machines not operating.

As I posted above, the passport control is operated by the Border Agency not by the Airport. Why would they want to look slow and inefficient to help the airport generate revenue?

Last year I did think there was a deliberate slowness at the Border but that was more to do with the Industrial dispute they were having about under manning. Nothing to do with the airport.

I still call BS on the "European Passports" nonsense as well. Post an image of the signage and I will admit I'm wrong but there is no indication that this is the case.

Yesterday morning, as I approached the Wilton Avenue junction with Hill Lane, there was a driver who wanted to leave the Old Dell complex and head to same junction (~100 metres away). Instead of waiting for me to go by at ~18mph, this numpty decided to pull out in front of me and then give me far less than 1.5m room on his left.
My urine definitely got warmer!

stevextc » Because driving doesn't work if you simply follow the "speed limit" ...

[quote="molgrips"]Why the hell not?
[quote="aracer"]It works just fine IME (as the recipient of two speeding tickets, in both cases I'm happy to admit I was speeding).

I think you missed the whole point... just because the speed limit is 60 doesn't mean it's SAFE to go 60....

Only if you don't bother to read the HC - which TBH applies to most of your points.

Of which I'm as guilty as most.... but the HC isn't law... and the law in many cases does not agree with the HC.... but the law is not written to be readable - though the HC is.... unfortunately the way Acts are written means that the people who are meant to read them BEFORE voting don't actually read them... or (in the case of the road traffic act) the hundreds of other Laws (passed Acts) that are contradictory or simply so far out of date they are irrelevant... (The base of the road traffic act was written when Penny farthings were new technology and cycles are classed as sledges and trolleys and even livestock in many definitions)

I only mentioned it as a point of interest - in fact it would be far more daft to put the signs where you suggest as people would be far more likely to miss them. The only daft thing here is bothering with the 60 limit in the first place - I doubt having it makes the slightest difference to road safety on that short bit of road.

It may not make any difference but why not have a 60 sign at the roundabout and then a 60 sign where the current one is....

My whole point is about making stuff clear and easy to follow....

Maybe you should have a good think about your driving standards, because you're not exactly coming across as being as good as you seem to think you are here.

BTW I'm sure we did something recently about how irrelevant it is to your journey time having people pull into the gap you're leaving - something which got mentioned at a speed awareness course somebody did?

I don't need a good think about my driving standards because I already know they have gone downhill over the last decades....
Frankly I used to care a lot about safety .. now I care more about not getting a ticket... so far I have managed 30 odd years and not had a single driving offence except a PCN for pulling over for a fire engine...

Getting a PCN for pulling over into a bus lane for a fire engine was a landmark... this is the point where I no longer gave a crap about good/bad practice ... I realised no-one gives a toss about following the rules, getting the revenue is far more important. I was sent a threatening letter basically saying pay up for a discount or take it to court and we will throw everything we can at you to ruin your life....

CBA with the rest of your rant, especially when your source is the Daily Fail.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=yellow+lines+around+car&rlz=1C1CHFX_en-GBGB545GB549&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWiO3uotPTAhVDI8AKHQK2DqcQ_AUICigB&biw=1585&bih=781

BTW I'm sure we did something recently about how irrelevant it is to your journey time having people pull into the gap you're leaving - something which got mentioned at a speed awareness course somebody did?

It might be irrelevant to journey time .... but it's not irrelevant to safety...

Though having double checked the relevant law: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72 it appears the exemption "to gain lawful access to property" mentioned in the HC https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158#general-advice-rules-144-to-158 and discussed above doesn't exist in law.

There is some other legislation.... I don't have time to find it as i have a dentists appointment ... by that is what I mean about confusing and unclear legislation.... and it would take ages to find again as it's buried in some other act referred to by another etc. (i.e. something you'd never find unless you were looking)

IMHO the problem is the crap legislation.... the HC tries to summarise it but the legislation itself is contradictory....

p.s. Have you ever ridden after lighting up hours without pedal reflectors ???

Does that law make ANY sense to you?

Do you support "plastic police" (community support) handing out PCN's to kids for riding on the pavement as the commons actually passed that as a law and it was then rejected by the Lords?

Amusingly, I just failed for not going *at* the speed limits. And not pulling out quickly enough.

In the Netherlands, though, where the roads are more segregated.

EDIT:

Getting a PCN for pulling over into a bus lane for a fire engine

Surely you could appeal that?

"BTW I'm sure we did something recently about how irrelevant it is to your journey time having people pull into the gap you're leaving"

get a little unhappy with drivers that roll stop lines at speed from the left into what is a safe gap - then turn right bringing you to a stop - in my mind a typical rat running move and self entitlement - their journey is important - yours can wait - i can live with it as I know I've allowed enough time for my journey and the luxury of that makes me smug and content

[quote=stevextc ]I think you missed the whole point... just because the speed limit is 60 doesn't mean it's SAFE to go 60....

[img] [/img]

Of which I'm as guilty as most.... but the HC isn't law... and the law in many cases does not agree with the HC....

In this case it does (we were discussing NSL speeds) and in most cases it does. There's really very little confusing if you do read it.

I don't need a good think about my driving standards because I already know they have gone downhill over the last decades....
Frankly I used to care a lot about safety .. now I care more about not getting a ticket...

I'm not sure it's even worth discussing this with you any further if that is your attitude - maybe you should think about whether you should be driving at all. I don't even think about getting a ticket most of the time, because I'm obeying the law so it's a non issue (and nowadays even on the open road and motorway I rarely stray into the sort of speeds where I might get a ticket). You should try it.

BTW I'm sure we did something recently about how irrelevant it is to your journey time having people pull into the gap you're leaving - something which got mentioned at a speed awareness course somebody did?

It might be irrelevant to journey time .... but it's not irrelevant to safety...

Not irrelevant, but as I explained (but you appear to have ignored) it's something you can manage and mitigate against - providing you are leaving a proper safe gap in the first place.

stevextc » I'm fairly convinced this is because leaving a safe gap is now interpreted as an invitation for someone to pull out in front of you ...

I'm not too bothered by that one. What I find more irritating is people who overtake me then pull into the safe gap about 2 metres from the front of my car.

..the law in many cases does not agree with the HC..
..IMHO the problem is the crap legislation.... the HC tries to summarise it but the legislation itself is contradictory....

Examples?

The "MUST" rules in the Highway Code all provide references to the relevant traffic laws.

Getting a PCN for pulling over into a bus lane for a fire engine was a landmark...

Annoying yes, but a simple consequence of having an automated system.
You should have appealed.

I think you missed the whole point... just because the speed limit is 60 doesn't mean it's SAFE to go 60....

We know this, but it's a LIMIT, which means you can go slower. Following the limit doens't mean doing 60, it means not exceeding 60.

So it does work. It means you know that person coming over the hill is going to be with you NO EARLIER than X seconds. If they are going slower, then that's fine, but if they are going faster that's when there's a problem because people aren't expecitng you to come over the hill at 80.

Multiquotes and a strawman jpeg

Classic forum argument

Annoying yes, but a simple consequence of having an automated system.
You [u]should[/u] have appealed.

Could or should ???

See that was my first reaction ... but then you look at how are you going to prove the fire engine.
They have proof, a photo of me in a bus lane .... they also must have photo's of the fire engine but they aren't likely going to provide me with their photo's top use as evidence against them... at least not without me paying for a solicitor...

They must have known this as I wasn't the only car pulled into the bus lane... but they obviously don't care because revenue is revenue.

They (TfL in this case) also make it clear they don't mind how much tax payer money they spend if you appeal they have a bottomless pit to prevent successful appeals as the system depends on people not appealing....Meanwhile I have to take time off work etc. which would have cost me far more than the "£60 if you pay within 2 weeks"...

The whole system is just set up to minimise cost at the expense of anyone who has a good reason to appeal.

I can't believe you would think of the system in these terms. You really think that the people that work there are mendacious plotters being as nasty as they possibly can to line their own pockets? Except it's not their own pockets, it's the public purse.

I have no idea how you can live with such a twisted bitter view of humanity, tbh. Most people in local government, or indeed any goverment, or indeed most people in general are well meaning but make lots of mistakes. That's what you need to remember.

[quote="Molgrips"]I'm not sure it's even worth discussing this with you any further if that is your attitude - maybe you should think about whether you should be driving at all.

I'm just being honest... I stopped caring because that is what 90% of other drivers do....

I don't even think about getting a ticket most of the time, because I'm obeying the law so it's a non issue

You already demonstrated your ignorance of laws on mini roundabouts... (I mean ignorance literally not as an insult) and I'm sure you share it with a huge number of people.

I presume you always park your car in reverse on a public highway as well or you are contravening the seatbelt law (presuming you aren't driving a emergency services vehicle)? for the seconds you sit down to the seconds you put on a seatbelt...

I'll readily admit I'll get in then put a seat belt on.... but it's illegal.
You probably also do lots of other things that most people do but are still illegal... and in many cases it's actually impossible not to break contradictory laws... or break one by mistake whilst trying to follow one.

I was doing 70 mph +/- 5% on my speedometer calibration.... there is no way on earth I was doing 40mph by the time I passed the sign that lit up literally a second earlier... so the second I passed the sign I was breaking the law.... by the time I got to the camera I must have been 40 or very close...

Had I had a car tailgating me what should I have done ??? Hit the brakes harder in order to ensure i was doing no more than 40 mph by the time I hit the sign or try and safely be doing less than 45 mph by the time I got to the camera???

I'll also admit to riding a well lit and otherwise legal bike without pedal reflectors... similarly it's illegal after lighting up time.

ahem, those quotes are mine, not molly's

I also never attended archery practice on a Sunday.

Of course there are some daft laws - I've no idea how the seatbelt thing you're banging on about works, but I'm sure nobody has ever been done for that theoretical case. Your argument now appears to be a combo of strawman and slippery slope - no it doesn't make it reasonable or sensible to ignore all the rules because some are daft and never enforced.

molgrips - Member

We know this, but it's a LIMIT, which means you can go slower. Following the limit doesn't mean doing 60, it means not exceeding 60.

So it does work. It means you know that person coming over the hill is going to be with you NO EARLIER than X seconds. If they are going slower, then that's fine, but if they are going faster that's when there's a problem because people aren't expecting you to come over the hill at 80.

Congratulations, you've just been rear ended/T-boned by a police car.

I cannot believe you still think that driving to expectation is a good idea.

I can't believe you would think of the system in these terms. You really think that the people that work there are mendacious plotters being as nasty as they possibly can to line their own pockets? Except it's not their own pockets, it's the public purse.

I have no idea how you can live with such a twisted bitter view of humanity, tbh.

The policy (not the individuals) is to maximise revenue ... this is not a secret. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people been given tickets that the council or TfL etc. know is not legal because it's already been challenged and won in court. This isn't just councils or traffic but increasingly across all walks of life...

However the [u]policy[/u] is to issue anyway...

Most people in local government, or indeed any goverment, or indeed most people in general are well meaning but make lots of mistakes. That's what you need to remember.

They may or may not be well meaning ... however the system put in place is there to make it as much trouble as possible for them to act on being well meaning.

The system is set up so they have to take a personal risk in order to deviate off-script and even if they are not putting their actual job at risk they are forced to go through loops (extra work) in order to act like people rather than follow a script.

**** me stevextc whats your blood pressure like???

You could do with going for a nice ride in the sunshine.

bails » Also, as GrahamS has mentioned, knowledge of speed limits was atrocious. This sign:
Means a limit anywhere betwene 40 and 80mph if you believe the attendees!

aracer
Well they're not so far off - until recently it was between 40 and 70 (and still is in Scotland).

get a little unhappy with drivers that roll stop lines at speed from the left into what is a safe gap - then turn right bringing you to a stop - in my mind a typical rat running move and self entitlement

I had one of those this morning. Doing 40 (in a 40mph zone), car pulled out in front of me from a side street causing me to jam on, then proceeded to beetle along at 20mph. The road was clear behind me as far as the eye could see. Just... why?

look at how are you going to prove the fire engine.

I'd imagine that the local fire service will have records of their call-outs, would be fairly trivial to corroborate.

I was doing 70 mph +/- 5% on my speedometer calibration.... there is no way on earth I was doing 40mph by the time I passed the sign that lit up literally a second earlier...

There must surely be a period of grace between the signs changing and the limit being enforced. What if it changed when you were right underneath it? An immediate enforcement would mean you'd be penalised for disobeying a sign that wasn't even visible when you passed it.

Oh and the thing about the speed limit dropping for no reason early on a Sunday morning, its not all part of a master plan to extract money from the poor motorist.
The signs can be manually set but most of the time its automated, I believe the system sometimes has an issue with low numbers of vehicles. It can get confused into thinking there is slow traffic, it then slows the up stream to reduce the flow at the congestion point. hence you see 40 for no reason.

Steve - You appear to be getting a little agitated. Has you tin foil hat slipped or something?
[img] [/img]

stevextc - do you have anger management issues and do you attempt to 'have the last word' at work and/or in your personal life?

Excessive use of quotes, unattributed sources, capitals, underlining - it's the cyber version of shouting. When someone shouts persistently we all tune out; that's definitely where I am with you - and I'm sure others are in the same place.

I thought I recognised your style and, sure enough, your thread about Wiggle is exactly the same format.

It's both unnecessary and tiresome.

I got caught speeding two weeks ago. My Fault