[Closed] Our new PCC hates speed cameras

If he wants to get the police to be more mobile and put the money into more traffic police out and about that’s a good thing IMHO. I am a stickler for speed limits but appreciate that excess speed isn’t the biggest problem right now, general standards need to be improved.

The whole Tory house of cards is based on populism nowadays! There's no point messing about with stuff thats important like saving lives or tackling crime (Speeding or otherwise). Just go straight for stuff that makes you popular.

It’s not a “war on motorists”, it’s a war on people who break the law! I don’t see how anyone who isn’t a **** can object to them. Do they even cost money, surely they’re self-funding?

He's more worried about stopping people nicking farm equipment.

I’d rather have a couple of policemen stopping cars breaking general traffic rules around my town than sat in a van all day at a speeding honey pot - which always seems to be some semi rural 40-30 speed reduction point or a big wide 30mph road. Mobile speed vans don’t make any difference to speeding apart from when they are sat. You could probably pay your days wage catching people on their mobiles if you were a traffic policeman and it may have a longer term benefit.

If he wants to get the police to be more mobile and put the money into more traffic police out and about that’s a good thing IMHO. I am a stickler for speed limits but appreciate that excess speed isn’t the biggest problem right now, general standards need to be improved.

Why not do both? Mobile speed camera vans are already manned by civilians, not traffic officers, so I doubt recalling them to base delivers more 'bobbies on the beat'.

I've not much sympathy for anyone who gets ticketed by them, round here they are in completely obvious places rather than hiding behind hedges, normally wide, straight, NSL roads so you need to be driving like a **** to be caught.

Zero sympathy for anyone caught by one, there should be zero tolerance for speeding.

Phillip Allott?

Zero sympathy for anyone caught by one

Ditto, and I've been caught three times... It's, quite literally, a fair cop.

...and, separately (or maybe not), the whole idea of PCCs is absurd.

“War on motorists”
Genuine lol, nobody’s waging war on me, and i drive all the time!!
Not sure camera vans actually make much money, I’m also not sure they make much difference to speed except for the exact time/place they’re out there.
All they do is piss off people who are too stupid to use their eyes when they are driving.
I’d rather see more traffic police dealing with general driving standards though, mobile phones and other distractions.

@flaperon Where did he use the phrase 'war on motorists?'

Sounds like a great idea if its replaced by actual police on the road to catch crap driving & aholes in stupidly modified noisy cars, my particular bugbear.
If dont think ive ever seen van parked somewhere that looked like it would actually help improve safety rather than someone pressing on a bit on a nsl dual carriageway, an obvious money making tactic.

the whole idea of PCCs is absurd.

Of course, a complete non-job. I mean, look at the one on Line of Duty. Completely toothless. 🙂

North Yorks does seem rather blessed in that department though. No sooner have we got rid of Julia 'Cyclists can **** off out of my village' Mulligan, then another Conservative Central Office mouth-breather is ushered in.

Zero sympathy for anyone caught by one, there should be zero tolerance for speeding.

Well yes, and no.

I got caught a few years ago. It was a 40mph road I drove every day on the way home form work. I generally did about 35ish. One day I drove along there and, along with lots of others was stopped by the police. I wasn't concerned as I was going well under 40mph. The police did the whole "do you know what speed you were doing sir" speech, so I said it was about 35mph. He said I was doing 37mph and was giving me a ticket. I said the speed limit was 40 and he said yes it was, until this morning when it was changed to 30mph.

Here is the signage:

[img] [/img]

The tiny 40 sign had been changed to 30, the big 40 sign on the road hadn't been changed. They did hundreds of drivers that day, some went to court to challenge it and lost as it's the little red bordered sign that counts, the painted sign on the road has no legal meaning.

So yes, I agree that speeding is bad, but sometimes there are extenuating circumstances.

I actually don't care much about enforcing speed limits. I say that as someone that doesn't drive much at all, and as a regular commuter by bike I have a vested interest in making roads safer.

Unless they are demonstrably making roads safer, I would be happy to see speed cameras scrapped.

Having said that, I suspect the motivation here is populism and it'll work. People are stupid.

Speeding should be as socially unacceptable as drink driving. That's my viewpoint.

ben

The whole Tory house of cards is based on populism nowadays! There’s no point messing about with stuff thats important like saving lives or tackling crime (Speeding or otherwise). Just go straight for stuff that makes you popular.

Whilst that is true it doesn't mean resources are not being poorly deployed on speeding cameras regarding road safety.

If anything the speeding cameras are a cheap trick to distract the masses as it's simply an easy way to get tickets issued compared to other dangerous driving practices (like middle lane hogging or inability to keep in lanes)...

I recently followed a car that was going from 40ish to 80ish... in the middle lane (or thereabouts) for about 40ish miles... every time it slowed down and I pulled out it would speed up again..

Being in the van I didn't have the power to just pass when it slowed... and several police cars passed in that time.

When I finally did pass (after quite a few close calls for other cars non of which I wanted to be behind if the accident happened) the reason was apparent as the driver was holding their phone in both hands... every time the van pulled alongside they'd apparently realised they were drifting around at 40-50 or whatever so speeded up...

I'd even got to the point of suggesting to Jnr we pulled in at the next services as I couldn't pass and it seemed like a inevitability that sooner or later there would be a multi-vehicle pile-up.

there should be zero tolerance for speeding.

I'd let someone off for doing 70.01mph on a motorway, but hey, we're all different.

The whole Tory house of cards is based on populism nowadays

Many popular ideas are good and this is one of them. The money can be spent better elsewhere.

A policy is a policy independent of who implements it. You may hate the Conservative party but that doesn't make everything they do evil and everything Labour does as good.

Speeding should be as socially unacceptable as drink driving

Tough to enforce though. A drink driver is drunk for the whole journey. A speeding driver just needs to know where his local speed cameras are and be observant for mobile traps. Do that and the risk of tickets is minimal.

Problem Is the majority of people you 'criminalise' are those that might accidentally creep up above the speed limit who are not intentionally speeding or driving dangerously. We all occasionally look down and suddenly realise our speed has crept up too high or not sure haw the speed limit is on a given stretch of road then might come across a sigh and realise you're speeding. This is quite innocent and not dangerous and something everyone does. Don't believe anyone who says they NEVER speed. You're either unaware of the times you do or lying.

The reality is we want to catch those who are deliberately speeding and driving dangerously. The majority of accidents occur in urban built up areas, so often not speeding but faffing around at junctions. I'd rather see more focus on how people are driving and not just how fast they're going. Its a n unintelligent approach and just an easy way out so the police can make it out they're doing something...in reality they're not actually addressing the root cause of accidents on our roads. A copper sitting in his car by the side of a dual carriageway trying to get granny going a few mph over the limit is not stopping cyclists getting knocked off their bikes at busy junctions because drivers are not observing the basic rules of the road.

Fancy politicians trying to be popular!!! Who'd have thunk it? Wanting to create policies that appeal to people in order to get their votes so they get into power and actually are able to affect change rather than just being unpopular, never getting into power and relegated to shouting from the sidelines.

Alot of people seem to forget that the politicians work for us, not the other way around.

I’d rather see more traffic police dealing with general driving standards though, mobile phones and other distractions.

those that might accidentally creep up above the speed limit

They shouldn’t be driving if they are physically unable to stick to quite a simple rule.

I fully expect to be seriously flamed here, but...

I pay little attention to the speed limit when driving and regularly exceed it. That said, I also drive well under the speed limit in many situations.

The speed limits are (to my mind) often completely arbitrary and take no account for for a multitude of factors such as traffic volume, road surface, weather conditions, light conditions, the vehicle you are driving, etc. They have also not been updated to reflect improved braking, handling and other advancements in vehicle safety for over 40+ years.

There are country lanes local to me that are subject to the national speed limit. They are largely single track, with blind bends, obscured gates, occasionally with livestock in the road, etc. At no point and in any conditions would it be safe to drive at 50mph on them. And then there are also wide, straight dual-carriageways in non-residential areas, with no obstructions to vision that are subject to a 30mph limit.

I know what the speed limit is and if I get caught exceeding it, I have no argument with the penalty. But don't expect me to respect it.

They shouldn’t be driving if they are physically unable to stick to quite a simple rule.

I absolutely guarantee that you have driven at 71mph on a motorway before.

Many popular ideas are good and this is one of them. The money can be spent better elsewhere.

It could but... If you take away the revenue generated for the treasury that the cameras produce, what chances do you think there is of the treasury continuing to fund the mixed use road safety funds (from which speed cameras and other safety measures) are funded? Speed cameras are a net producer of funds, and while there's no direct correlation between income and spend as thats the way it's structured, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that if the income goes, so does the spend. Assuming that did happen then other road safety measures, assumedly still needed, might have to come from other policing budgets.

Put another way, I doubt the 'money' can be spent elsewhere on something better, it just won't exist.

I’d rather have a couple of policemen stopping cars breaking general traffic rules around my town than sat in a van all day at a speeding honey pot – which always seems to be some semi rural 40-30 speed reduction point or a big wide 30mph road. Mobile speed vans don’t make any difference to speeding apart from when they are sat. You could probably pay your days wage catching people on their mobiles if you were a traffic policeman and it may have a longer term benefit.

Pretty much my thoughts. Excessive speed is dangerous but so are many other things that in replacing people with cameras we no longer enforce. There is no reasoning with a camera, no context, no nuance. There is a world of difference between clipping past a school at 35mph at 3:30 in the afternoon and the same at 3:30 in the morning. There is a world of difference between habitually driving everywhere at 40 in a 30, and straying over the limit momentarily whilst you overtake a tractor. A camera cares not a jot for these things. Three points, hundred quid or whatever it is these days, thanks very much, sign here. The lad on the off-road bike with no insurance / driving licence / tax / licence plate / helmet / MOT riding down the wrong side of the road two-up on one wheel, meh, he's perfectly fine, he was only doing 29mph. The little scamp.

Plus these things are supposed to be positioned according to explicit guidelines but they often seem to be in the most cynical of places, certainly the mobile vans. Motorway bridges? Statistically the safest roads in the country. The first crawler lane / stretch of dual carriageway in several miles on an A road? After all the bends and the not-quite-big-enough temptations to overtake, that is the accident blackspot on this road? I don't believe you.

Speeding should be as socially unacceptable as drink driving

We've discussed this to death previously but, in discussing this stuff it's important to recognise the difference between breaking the speed limit and driving at an inappropriate speed. Compare doing 31 in perfect visibility vs 29 in a foggy blizzard. Which of those is breaking the law? Which of those is the more dangerous? And when you say "speeding" which are you referring to?

Problem Is the majority of people you ‘criminalise’ are those that might accidentally creep up above the speed limit who are not intentionally speeding or driving dangerously.

Driving Without Due Care then is it, sir?

I fully expect to be seriously flamed here, but…

I pay little attention to the speed limit when driving and regularly exceed it. That said, I also drive well under the speed limit in many situations.

The speed limits are (to my mind) often completely arbitrary and take no account for for a multitude of factors such as traffic volume, road surface, weather conditions, light conditions, the vehicle you are driving, etc. They have also not been updated to reflect improved braking, handling and other advancements in vehicle safety for over 40+ years.

There are country lanes local to me that are subject to the national speed limit. They are largely single track, with blind bends, obscured gates, occasionally with livestock in the road, etc. And then there are also wide, straight dual-carriageways in non-residential areas, with no obstructions to vision that are subject to a 30mph limit.

I know what the speed limit is and if I get caught exceeding it, I have no argument with the penalty. But don’t expect me to respect it.

+1

There are country lanes local to me that are subject to the national speed limit. They are largely single track, with blind bends, obscured gates, occasionally with livestock in the road, etc. At no point and in any conditions would it be safe to drive at 50mph on them.

@deltacharlie72 I agree with all of that, especially the first part.

Whilst I'm not sure I'm over keen on the policy in general or the new PCC, what I read suggested the cameras would be reviewed.

Three specific locations I know of have been flagged as concerning, on the A59 East bound , leading down hill between Newbridge Lane and priors Lane. The accident spot the van is there to improve is at the top of the hill headed west where people regularly continue over the double white line having failed to over take in the double lane section going up hill.

Ferensby on the Boroughbridge Road, the van is positioned just before the nsl sign, after the houses picking up traffic leaving the village north bound. The blackspot is the blind junction with Farnham Lane 400 yards before the van and out of sight of the camera.

Knaresborough Road, just past forest head, and "narnia" at the Bilton Hall Lane junction, immediately before the 50 limit. Again picking up traffic heading towards Knaresborough not the folks who do 80+ up the hill. (edit, for those who know the road apparently there is no issue with speeding there as the van rarely catches anyone significantly above the limit, arguing this is because its facing the wrong way and in the wrong place was met with "the van hasn't provided the data to support that")

I believe though don't know the top of the hill heading out of burnt Yates towards bedlam /Ripley has also been flagged, though I'm not sure and the S bend above bedlam is an issue (though mainly with traffic coming up through bedlam not down out of burnt Yates)

There are no fixed cameras in NY.

Other issues flagged with the cameras are repeated requests for them to be placed in urban locations and villages (esp round schools) which go unheeded, requests for parking enforcement instead/as well etc.

I absolutely think speed cameras are a good thing but it's hard not to sympathise with people who find the placement of them a bit galling, especially with you've campaigned hard to see them put in then find the situation isn't outside the primary school but 600 yards around a corner immediately before an nsl sign.

Speeding should be as socially unacceptable as drink driving

To be honest, I don't really agree with the drink driving law. It's set at a fixed point of alcohol in your blood. Yet everybody has different tolerances to alcohol. One person may be completely pissed and barely over the limit, another may be five times over and more than capable of driving. It should be based on those US style side of the road sobriety tests.

I’d rather the police target drivers with a sat-nav stuck in the middle of the windscreen, than someone 50 in a 40, I know which ones more likely to run me over.

Please also bear in mind that "safety" is just one aspect of speed limits.

There is also the noise pollution - faster cars make more noise, and burn more fuel.

The lad on the off-road bike with no insurance / driving licence / tax / licence plate / helmet / MOT riding down the wrong side of the road two-up on one wheel, meh, he’s perfectly fine, he was only doing 29mph. The little scamp.

If wee Ned on the crosser doesn't have a plate, it doesn't matter if he blats through the camera at 90mph, all they're getting is a pretty picture of someone who's untracable.

Oh my god, there are some arrogant, deluded, self righteous pricks on here. So far, speed limits, highway code, and drink drive laws are wrong. Has it ever occurred to some of you, you might be wrong? Speed cameras and limits are normally in place after someone has ****ing died.

To be honest, I don’t really agree with the drink driving law. It’s set at a fixed point of alcohol in your blood. Yet everybody has different tolerances to alcohol. One person may be completely pissed and barely over the limit, another may be five times over and more than capable of driving. It should be based on those US style side of the road sobriety tests.

I may get flamed again here, but the limit should be zero. No alcohol in the blood, like some other countries. Again this is my insular personal viewpoint but I went to school with a lad killed by a drunk driver. I'm sure many people have had similar experiences. In response to the speeding one, you are right, there are distinctions to be made. EDIT: The point I was trying to make about speeding, obviously badly, is that if it was socially unacceptable (like drink driving is viewed now as opposed to say the social viewpoint of the 1970s) less people may potentially speed overall, and also when it is clearly not safe, inappropriate or just downright ignorant. A proportion of drivers drive around completely unaware/oblivious of the speed limits in place or what speed they are actually driving at. You often see this as they 'launch' their cars off/over speed bumps.

Yes to improving other aspects of driving but it's difficult to catch, prove and prosecute. Speeding is definitive and easy to catch. Look at it another way people who speed (either through inattention or reckless selfishness) are also likely to display other bad habits. Increase the cameras, catch more people, it'll either wake them up to the fact rules of the road aren't optional and they need to up their driving standards or they will quickly get disqualified through totting up.

The biggest scandal is the vans aren't self funding, the fines go into a central pot and the costs of the vans etc. need to be met with normal budgets.

Lots of average speed cameras are the real answer. The main road through our village is 30 mph for a good 2 miles, classic Lancs ribbon development so most people using it drive through. 3 cameras, one at each end and one in the middle would eradicate the speeding which is endemic.

There's a similar populist attack going on by the government on parking on private land at the moment, all very simplistic which will result in a lot of the regulated firms going bust and take us back to the dark ages of rogue clampers and land lords taking matters into their own hands. An opportunity to tighten up regulation and compliance of the private parking firms has been squandered for a populist sound bite which will ultimate come back and bite the more rule abiding motorists.

@zilog6128

Yes, I do understand that the speed limit is a 'limit' and not a target. I've specifically referenced driving to the conditions in my post, so I am aware of the need to do that, thank you.

What I am saying is that my primary regard when driving is to the conditions, and not the arbitrary limit imposed by some faceless entity who likely has never driven or even seen the road.

If you cannot understand that then you shouldn’t be posting. IF we're going to get all condescending & patronising about it.

Can you explain why a 'limit' of 50mph, which even in the eyes of someone as irresponsible as me, will never be safe, can be regarded as appropriate for single track country lanes? Or why it will never be safe to drive above 30mph on a straight, well maintained, well lit dual-carriageway?

I believe I am experienced enough to know how to safely drive to the conditions. Sometimes, that means I will feel safe to drive above the speed limit that has been assigned to that particular road.

I do not regard myself as some driving god. But I pay attention, I look beyond the bumper of the car in front of me, I leave adequate room for braking, I am always aware of what is behind me, etc. I feel in doing this, in a well maintained car, I can often travel more safely above the designated sped limit, than someone who drives without any of that awareness at or below the limit.

Been mentioned by a few already but;

Speeding isn't the biggest issue, it's just poor standards of driving.

Loads of 30 limits around me (central beds) have been reduced to 20 with no real logic. They will be widely ignored as people have driven these roads at 30 for 20+ years.
We now have cars with automatic collision avoidance, external pedestrian airbags and have has ABS for years.
Where is the logic in reducing limits...

I've been caught before and done a speed awareness course, they are nothing more than a bunch of misrepresented statistics from my experience.

Has it ever occurred to some of you, you might be wrong?

Or that simple rules applied to complex, multifactor situations don't always give the right results?

No law is perfect. And we need people to point that out in order to drive change and bring about better, fairer laws.

E.g. window tax, poll tax, 4 mph red flag in front of a car etc etc

I don't fancy living in a state where any law is automatically assumed to be right and / or unchallengable.

Truth is a lot of speed cameras are placed in areas where no-one has died, as has been pointed out quite eloquently in many of the posts above. That's not delusional or self-righteous. That's fact.

Can you explain why a ‘limit’ of 50mph, which even in the eyes of someone as irresponsible as me, will never be safe, can be regarded as appropriate for single track country lanes?

Or why it will never be safe to drive above 30mph on a straight, well maintained, well lit dual-carriageway

Has it ever occurred to some of you, you might be wrong? Speed cameras and limits are normally in place after someone has * died.

I'm pretty sure all roads have a designated speed limit, whether or not someone "has * died".

One reason for the installation of a speed camera or mobile camera unit, may be previous accidents or fatalities. But it is by no means the only reason. I can think of multiple static camera sites in my area where there have been no fatalities or any history of accidents.

We now have cars with automatic collision avoidance, external pedestrian airbags and have has ABS for years.
Where is the logic in reducing limits…

Because people are still being injured/killed? Because cars are significantly faster? Because roads are significantly busier? Because it reduces emissions? Because it's nicer for residents that live near busy roads?

Or why it will never be safe to drive above 30mph on a straight, well maintained, well lit dual-carriageway?

It might not be about safety!

It might be to reduce noise or air pollution.

@zilog6128

it’s how the roads are categorised…

Yes, but my point is, the way roads are categorised is not always appropriate. As @andrewreay mentions, "simple rules applied to complex, multifactor situations don’t always give the right results"

Regarding your Highway Code point... Do you think you could you please drop the condescension? There's really no need for it. I think most of us are reasonable adults, attempting to discuss an issue sensibly. We may have different points of view on this but I think we should be able to treat each other with some respect & civility. Thank you.

No law is perfect. And we need people to point that out in order to drive change and bring about better, fairer laws.

Driving above the speed limit is absolutely not the right forum for doing this though. The law might be nonsense, the limit completely inappropriate but there are methods by which to challenge and debate that. Deciding it shouldn't apply to "you" isn't that method.

Or that simple rules applied to complex, multifactor situations don’t always give the right results?

They often give better results than complex rules (that commonly still seem arbitrary) do though, where the complexity makes adherence and enforcement difficult.

and, separately (or maybe not), the whole idea of PCCs is absurd.

+1

Police shouldn't politicised. They are there to enforce the law, not interpret it. If the law is out of date, or doesn't have public support, that's what Parliament is for. Parliament makes the law, the courts interpret it and the police enforce it. The Tories in particular seem to have a problem with that.

@zilog6128

WRITING IN CAPITALS DOEN'T MAKE YOU MOAR RIGHT

Going back to the original point of the thread about PCC's, Derbyshire has got a new Tory PCC, a replacement for the previous Labour one.

One of her priorities is apparently more Community Speedwatch and ANPR and CCTV.
Although that might easily be a sort of toothless alternative to actual speed cameras.

One of her priorities is apparently more Community Speedwatch and ANPR and CCTV.
Although that might easily be a sort of toothless alternative to actual speed cameras.

ANPR not so much but the CSW is a necessary step, CCTV a helpful one, toward getting speed cameras in place short of multiple fatal accidents.

CCTV is, combined with ANPR, also useful for dealing with other road safety issues.

WRITING IN CAPITALS DOEN’T MAKE YOU MOAR RIGHT

Regarding your Highway Code point… Do you think you could you please drop the condescension?

20 mph limits are brilliant, because they make people drive at 30mph
I think there should be blanket 20 limits in all towns and villages
Ideally with average speed cameras
It will be a nationwide improvement

Yes to improving other aspects of driving but it’s difficult to catch, prove and prosecute.

bit of a so what ... because

Speeding is definitive and easy to catch. Look at it another way people who speed (either through inattention or reckless selfishness) are also likely to display other bad habits.

Not really plenty on here who think the only important bit is speed limit...
"yeah so I'm doing 70 in the middle lane... not my prob if someone wants to break the law undertaking me"

I play a "game" with the lad sometimes, predicting who will go onto the motorway and then go straight into the middle lane. I didn't tell him how I win so many times, one way is it's the same people can't stay in lane in the roundabout.

Increase the cameras, catch more people, it’ll either wake them up to the fact rules of the road aren’t optional and they need to up their driving standards or they will quickly get disqualified through totting up.

That's not going to catch any of the 65mph middle lane hoggers or lane drifters is it?
Problem is that requires actual policing...
The biggest issue with this is the messaging ...
Don't drink and Drive (yep cool)
Don't speed (yep mostly cool except passing lane hoggers and swervers)
Don't run red lights with cameras on ... unless your on a bike (tick)

.. anything else is perfectly good driving...

FYI, 35+ years driving and only convicted of a single traffic offense in that time (pulling into a bus lane to let a fire engine past)... and never been in an accident whilst my vehicle was moving... once when I was 9-10 got hit by a lorry whilst stationary (obviously not driving) and another getting bumped at the traffic lights when the car behind set off when the filter light came on.

I believe I am experienced enough to know how to safely drive to the conditions. Sometimes, that means I will feel safe to drive above the speed limit that has been assigned to that particular road.

To quote Baz Luhrman.

"We all think we are better drivers than we really are"

Clicky for psychology research about this.

Being able to walk on a straight line and touch the end of your nose with the tip of your index finger does not prove your reactions aren't significantly slower though does it?

^supposed to be in reply to above comment about using US style roadside sobriety tests^

Our one gets £83k pa.
Resembles a school dinner lady
Nice gog if you can blag it

Rang the police Saturday afto . 999, hi yes a guy has just come out of a pub and now hes sat in his car getting stoned.

Ok sir, thats not a 999 level call, please ring 112 to report that. I sat on hold for 5 mins and gave up.

Not the answer i was looking for

I absolutely guarantee that you have driven at 71mph on a motorway before.

Bearing in mind that most speedos overread to a degree (because it's illegal to underread and near-impossible to be dead accurate without GPS), to be doing an actual 71 you'd likely have to be doing closer to 80 on the dashboard. So I can believe that there are people who have never gone above 70 on a motorway (even if they might think they have accidentally).

the speed limit is not the minimum target to aim for, as a driver you still need to assess each road according to the conditions. If you cannot understand or do that then you shouldn’t be driving. If you crash because you were driving too fast FOR THE CONDITIONS then you run the risk of being prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving regardless of the fact you were under the speed limit.

Whilst I don't disagree with any of this post, if the metric is appropriate speed then it rather begs the question as to what the point of limits is in the first place, does it not?

Speed cameras and limits are normally in place after someone has **** died.

No. Limits are on every single inch of public road in the country.

Speed cameras should be in accident blackspots yes, but this is exactly the argument myself and others are making - that they often aren't. See dangeourbrain's post: a camera right on the transition point between urban and NSL, you're suggesting that's anything more than a shameless revenue earner? If it isn't then the sign needs moving back as it's clearly in the wrong place.

You often see this as they ‘launch’ their cars off/over speed bumps.

To be fair, I don't know how widespread this is but round here there's a lot of wildly inappropriate speed bumps. It'll say 20 on the sign but if you hit these things at anything more than walking pace you'll rip your damn wheels off.

Or why it will never be safe to drive above 30mph on a straight, well maintained, well lit dual-carriageway?

Dual carriageway limit is NSL which is 70mph for cars. You might choose to ignore speed limits but you should at least know what they are.

If a dual carriageway has a 30 limit then there's probably an extraordinary reason for it.

I do not regard myself as some driving god.

Oh you do, you certainly do. Exceptionalism writ large.

The rules are set for the least competent amongst us and those that acknowledge that they can make a mistake from time to time. The limit is there to ensure that any mistake has least impact on you and the surroundings/others.

There are those among society that are unable to cope with nuance and will decide the wrong course of action in most instances this is why limits and rules are as they are.

Pointless anecdote:

This morning I was following a right pillock (they had helpfully given advanced warning with a big green "P" on their car)

Wouldn't exceed 20mph (through a variety of 30 and 40 limits) crossed the central line numerous times, nearly hit the kerb, and when we finally parted ways with them turning right at a set of traffic lights, I really thought they were going to need a 3 point turn to make the bend.

Was concerned for the safety of everyone in their path, small country town, lots of elderly and mums with buggies on pavements that appear and disappear; and spent the time wondering how on earth they got a licence.

Conversely, wednesday night, after having a single pint of 3.8% beer, I was doing 45 on a dead straight 40 that a decade ago was a NSL, and got passed by popping and banging Focus who must have been doing at least 70. Was completely non-plussed at the entire situation, and hope Mr Focus enjoys his hobby as much as I do mine.

To quote Baz Luhrman.

“We all think we are better drivers than we really are”

Clicky for psychology research about this.

Two separate claims here, the clicky says people think they're above average which isn't quite the same.

Do I think I'm a better driver than I actually am? Probably.

Do I think I'm an above average driver? 100%, hell yes.

I had this argument at (ah, irony) a speed awareness course years ago. They asked who thought they were above average, I put my hand up, they said "that means your overconfident." Not at all, rather I think the standard of your "average" driver is a woefully low bar and if I thought myself to be an average driver I'd take the bus.

The first statement is overconfidence. The second is not, it is a comment on everyone else.

@zilog6128 have you ever ridden a bike on a pavement?

You do realise that P means they have just passed their test don't you? So basically it could be any of our sons or daughters there who might just need a bit of slack from the driving god behind who is trying to crawl up their exhaust pipe. Your comments just mark you out as an intolerent road user who could probably do with a bit of a refresher themselves.

Edit: Or the driving god below

Wouldn’t exceed 20mph (through a variety of 30 and 40 limits) crossed the central line numerous times, nearly hit the kerb, and when we finally parted ways with them turning right at a set of traffic lights, I really thought they were going to need a 3 point turn to make the bend.

Ah, one of the Never-Speeders. These people are convinced they're the safest drivers out there because they always drive at 5mph below the posted speed limit. In doing this, they never take their eyes off the speedo, the go from (say) a 40mph to a 30mph by standing the car on it's nose at the limit change and then gradually, in a series of jerks and swerves and braking, they get it to 25mph again.

In a 30mph zone (driving at 25mph), they will attempt to overtake a cyclist who is doing 20mph while at the same time rigorously adhering to their 25mph. This means that the pass takes 30 seconds of near miss bellendery as the driver solemnly refuses to look up from the speedo.

Cougar

I had this argument at (ah, irony) a speed awareness course years ago. They asked who thought they were above average, I put my hand up, they said “that means your overconfident.” Not at all, rather I think the standard of your “average” driver is a woefully low bar and if I thought myself to be an average driver I’d take the bus.

The first statement is overconfidence. The second is not, it is a comment on everyone else.

It's also a pointless and stupid question.
"Better driver" can mean all sorts of things.
Ironically that might (or does in my book) mean assuming the roads are full of worse drivers than me therefore I need to take even more care and be even more alert.

You do realise that P means they have just passed their test don’t you? So basically it could be any of our sons or daughters there who might just need a bit of slack from the driving god behind who is trying to crawl up their exhaust pipe. Your comments just mark you out as an intolerent road user who could probably do with a bit of a refresher themselves.

Well aware what a P means - also know its not mandatory, so almost always ends up being an indicator of a terrible driver.

At no point did I attempt to crawl up their exhaust pipe, given their very obvious incompetence and possible impending accident I reckon I was giving them more room than I would normally give someone at 40 or 50mph.

If noticing and describing a frankly dangerous level of incompetence is the only marker for intolerance, then guilty as charged.

20 mph limits are brilliant, because they make people drive at 30mph
I think there should be blanket 20 limits in all towns and villages

They've done this as a trial where I live and it seems that 90% of the population are absolutely furious, properly loosing their sanity over it. The complaints are simply absurd. The include gems like "kids are going to die form asthma as slower speeds increases pollution" to "buildings are going to fall down from increased vibrations from lorries". My favourites include "I never get to see my kids any more as I am so late home from work (due to driving slower)" and "Its more dangerous as I get so bored driving at 20mph that I end up just looking around or going on my phone".

What most people don't realise is that is really doesn't make difference to your journey time, it just feels slower. Reality is you might arrive somewhere a minute or two later.

Unfortunately populism is probably going to win over road safety and it likely be revoked and limited to near schools. It will be an reminder that cars and drivers rule to road and everyone else is a less important consideration..

What most people don’t realise is that is really doesn’t make difference to your journey time, it just feels slower. Reality is you might arrive somewhere a minute or two later.

More than that, depending on the volume of traffic lower limits (adhered to) commonly improve journey times. Traffic has to be very light for them to increase journey times.

I absolutely guarantee that you have driven at 71mph on a motorway before.

But cameras / camera vans don't catch people doing 71mph. If, however, you're doing 85 or more you should know about it and your lack of observation of both your speed and the camera van mean that you've no one to blame but yourself.

Having said that I'd double the penalties for someone who is doing 90 before a gantry camera but 65 as they go underneath it - not only have you demonstrated that you're aware of your law-breaking but that you're also a knob as all the traffic that you just overtook piles into the back of you.

It’s also a pointless and stupid question.

Wasn't me asking it.

But yeah, you're right. It's essentially a honeypot, they're setting you up to fail. I just wasn't putting up with that crap, they deal with abject morons day in day out and aren't programmed to field someone who has actually read THC in the last decade. #DrivingGod #Obvs

“Its more dangerous as I get so bored driving at 20mph that I end up just looking around or going on my phone”.

This is actually a thing, believe it or not. There was a TV series a few years ago, might've been 'Britain's Worst Drivers' with that horrendous Maureen woman, or I might be conflating it with something else. Anyway. They had a black cab driver in London who drove everywhere like he'd stolen it. They had him drive within the speed limit and his driving actually got worse because he was bored off his tits and away with the fairies rather than paying attention to what he was doing. Probably what you need there is a career change.

More than that, depending on the volume of traffic lower limits (adhered to) commonly improve journey times.

Absolutely right, no waiting around at junctions as it is much easier to pull out into traffic.

Following the idiots who have to 'make progress' on the A65 on the weekend by overtaking anything going under 60 is always amusing - 30 miles later they are inevitably about 30 seconds further up the road behind someone else.

Hovering on the bumper of the car in front for that long must be so tiring, too.

Well aware what a P means – also know its not mandatory, so almost always ends up being an indicator of a terrible driver.

That is literally what the P sticker is there to tell you! Bit like a 'Leeds Rhinos' sticker.

If we are talking about Allott then I've got a meeting with him in a few weeks. Be interesting to see what he has planned.

He is the PFCC btw, not that he mentioned the Fire Service in his election push, which is a worry.

North Yorks does seem rather blessed in that department though. No sooner have we got rid of Julia ‘Cyclists can **** off out of my village’ Mulligan, then another Conservative Central Office mouth-breather is ushered in.

Regardless of whether you agreed with her I can assure you she was very far from a 'Conservative Central Office mouth-breather'.

Can you explain why a ‘limit’ of 50mph, which even in the eyes of someone as irresponsible as me, will never be safe

You can actually go at 60mph.

This thread has far too many people using "" in a passive aggressive manner, it all feels a bit Daily Mail comments section.

Just be careful, its a slippery slope and before you know it someone will slip in "so called" as in, the "so called" Police and Crime Commissioner. Then its game over.

Regardless of whether you agreed with her I can assure you she was very far from a ‘Conservative Central Office mouth-breather’.

Fair enough. And it's nice to see that Priti Patel has installed this former Tory councillor, parliamentary candidate, and pcc, into another role as 'independent' chair of the Police Advisory Board.

He is the PFCC btw, not that he mentioned the Fire Service in his election push, which is a worry.

Well there's not much to say really is there? When was the last time someone moaned about the fire brigade putting out the wrong sort of fires, only attending profitable accidents or prioritising rescuing cats from trees I posh areas?

I pay little attention to the speed limit when driving and regularly exceed it. That said, I also drive well under the speed limit in many situations.

There are two reasons this is bad:

One is predictability. When everyone is driving broadly the same speed, everyone else finds it far easier to predict what's happening.

The other is that your assessment of what a safe speed is might be wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, including me and including you.

Just stick to the limit people for ****'s sake it's not difficult. I find it incredible that people complain bitterly about driving standards AND IN THE SAME THREAD argue that people should be allowed to drive at whatever speed they feel is appropriate. Can't you see a flaw in that?

They had him drive within the speed limit and his driving actually got worse because he was bored off his tits and away with the fairies rather than paying attention to what he was doing.

So what you're saying is that he was a bad driver and needed to learn to pay attention? Not really anything to do with speed, it's more about responsibility for your actions.