NIP: speeding (A65, Cumbria)

[Allan]

I received a billy-doo from Cumbria Police this morning: 49mph in a 40
limit (rural). I was rather expecting it: I saw the camera van (A65 at
Lupton, Cumbria, if anyone's interested: apparently, it's a popular spot
for the yellow camera vans, and I've already found one person who's had
the same experience) and reckoned I was doing a little under 50mph.

The letter mentions the possibility of a speed awareness course subject
to conditions (speed, and no other course in last 3 years).

I've been hunting Cumbria Constabulary's speed criteria for speed
awareness courses. North Yorkshire Police are very good and give clear
information e.g.
http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/11056
but I can't find anything similar for Cumbria. The Cumbria Safety
Camera Partnership website, where one might expect to find something
like is is down for 'redevelopment':
http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/
The only thing I could find is:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=ibwiki&cmd=article&id=34

Where might I find Cumbria's limits for speed awareness courses?

Also, the letter contains no offer to view the photographic evidence.
My Mum got a NIP for speeding a few years ago (3 days before her 90th
birthday, having had a clean record up to then: not bad!), and the
letter (Suffolk Constabulary) contained details of how to view the photo
on the web. I believe I can't require to see the photo unless it's
going to court, but what's the position on being offered it or getting
hold of it before court.

TIA

Allan

[Uncle Peter]

I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done unless you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police are present you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've had 9 speeding tickets (not counting the getting off ones) in my life and have never been offered a course. I'd only go on a course to avoid a ban, and I'd also forget all the crap they taught me when I'd finished it!

[tim.....]

"Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:op.xgoge...@red.lan...

I've hade none, and no "letting off" ones either

and it isn't because I a goody two shoes.

you must be a really unlucky driver :-(

tim

[Joseph McDougall]

On Friday, 30 May 2014 15:41:22 UTC+1, Uncle Peter wrote:

> I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done unless you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police are present you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've had 9 speeding tickets (not counting the getting off ones) in my life and have never been offered a course. I'd only go on a course to avoid a ban, and I'd also forget all the crap they taught me when I'd finished it!

Courses aren't offered in Scotland

[Clive George]

On 30/05/2014 15:36, Allan wrote:
> I received a billy-doo from Cumbria Police this morning: 49mph in a 40
> limit (rural). I was rather expecting it: I saw the camera van (A65 at
> Lupton, Cumbria, if anyone's interested: apparently, it's a popular spot
> for the yellow camera vans, and I've already found one person who's had
> the same experience) and reckoned I was doing a little under 50mph.
>
> The letter mentions the possibility of a speed awareness course subject
> to conditions (speed, and no other course in last 3 years).
>
> I've been hunting Cumbria Constabulary's speed criteria for speed
> awareness courses. North Yorkshire Police are very good and give clear
> information e.g.
> http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/11056
> but I can't find anything similar for Cumbria. The Cumbria Safety
> Camera Partnership website, where one might expect to find something
> like is is down for 'redevelopment':
> http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/
> The only thing I could find is:
> http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=ibwiki&cmd=article&id=34
>
> Where might I find Cumbria's limits for speed awareness courses?

You'll probably get offered one. I did for 70 in a 60 in Cumbria.

> Also, the letter contains no offer to view the photographic evidence. My
> Mum got a NIP for speeding a few years ago (3 days before her 90th
> birthday, having had a clean record up to then: not bad!), and the
> letter (Suffolk Constabulary) contained details of how to view the photo
> on the web. I believe I can't require to see the photo unless it's
> going to court, but what's the position on being offered it or getting
> hold of it before court.

If you take a course, you won't be going to court.

FWIW you don't have to take the course in Cumbria - I took mine in Bolton.

[Uncle Peter]

There's quite a lot of sensible laws in Scotland, I do hope we go independant.

[Uncle Peter]

I prefer to watch the road than for police. I ought to drive more dangerously and concentrate on the cameras.

[Nightjar]

On 30/05/2014 16:38, tim..... wrote:
>
>
> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.xgoge...@red.lan...

....

>> I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done
>> unless you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police
>> are present you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've
>> had 9 speeding tickets (not counting the getting off ones)
>
> I've hade none, and no "letting off" ones either

I had one in the early 1970s, but I genuinely believed that the limit on
a dual carriageway road with high fencing separating it from housing was
40mph, rather than 30mph. I wouldn't have been doing a steady 40mph with
a Police car behind me otherwise. These days I know to look out for
repeater signs.

> and it isn't because I a goody two shoes.
>
> you must be a really unlucky driver :-(

or a particularly unobservant one.

Colin Bignell

[Alex Heney]

That is most definitely NOT one of the sensible laws.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Reality is a crutch for people who can't handle buttons
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:38:30 +0200, "tim....."
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>
>"Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:op.xgoge...@red.lan...

<snip>

>>
>> I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done unless
>> you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police are present
>> you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've had 9 speeding
>> tickets (not counting the getting off ones)
>
>I've hade none, and no "letting off" ones either
>
>and it isn't because I a goody two shoes.
>
>you must be a really unlucky driver :-(
>

Where "unlucky" = "Careless".

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.

[Alex Heney]

If you were driving safely, you would easily be able to see the
cameras in addition to giving plenty of attention to the road.

[Alex Heney]

On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:38:30 +0200, "tim....."
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>

>"Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:op.xgoge...@red.lan...

<snip>

>>
>> I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done unless
>> you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police are present
>> you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've had 9 speeding
>> tickets (not counting the getting off ones)
>
>I've hade none, and no "letting off" ones either
>
>and it isn't because I a goody two shoes.
>
>you must be a really unlucky driver :-(
>

I've had four (and used to almost always drive well above the limit on
motorways/dual carriageways and some non-urban single carriageways).

One was a camera van before they were either common or marked up with
big signs. One was an unmarked police car on an almost empty M50, one
was not starting to slow for a 50 limit until; I reached the sign, and
was then done by a van as I came round a bend still doing 57 (Right on
the threshold). And the other was as I was overtaking on the A5 - the
only point on the road where I got above 55. That one I only saw the
van (in a parallel road) when I was already half way past the other
car.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Give me ambiguity or give me something else!

[Andy Burns]

Allan wrote:

> North Yorkshire Police are very good and give clear
> information e.g.
> http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/11056
> but I can't find anything similar for Cumbria. The Cumbria Safety
> Camera Partnership website, where one might expect to find something
> like is is down for 'redevelopment':
> http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/

Anything on the wayback machine?

<http://web.archive.org/web/20130831135123/http://cumbriasafetycameras.org/index.php?introduction>

[Uncle Peter]

On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:02:16 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:48:39 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 16:24:29 +0100, Joseph McDougall <j...@joe.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, 30 May 2014 15:41:22 UTC+1, Uncle Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done unless you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police are present you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've had 9 speeding tickets (not counting the getting off ones) in my life and have never been offered a course. I'd only go on a course to avoid a ban, and I'd also forget all the crap they taught me when I'd finished it!
>>>
>>> Courses aren't offered in Scotland
>>
>> There's quite a lot of sensible laws in Scotland, I do hope we go independant.
>
> That is most definitely NOT one of the sensible laws.

Why? I have absolutely no desire to go on one of those stupid things. As if it would change my driving habits one iota.

[Uncle Peter]

On Fri, 30 May 2014 19:48:13 +0100, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

> On 30/05/2014 16:38, tim..... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.xgoge...@red.lan...
> ....
>>> I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done
>>> unless you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police
>>> are present you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've
>>> had 9 speeding tickets (not counting the getting off ones)
>>
>> I've hade none, and no "letting off" ones either
>
> I had one in the early 1970s, but I genuinely believed that the limit on
> a dual carriageway road with high fencing separating it from housing was
> 40mph, rather than 30mph. I wouldn't have been doing a steady 40mph with
> a Police car behind me otherwise. These days I know to look out for
> repeater signs.

When you should be watching the road for real dangers.

>> and it isn't because I a goody two shoes.
>>
>> you must be a really unlucky driver :-(
>
> or a particularly unobservant one.

I observe what's important, other road users.

[Uncle Peter]

On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:10:27 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:38:30 +0200, "tim....."
> <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.xgoge...@red.lan...
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done unless
>>> you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police are present
>>> you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've had 9 speeding
>>> tickets (not counting the getting off ones)
>>
>> I've hade none, and no "letting off" ones either
>>
>> and it isn't because I a goody two shoes.
>>
>> you must be a really unlucky driver :-(
>>
>
> I've had four (and used to almost always drive well above the limit on
> motorways/dual carriageways and some non-urban single carriageways).
>
> One was a camera van before they were either common or marked up with
> big signs. One was an unmarked police car on an almost empty M50,

They should only do you if you're being dangerous. If it was almost empty, you certainly weren't.

> one
> was not starting to slow for a 50 limit until; I reached the sign,

And I thought *you* were pedantic!

> and was then done by a van as I came round a bend still doing 57 (Right on
> the threshold).

It's 60 here. They just add 10 it's easier.

> And the other was as I was overtaking on the A5 - the
> only point on the road where I got above 55. That one I only saw the
> van (in a parallel road) when I was already half way past the other
> car.

Overtaking should be allowed at a higher speed, or you get people taking to long to overtake.

[Uncle Peter]

On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:03:00 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:38:30 +0200, "tim....."
> <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.xgoge...@red.lan...
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done unless
>>> you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police are present
>>> you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've had 9 speeding
>>> tickets (not counting the getting off ones)
>>
>> I've hade none, and no "letting off" ones either
>>
>> and it isn't because I a goody two shoes.
>>
>> you must be a really unlucky driver :-(
>>
>
> Where "unlucky" = "Careless".

More like "don't care".

[Uncle Peter]

Everybody has x amount of attention. ALL of that should be on the road.

[Uncle Peter]

On Fri, 30 May 2014 21:32:09 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:

>
> The entity calling itself Uncle Peter wrote:
>>
>> I prefer to watch the road than for police. I ought to drive more
>> dangerously and concentrate on the cameras.
>

> Or you could simply be more aware of your speed, and regulate it to keep
> it within the legal limits. Then the presence of cameras or police
> become uterly irrelevant.

I don't want to drive at the speed limit. It's absurdly slow and in fact I find it more dangerous. It's so tedious I'm in danger of falling asleep. Whoever made up the limits must have a really slow brain.

[Doctor Dave]

Yes, and yours is in such short supply or of such low quality that you failed to notice 6 foot high static objects clearly placed by the side of the road on numerous occasions.

That you think the only place for your attention is on the road simply highlights further your low level of comprehension of the skills required for driving and pretty much proves that you are direly in need of further training.

[Paul Stevenson]

Isn't the speed limit for the benefit of other road users?

[Paul Stevenson]

What would change your driving habits?

[Nightjar]

On 30/05/2014 22:06, Uncle Peter wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2014 19:48:13 +0100, Nightjar
> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 30/05/2014 16:38, tim..... wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:op.xgoge...@red.lan...
>> ....
>>>> I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done
>>>> unless you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police
>>>> are present you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've
>>>> had 9 speeding tickets (not counting the getting off ones)
>>>
>>> I've hade none, and no "letting off" ones either
>>
>> I had one in the early 1970s, but I genuinely believed that the limit on
>> a dual carriageway road with high fencing separating it from housing was
>> 40mph, rather than 30mph. I wouldn't have been doing a steady 40mph with
>> a Police car behind me otherwise. These days I know to look out for
>> repeater signs.
>
> When you should be watching the road for real dangers.

How many real dangers, which would preclude me from looking at the
occasional lamppost, do you think there are on a dual carriageway, empty
apart from my car and a Police car, that is divided from its
surroundings by a high fence? In practice, what looking out for repeater
signs means is assuming 30mph when there are street lights, unless I see
a repeater sign.

>>> and it isn't because I a goody two shoes.
>>>
>>> you must be a really unlucky driver :-(
>>
>> or a particularly unobservant one.
>
> I observe what's important, other road users.

If you don't see speed traps or Police cars, whichever you keep getting
caught by, your observation skills are evidently a lot less good than
you seem to think.

Colin Bignell

[Clive George]

On 31/05/2014 11:34, Nightjar wrote:
> On 30/05/2014 22:06, Uncle Peter wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 19:48:13 +0100, Nightjar

>>> I had one in the early 1970s, but I genuinely believed that the limit on
>>> a dual carriageway road with high fencing separating it from housing was
>>> 40mph, rather than 30mph. I wouldn't have been doing a steady 40mph with
>>> a Police car behind me otherwise. These days I know to look out for
>>> repeater signs.
>>
>> When you should be watching the road for real dangers.
>
> How many real dangers, which would preclude me from looking at the
> occasional lamppost, do you think there are on a dual carriageway, empty
> apart from my car and a Police car, that is divided from its
> surroundings by a high fence? In practice, what looking out for repeater
> signs means is assuming 30mph when there are street lights, unless I see
> a repeater sign.

And of course you'll be looking to the sides of the road where the
repeater signs would be anyway to check for other hazards (deer, people,
rubbish about to blow into the road, etc).

[Nightjar]

According to one Road Research Laboratory study, the value of a speed
limit is that it significantly reduces the speed differential between
vehicles, which was identified as a major factor in accidents on high
speed roads.

Colin Bignell

[Alex Heney]

On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:22:14 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:03:49 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:48:11 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>

<snip>

>>>> you must be a really unlucky driver :-(
>>>
>>> I prefer to watch the road than for police. I ought to drive more dangerously and concentrate on the cameras.
>>
>> If you were driving safely, you would easily be able to see the
>> cameras in addition to giving plenty of attention to the road.
>
>Everybody has x amount of attention. ALL of that should be on the road.

If they are driving unsafely, then that is true, in an attempt to
mitigate the danger.

If they are driving safely, it isn't true at all.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's already made up!

[Alex Heney]

All these responses are doing is telling us that you are a genuinely
dangerous driver, if you really drive according to what you tell us.

[Alex Heney]

On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:21:51 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:10:27 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:38:30 +0200, "tim....."
>> <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:op.xgoge...@red.lan...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done unless
>>>> you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police are present
>>>> you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've had 9 speeding
>>>> tickets (not counting the getting off ones)
>>>
>>> I've hade none, and no "letting off" ones either
>>>
>>> and it isn't because I a goody two shoes.
>>>
>>> you must be a really unlucky driver :-(
>>>
>>
>> I've had four (and used to almost always drive well above the limit on
>> motorways/dual carriageways and some non-urban single carriageways).
>>
>> One was a camera van before they were either common or marked up with
>> big signs. One was an unmarked police car on an almost empty M50,
>
>They should only do you if you're being dangerous. If it was almost empty, you certainly weren't.

Which is why they only gave me a 3 point FP rather than sending it to
court, as they would normally have done for me doing 95.

>
>> one
>> was not starting to slow for a 50 limit until; I reached the sign,
>
>And I thought *you* were pedantic!
>
>> and was then done by a van as I came round a bend still doing 57 (Right on
>> the threshold).
>
>It's 60 here. They just add 10 it's easier.
>

You may believe that.

You are wrong.

The (discretionary) threshold for prosecution is the same across all
UK police forces, at the limit +10% + 2mph.

But that is discretionary anyhow - they *can* do you if you are doing
1mph above the limit.

>> And the other was as I was overtaking on the A5 - the
>> only point on the road where I got above 55. That one I only saw the
>> van (in a parallel road) when I was already half way past the other
>> car.
>
>Overtaking should be allowed at a higher speed, or you get people taking to long to overtake.

On that one, I agree.

When overtaking on single carriageway roads, I accelerate as hard as
possible until I am past, then if that has taken me over the limit,
slow back down. You should be in the "wrong" lane for as little time
as possible.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

If it glows don't touch it!

[Steve Walker]

"Doctor Dave" <dave-chr...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d61a0354-98e6-48d9...@googlegroups.com...

Please do not address another poster in this judgemental tone. Thanks

[Uncle Peter]

Which should be left up to the individual driver. If he causes an accident, he should get points. Insurance companies could easily inform the DVLA of any cases where the accident was severe and definitely one driver's fault. Either that or the premiums could be inflated (as they already are, but maybe moreso) so that you can't afford to drive if you drive dangerously. The extra inflation could pay for roads or hospitals.

[Uncle Peter]

On Sat, 31 May 2014 17:40:02 +0100, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

That's what a policeman told me, who said that he always drives at a similar speed on motorways to everyone else, about 80. He said on a motorway the differential should be 20mph difference maximum between you and the car in the next lane. So if there's only lorries in lane 1 going 60 and nothing in lane 2, you can go 100 in lane 3.

[Uncle Peter]

I can't see any point in it, but I assume it's to stop people driving faster than their own ability for the current road conditions, which is insane as only that person knows his own ability, and the speed limit doesn't change according to weather and how busy the road is.

[Uncle Peter]

How can looking out for things that could crash into me instead of things that could point a laser gun at me be dangerous?

[Uncle Peter]

Crashing or nearly crashing perhaps.

[Uncle Peter]

On Sat, 31 May 2014 20:22:23 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:21:51 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:10:27 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:38:30 +0200, "tim....."
>>> <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:op.xgoge...@red.lan...
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done unless
>>>>> you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police are present
>>>>> you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've had 9 speeding
>>>>> tickets (not counting the getting off ones)
>>>>
>>>> I've hade none, and no "letting off" ones either
>>>>
>>>> and it isn't because I a goody two shoes.
>>>>
>>>> you must be a really unlucky driver :-(
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've had four (and used to almost always drive well above the limit on
>>> motorways/dual carriageways and some non-urban single carriageways).
>>>
>>> One was a camera van before they were either common or marked up with
>>> big signs. One was an unmarked police car on an almost empty M50,
>>
>> They should only do you if you're being dangerous. If it was almost empty, you certainly weren't.
>
> Which is why they only gave me a 3 point FP rather than sending it to
> court, as they would normally have done for me doing 95.

Was this in Wales? I've been stopped for 95 three times on a motorway (all in Scotland). Twice I was let off (when they pulled me over) and once I got 3 points (a car on a raised layby, fine through the post). It was a busy road. I thought only over 100 (30 over the limit) caused a court hearing.

>>> one
>>> was not starting to slow for a 50 limit until; I reached the sign,
>>
>> And I thought *you* were pedantic!
>>
>>> and was then done by a van as I came round a bend still doing 57 (Right on
>>> the threshold).
>>
>> It's 60 here. They just add 10 it's easier.
>
> You may believe that.
>
> You are wrong.
>
> The (discretionary) threshold for prosecution is the same across all
> UK police forces, at the limit +10% + 2mph.
>
> But that is discretionary anyhow - they *can* do you if you are doing
> 1mph above the limit.

I'm not wrong, I'm telling you what's happened to me and others around here for doing slightly under and slightly over 40mph. As it's discretionary, the police here appear to just call it 10mph over.

>>> And the other was as I was overtaking on the A5 - the
>>> only point on the road where I got above 55. That one I only saw the
>>> van (in a parallel road) when I was already half way past the other
>>> car.
>>
>> Overtaking should be allowed at a higher speed, or you get people taking to long to overtake.
>
> On that one, I agree.

Even my dad agrees, who has only broken the speed limit once in his entire life (stupidly) when he had a broken alternator in his Morris Marina which only worked over a certain number of revs. Instead of engaging a lower gear, he drove faster to make it work. He was done for speeding and extremely irritated. On the 3rd anniversary of it, he immediately refreshed his license to clean it.

> When overtaking on single carriageway roads, I accelerate as hard as
> possible until I am past, then if that has taken me over the limit,
> slow back down. You should be in the "wrong" lane for as little time
> as possible.

Agreed - which is why I think automatics are safer. I can just floor it and it'll choose the lowest gear possible as soon as it's clear.

[Judith]

On Fri, 30 May 2014 19:48:13 +0100, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk>
wrote:

>On 30/05/2014 16:38, tim..... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.xgoge...@red.lan...

>....

>>> I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done
>>> unless you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police
>>> are present you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've
>>> had 9 speeding tickets (not counting the getting off ones)
>>
>> I've hade none, and no "letting off" ones either
>

>I had one in the early 1970s, but I genuinely believed that the limit on
>a dual carriageway road with high fencing separating it from housing was
>40mph, rather than 30mph. I wouldn't have been doing a steady 40mph with
>a Police car behind me otherwise. These days I know to look out for
>repeater signs.

But surely - there would be no 30mph repeaters.

[Nightjar]

> accident, he should get points....

In the sort of accidents they were investigating, he would probably end
up dead, along with quite a few others.

Colin Bignell

[Nightjar]

Which is, in itself, an indication of the limit.

Colin Bignell

[Uncle Peter]

So it's a guessing game. You don't know what the limit is until you see one. It might be 30 or it might be you haven't passed a repeater yet.

[Tosspot]

I like that idea! Rich people can drive like idiots, poor people have
to stay within the law where their types belong, not with their betters
in the fast lane.

[Uncle Peter]

No, rich people can take more risks. Why do you equate that with being an idiot?

[Nightjar]

On 01/06/2014 11:29, Uncle Peter wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 11:10:46 +0100, Nightjar
> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 01/06/2014 04:37, Judith wrote:

....

>>> But surely - there would be no 30mph repeaters.
>>
>> Which is, in itself, an indication of the limit.
>
> So it's a guessing game. You don't know what the limit is until you see
> one. It might be 30 or it might be you haven't passed a repeater yet.

As I said elsewhere, if there are street lights, you assume 30mph,
unless you see a repeater that says something else, or are driving a car
that reads speed limit signs and shows the current speed limit on a
dashboard display.

Colin Bignell

[Alison Sinclair]

> TIA
>
>
>
> Allan

If Cumbria is part of the National Scheme you should be offered a course if you were doing up to 10% + 9 over the speed limit. Courses are of significant value and if nothing else could give you an update on your driving skills and in particular Observation skills. If you didn't see the camera or camera van, perhaps your observation skills could do with some attention.

Alison
PS I present SAC's in 4 more southern areas

[Alison Sinclair]

If you get a decent presenter it might be quite fun!

[Uncle Peter]

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:34:40 +0100, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

> On 01/06/2014 11:29, Uncle Peter wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 11:10:46 +0100, Nightjar
>> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/06/2014 04:37, Judith wrote:
> ....
>>>> But surely - there would be no 30mph repeaters.
>>>
>>> Which is, in itself, an indication of the limit.
>>
>> So it's a guessing game. You don't know what the limit is until you see
>> one. It might be 30 or it might be you haven't passed a repeater yet.
>
> As I said elsewhere, if there are street lights, you assume 30mph,
> unless you see a repeater that says something else,

Except probably only half of streetlit areas are 30. Ther are plenty at 20, 40, 50, and even some motorways/dual carriageways at 70. So basically streetlamps can be ignored.

> or are driving a car
> that reads speed limit signs and shows the current speed limit on a
> dashboard display.

I've never heard of one reading speed limit signs. I assume you mean knowing the limits based on your GPS position?

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

"Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>> I like that idea! Rich people can drive like idiots, poor
>> people have to stay within the law where their types belong,
>> not with their betters in the fast lane.
>
> No, rich people can take more risks. Why do you equate that
> with being an idiot?

When someone takes risks with his own money or safety, that's his
business. But when he takes risks at the expense of someone else's
money or safety, that is not only not solely his own business, but is
disrespectful and uncivilized.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[steve robinson]

No the law is quite clear if the road has street lighting then assume a
limit of 30 mph unless signs state otherwise ,highway authoities do not
put repeater signs up on 30 mph limited roads if street lights are in
place this includes dual carriageways if within a built up area
--

[steve robinson]

Uncle Peter wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:34:40 +0100, Nightjar
> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 01/06/2014 11:29, Uncle Peter wrote:
> > > On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 11:10:46 +0100, Nightjar
> >><c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 01/06/2014 04:37, Judith wrote:
> > ....
> > > > > But surely - there would be no 30mph repeaters.
> > > >
> > > > Which is, in itself, an indication of the limit.
> > >
> > > So it's a guessing game. You don't know what the limit is until
> > > you see one. It might be 30 or it might be you haven't passed a
> > > repeater yet.
> >
> > As I said elsewhere, if there are street lights, you assume 30mph,
> > unless you see a repeater that says something else,
>
> Except probably only half of streetlit areas are 30. Ther are plenty
> at 20, 40, 50, and even some motorways/dual carriageways at 70. So
> basically streetlamps can be ignored.

No they cant unless you wish to lose your licience, any speed limit
other than 30 mph will have initial and repeater signs on roads with
street lighting

>
> > or are driving a car
> > that reads speed limit signs and shows the current speed limit on a
> > dashboard display.
>
> I've never heard of one reading speed limit signs. I assume you mean
> knowing the limits based on your GPS position?

--

[Roland Perry]

In message <xn0j2s9a...@reader80.eternal-september.org>, at
17:32:19 on Sun, 1 Jun 2014, steve robinson
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> remarked:

>any speed limit other than 30 mph will have initial and repeater signs
>on roads with street lighting

Not quite. Short stretches (which often happen at junctions on otherwise
unlit country roads) don't appear to need repeaters, nor would they if
the lights were slightly further apart than the distance at which the
30-limit kicks in.
--
Roland Perry

[Nightjar]

On 01/06/2014 15:51, Uncle Peter wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:34:40 +0100, Nightjar
> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 01/06/2014 11:29, Uncle Peter wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 11:10:46 +0100, Nightjar
>>> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/06/2014 04:37, Judith wrote:
>> ....
>>>>> But surely - there would be no 30mph repeaters.
>>>>
>>>> Which is, in itself, an indication of the limit.
>>>
>>> So it's a guessing game. You don't know what the limit is until you see
>>> one. It might be 30 or it might be you haven't passed a repeater yet.
>>
>> As I said elsewhere, if there are street lights, you assume 30mph,
>> unless you see a repeater that says something else,
>
> Except probably only half of streetlit areas are 30. Ther are plenty at
> 20, 40, 50, and even some motorways/dual carriageways at 70. So
> basically streetlamps can be ignored.

Only if you know the limit is something other than 30mph.

>> or are driving a car
>> that reads speed limit signs and shows the current speed limit on a
>> dashboard display.
>
> I've never heard of one reading speed limit signs. I assume you mean
> knowing the limits based on your GPS position?

I mean a car that uses video to read speed limit signs, such as the
Mercedes Speed Assist. Unlike GPS based systems, it can accurately
display temporary and variable speed limits as well as permanent ones.

Colin Bignell

[Nightjar]

On 31/05/2014 20:22, Alex Heney wrote:
....

> The (discretionary) threshold for prosecution is the same across all
> UK police forces, at the limit +10% + 2mph.

You might wish to check the scope of the ACPO guidelines (front cover)
and the revised recommendations (Section 9.6), which include offering
speed awareness courses, if appropriate:

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2013/201305-uoba-joining-forces-safer-roads.pdf

> But that is discretionary anyhow - they *can* do you if you are doing
> 1mph above the limit.

Section 9.7 suggests that the equipment used will not allow that level
of precision.

Colin Bignell

[Simon Finnigan]

This is a feature on the new ford focus, as well as a friends fairly low
end Volvo, so it's not exactly unusual technology.

[Alex Heney]

Because a large part of awareness when driving safely includes an
awareness of what is alongside the road which may enter your path.

And of course, also being aware of warning signs.

If your attention is focused solely on the road itself and what is
already on it, then you are NOT driving safely (except possibly on
motorways).

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Chaste makes waste.

[Alex Heney]

On Sat, 31 May 2014 21:08:50 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 May 2014 20:22:23 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:21:51 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:10:27 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:38:30 +0200, "tim....."
>>>> <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:op.xgoge...@red.lan...
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done unless
>>>>>> you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police are present
>>>>>> you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've had 9 speeding
>>>>>> tickets (not counting the getting off ones)
>>>>>
>>>>> I've hade none, and no "letting off" ones either
>>>>>
>>>>> and it isn't because I a goody two shoes.
>>>>>
>>>>> you must be a really unlucky driver :-(
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've had four (and used to almost always drive well above the limit on
>>>> motorways/dual carriageways and some non-urban single carriageways).
>>>>
>>>> One was a camera van before they were either common or marked up with
>>>> big signs. One was an unmarked police car on an almost empty M50,
>>>
>>> They should only do you if you're being dangerous. If it was almost empty, you certainly weren't.
>>
>> Which is why they only gave me a 3 point FP rather than sending it to
>> court, as they would normally have done for me doing 95.
>
>Was this in Wales?

The M50 is close to Wales, but none of it is inside the border.

> I've been stopped for 95 three times on a motorway (all in Scotland). Twice I was let off (when they pulled me over) and once I got 3 points (a car on a raised layby, fine through the post). It was a busy road. I thought only over 100 (30 over the limit) caused a court hearing.
>

Anything where the penalty is likely to be more than 3 points will
usually be a court hearing - or was then.

And over 100 will normally result in an outright ban.

>>>> one
>>>> was not starting to slow for a 50 limit until; I reached the sign,
>>>
>>> And I thought *you* were pedantic!
>>>
>>>> and was then done by a van as I came round a bend still doing 57 (Right on
>>>> the threshold).
>>>
>>> It's 60 here. They just add 10 it's easier.
>>
>> You may believe that.
>>
>> You are wrong.
>>
>> The (discretionary) threshold for prosecution is the same across all
>> UK police forces, at the limit +10% + 2mph.
>>
>> But that is discretionary anyhow - they *can* do you if you are doing
>> 1mph above the limit.
>
>I'm not wrong,

Yes you are.

> I'm telling you what's happened to me and others around here for doing slightly under and slightly over 40mph. As it's discretionary, the police here appear to just call it 10mph over.
>

That may well be what has happened to you and others, but that is
because they have discretion.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Status Symbol: n. Something that you don't want, that you buy with money that you don't have, to impress people that you don't know

[Alison Sinclair]

On Sunday, June 1, 2014 3:51:39 PM UTC+1, Uncle Peter wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:34:40 +0100, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 01/06/2014 11:29, Uncle Peter wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 11:10:46 +0100, Nightjar
>
> >> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> On 01/06/2014 04:37, Judith wrote:
>
> > ....
>
> >>>> But surely - there would be no 30mph repeaters.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Which is, in itself, an indication of the limit.
>
> >>
>
> >> So it's a guessing game. You don't know what the limit is until you see
>
> >> one. It might be 30 or it might be you haven't passed a repeater yet.
>
> >
>
> > As I said elsewhere, if there are street lights, you assume 30mph,
>
> > unless you see a repeater that says something else,
>
>
>
> Except probably only half of streetlit areas are 30. Ther are plenty at 20, 40, 50, and even some motorways/dual carriageways at 70. So basically streetlamps can be ignored.
>

The full streetlight rule is that 'where there is a system of streetlights the speed limit is 30mph except when marked otherwise by repeater signs'. This does not apply on motorways or 20 zones as the rule was first introduced in the 30's.
(underpinned in law is that the streetlights should be no more than 183 metres apart - 186 in Scotland I believe) However, the system of streetlights is good enough as it would be impossible to judge such distances. Hope this helps

[Uncle Peter]

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 19:30:22 +0100, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

> On 01/06/2014 15:51, Uncle Peter wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:34:40 +0100, Nightjar
>> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/06/2014 11:29, Uncle Peter wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 11:10:46 +0100, Nightjar
>>>> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/06/2014 04:37, Judith wrote:
>>> ....

>>>>>

>>>>> Which is, in itself, an indication of the limit.
>>>>
>>>> So it's a guessing game. You don't know what the limit is until you see
>>>> one. It might be 30 or it might be you haven't passed a repeater yet.
>>>
>>> As I said elsewhere, if there are street lights, you assume 30mph,
>>> unless you see a repeater that says something else,
>>
>> Except probably only half of streetlit areas are 30. Ther are plenty at
>> 20, 40, 50, and even some motorways/dual carriageways at 70. So
>> basically streetlamps can be ignored.
>
> Only if you know the limit is something other than 30mph.

But if there is no sign, either you have forgotten it, it was obscured by a lorry, or it's not a 30. So you still don't know.

>>> or are driving a car
>>> that reads speed limit signs and shows the current speed limit on a
>>> dashboard display.
>>
>> I've never heard of one reading speed limit signs. I assume you mean
>> knowing the limits based on your GPS position?
>
> I mean a car that uses video to read speed limit signs, such as the
> Mercedes Speed Assist. Unlike GPS based systems, it can accurately
> display temporary and variable speed limits as well as permanent ones.

GPS gets enough of them to stop you getting tickets. You might get one occasionally, but it's not enough to lose your license. Anyway, the video method doesn't take account of whether or not there are cameras there, and it sounds more expensive. GPS is there anyway for the map.

[Uncle Peter]

Are you saying you'd prefer to risk your own life than a stranger's? How odd.

[Uncle Peter]

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 20:47:40 +0100, Simon Finnigan <simonf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:34:40 +0100, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/06/2014 11:29, Uncle Peter wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 11:10:46 +0100, Nightjar
>>>> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/06/2014 04:37, Judith wrote:
>>> ....

>>>>>

>>>>> Which is, in itself, an indication of the limit.
>>>>
>>>> So it's a guessing game. You don't know what the limit is until you see
>>>> one. It might be 30 or it might be you haven't passed a repeater yet.
>>>
>>> As I said elsewhere, if there are street lights, you assume 30mph,
>>> unless you see a repeater that says something else,
>>
>> Except probably only half of streetlit areas are 30. Ther are plenty at
>> 20, 40, 50, and even some motorways/dual carriageways at 70. So
>> basically streetlamps can be ignored.
>>
>>> or are driving a car
>>> that reads speed limit signs and shows the current speed limit on a
>>> dashboard display.
>>
>> I've never heard of one reading speed limit signs. I assume you mean
>> knowing the limits based on your GPS position?
>
> This is a feature on the new ford focus, as well as a friends fairly low
> end Volvo, so it's not exactly unusual technology.

I was expecting you to say Mondeo. They're filled with silly gimmicks. The daftest thing I saw was the ability to have a different temperature on each side of the car.

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 20:10:32 +0100, Nightjar
<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

>On 31/05/2014 20:22, Alex Heney wrote:
>....
>> The (discretionary) threshold for prosecution is the same across all
>> UK police forces, at the limit +10% + 2mph.
>
>You might wish to check the scope of the ACPO guidelines (front cover)
>and the revised recommendations (Section 9.6), which include offering
>speed awareness courses, if appropriate:
>
>http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2013/201305-uoba-joining-forces-safer-roads.pdf

Fair enough. I had thought that the ACPO guidelines applied to the
whole of the UK, but it seems I was wrong.

And after searching, it appears that in Scotland, they think the
information on thresholds should not be released to the public domain,
because it might encourage drivers to drive up to that threshold
rather than the limit.

The Lord Advocate has set thresholds but only the police and the
camera partnerships know what those are.

>
>> But that is discretionary anyhow - they *can* do you if you are doing
>> 1mph above the limit.
>
>Section 9.7 suggests that the equipment used will not allow that level
>of precision.

I know the current equipment isn't precise enough, but in theory they
could.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Purring - an automatic safety valve for happiness overflow.

[Nightjar]

On 01/06/2014 19:47, Uncle Peter wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 19:30:22 +0100, Nightjar
> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 01/06/2014 15:51, Uncle Peter wrote:
>>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:34:40 +0100, Nightjar
>>> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/06/2014 11:29, Uncle Peter wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 11:10:46 +0100, Nightjar
>>>>> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/06/2014 04:37, Judith wrote:
>>>> ....
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is, in itself, an indication of the limit.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it's a guessing game. You don't know what the limit is until
>>>>> you see
>>>>> one. It might be 30 or it might be you haven't passed a repeater yet.
>>>>
>>>> As I said elsewhere, if there are street lights, you assume 30mph,
>>>> unless you see a repeater that says something else,
>>>
>>> Except probably only half of streetlit areas are 30. Ther are plenty at
>>> 20, 40, 50, and even some motorways/dual carriageways at 70. So
>>> basically streetlamps can be ignored.
>>
>> Only if you know the limit is something other than 30mph.
>
> But if there is no sign, either you have forgotten it, it was obscured
> by a lorry, or it's not a 30. So you still don't know.

You only have to drive a few hundred yards to find out. If there is no
repeater, it is a 30mph limit. If there is, you find out what the limit
is. If in doubt, assume 30mph.

>>>> or are driving a car
>>>> that reads speed limit signs and shows the current speed limit on a
>>>> dashboard display.
>>>
>>> I've never heard of one reading speed limit signs. I assume you mean
>>> knowing the limits based on your GPS position?
>>
>> I mean a car that uses video to read speed limit signs, such as the
>> Mercedes Speed Assist. Unlike GPS based systems, it can accurately
>> display temporary and variable speed limits as well as permanent ones.
>
> GPS gets enough of them to stop you getting tickets. You might get one
> occasionally, but it's not enough to lose your license. Anyway, the
> video method doesn't take account of whether or not there are cameras
> there,

If you keep to the limit, cameras are irrelevant and GPS won't help you
with mobile cameras.

> and it sounds more expensive. GPS is there anyway for the map.

On a Mercedes E-Class, it costs �300, which is less than 0.8% of the
basic car price.

Colin Bignell

[Lordgnome]

On 01/06/2014 16:10, Alison Sinclair wrote:

> If Cumbria is part of the National Scheme you should be offered a course if you were doing up to 10% + 9 over the speed limit. Courses are of significant value and if nothing else could give you an update on your driving skills and in particular Observation skills. If you didn't see the camera or camera van, perhaps your observation skills could do with some attention.
>
> Alison
> PS I present SAC's in 4 more southern areas
>

If they use the same tricks as have been known in Wales e.g. hiding the
camera in a horse-box, then observation would need to be particularly acute!

Les.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Would I rather? No, that's not at all what I said.

But if you are bent on risking someone's life, you are well within
your rights to risk your own, but you have no right to risk the
life of a stranger.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Doctor Dave]

And a good driver would in any case be looking that far in front.

[Doctor Dave]

He's saying that decent people have an aversion to harming or putting at risk innocent third parties.

[Uncle Peter]

That's the way the law sees it anyway. Besides, if the risk is negligible, the law should mind its own business.

[Fredxxx]

The Highway Code suggests that a further qualification of being in a
built up area, or so I thought?

[Nightjar]

On 01/06/2014 23:05, Fredxxx wrote:
> On 01/06/2014 17:42, Alison Sinclair wrote:

....

>> The full streetlight rule is that 'where there is a system of
>> streetlights the speed limit is 30mph except when marked otherwise by
>> repeater signs'. This does not apply on motorways or 20 zones as the
>> rule was first introduced in the 30's.

The bit about repeater signs for roads with street lighting was only
added in the 1970s, when 40mph and 50mph limits were introduced. There
may, of course, be 20mph repeater signs where the limit is not part of a
20mph zone enforced by traffic calming measures.

> (underpinned in law is that
>> the streetlights should be no more than 183 metres apart - 186 in
>> Scotland I believe) However, the system of streetlights is good
>> enough as it would be impossible to judge such distances. Hope this
>> helps
>>
>
> The Highway Code suggests that a further qualification of being in a
> built up area, or so I thought?

It is sufficient that there is is a system of street lights, which is
defined as three or more street lights.

Colin Bignell

[polygonum]

On 01/06/2014 20:54, Uncle Peter wrote:
> I was expecting you to say Mondeo. They're filled with silly gimmicks.
> The daftest thing I saw was the ability to have a different temperature
> on each side of the car.

For some, that is absolutely not a gimmick but close to a necessity, and
certainly a "must have" for my future car purchases.

The reason, though you may not care to know, is that my partner (who is
the usual front seat passenger in my car) suffers a disorder which
results in extreme pain when temperature of extremities is higher than
some fairly low level. (We often find our living room temperature is
around 16 or 17C.) In a car without such split temperature settings, one
of us suffers.

Whilst my partner's particular issue is extreme, I have come to realise
that a surprising number of people suffer similarly.

It is also an issue when I take my elderly mother out. She needs a
temperature far higher than I find comfortable. I suspect this is pretty
common.

--
Rod

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

That's the way the law sees what? That it's better to risk someone
else's life than your own? I don't think so.

The fact is that if you do something stupid (wilfully or
negligently put someone else at risk), and your action causes
damage or death, the law is very much minding its business when it
calls on you to account for your actions, and to pay the price.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Nightjar]

It can also be as simple a case as one side of the car getting more
solar gain than the other and needing to be cooled more for comfort.

Colin Bignell

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 17:28:08 +0100, steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
> No the law is quite clear if the road has street lighting then assume a
> limit of 30 mph unless signs state otherwise

With the minor proviso that it's 'has street lighting spaced at not
more than 200 yds' (185m in Scotland).

> highway authoities do not put repeater signs up on 30 mph limited
> roads if street lights are in place this includes dual carriageways
> if within a built up area

It is 'are not permitted to' rather than 'do not'. If there's street
lighting, you can only put up 30 repeaters in specific controlled
cases. There has recently been a briefing note on the topic put in
the HoC library - a google for '30mph SN1921' will find it.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Judith]

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 11:10:46 +0100, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk>
wrote:

>On 01/06/2014 04:37, Judith wrote:

>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 19:48:13 +0100, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/05/2014 16:38, tim..... wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:op.xgoge...@red.lan...
>>> ....

>>>>> I'm glad I live in Scotland, it's unheard of up here to get done
>>>>> unless you're at least 10mph over the limit. Even then if the police
>>>>> are present you can talk your way out of about 2/3rds of them. I've
>>>>> had 9 speeding tickets (not counting the getting off ones)
>>>>
>>>> I've hade none, and no "letting off" ones either
>>>

>>> I had one in the early 1970s, but I genuinely believed that the limit on
>>> a dual carriageway road with high fencing separating it from housing was
>>> 40mph, rather than 30mph. I wouldn't have been doing a steady 40mph with
>>> a Police car behind me otherwise. These days I know to look out for
>>> repeater signs.
>>
>>

>> But surely - there would be no 30mph repeaters.
>
>Which is, in itself, an indication of the limit.
>

>Colin Bignell


I agree - but it does seem rather silly to me: it is much easier to spot
something than it is to spot the absence of something.

[Uncle Peter]

On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 03:24:07 +0100, Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:

> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>> When someone takes risks with his own money or safety, that's
>>>>> his business. But when he takes risks at the expense of
>>>>> someone else's money or safety, that is not only not solely
>>>>> his own business, but is disrespectful and uncivilized.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying you'd prefer to risk your own life than a
>>>> stranger's? How odd.
>>>
>>> Would I rather? No, that's not at all what I said.
>>>
>>> But if you are bent on risking someone's life, you are well
>>> within your rights to risk your own, but you have no right to
>>> risk the life of a stranger.
>>
>> That's the way the law sees it anyway. Besides, if the risk is
>> negligible, the law should mind its own business.
>
> That's the way the law sees what? That it's better to risk someone
> else's life than your own? I don't think so.

That the law thinks we don't have a right to risk other people.

> The fact is that if you do something stupid (wilfully or
> negligently put someone else at risk), and your action causes
> damage or death, the law is very much minding its business when it
> calls on you to account for your actions, and to pay the price.

IF the action causes death. But the risk itself should never be illegal.

[Uncle Peter]

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 21:27:04 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 31 May 2014 21:08:50 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 May 2014 20:22:23 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:21:51 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:10:27 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:38:30 +0200, "tim....."
>>>>> <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>

>>>>>
>>>>> I've had four (and used to almost always drive well above the limit on
>>>>> motorways/dual carriageways and some non-urban single carriageways).
>>>>>
>>>>> One was a camera van before they were either common or marked up with
>>>>> big signs. One was an unmarked police car on an almost empty M50,
>>>>
>>>> They should only do you if you're being dangerous. If it was almost empty, you certainly weren't.
>>>
>>> Which is why they only gave me a 3 point FP rather than sending it to
>>> court, as they would normally have done for me doing 95.
>>
>> Was this in Wales?
>
> The M50 is close to Wales, but none of it is inside the border.

Oh, I thought I'd used it to enter Wales, I guess it changes number before it gets there.

Maybe the pedantry from the Welsh police leaked over the border?

>> I've been stopped for 95 three times on a motorway (all in Scotland). Twice I was let off (when they pulled me over) and once I got 3 points (a car on a raised layby, fine through the post). It was a busy road. I thought only over 100 (30 over the limit) caused a court hearing.
>
> Anything where the penalty is likely to be more than 3 points will
> usually be a court hearing - or was then.

I've never known anyone get anything other than 3 points for a speeding offence, unless it's a ban.

> And over 100 will normally result in an outright ban.

That's what I thought, but a neighbour told me it's "30 over the limit", so you could get banned for exceeding 90 on a country road.

>>>>> one
>>>>> was not starting to slow for a 50 limit until; I reached the sign,
>>>>
>>>> And I thought *you* were pedantic!
>>>>
>>>>> and was then done by a van as I came round a bend still doing 57 (Right on
>>>>> the threshold).
>>>>
>>>> It's 60 here. They just add 10 it's easier.
>>>
>>> You may believe that.
>>>
>>> You are wrong.
>>>
>>> The (discretionary) threshold for prosecution is the same across all
>>> UK police forces, at the limit +10% + 2mph.
>>>
>>> But that is discretionary anyhow - they *can* do you if you are doing
>>> 1mph above the limit.
>>
>> I'm not wrong,
>
> Yes you are.
>
>> I'm telling you what's happened to me and others around here for doing slightly under and slightly over 40mph. As it's discretionary, the police here appear to just call it 10mph over.
>
> That may well be what has happened to you and others, but that is
> because they have discretion.

Agreed. I'm just saying that "+10" seems to be what they all follow, using their discretion to simplify matters.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

"Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's the way the law sees it anyway. Besides, if the risk
>>> is negligible, the law should mind its own business.
>>
>> That's the way the law sees what? That it's better to risk
>> someone else's life than your own? I don't think so.
>
> That the law thinks we don't have a right to risk other people.

Much of the time you have every right to risk other people. Just
as you have every right to breach a contract. But in each case you
must be prepared to pay the price for the damage you may cause.

>> The fact is that if you do something stupid (wilfully or
>> negligently put someone else at risk), and your action causes
>> damage or death, the law is very much minding its business when
>> it calls on you to account for your actions, and to pay the
>> price.
>
> IF the action causes death. But the risk itself should never be
> illegal.

The risk should NEVER be illegal? There are some actions that are
so highly risky that there is a very large chance that someone will
be hurt. For example firing a gun into a crowd, speeding through a
red light on a busy street and driving while drunk are so dangerous
that the law declares them too dangerous to be left up to civil
enforcement.

But you think you should be able to do things like that anyway,
just because you feel lucky?

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Scion]

August West put finger to keyboard:

> The entity calling itself Judith wrote:
>>
>>>> But surely - there would be no 30mph repeaters.
>>>
>>>Which is, in itself, an indication of the limit.
>>

>> I agree - but it does seem rather silly to me: it is much easier to
>> spot something than it is to spot the absence of something.
>

> It's necessary for purely practical reasons - how much do you imagine it
> would it cost to erect repeaters, at the correct intervals, on all urban
> roads?

Proper reflective repeaters on their own poles - a lot of money.

A simpler solution, like a painted band around lamp posts, very much less.

[Simon Finnigan]

That would suggest you think it's OK to get an automatic weapon and fire it
in a crowded area, as long as nobody is killed. Is that really the argument
you're trying to make?

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Uncle Peter" wrote in message news:op.xgtyt...@red.lan...

So firing a machine gun into a crowd is OK, and the police should stand by
until you actually hit someone?
--
Chris R

[Doctor Dave]

Rubbish. Otherwise I could come and fire fireworks horizontally down your street in the small hours on the basis that the risk of harm is very small.

You have of course totally missed the point (or several in fact).

If I drive down a road, I have a right to know in broad terms what the risk to me is. If people are allowed to get away with driving like idiots, then I have no way of assessing that. An assessment of that might include the likelihood of having an accident. It might additionally include an assessment of what the likely damage might be in the case of an accident and that is totally dependant on knowledge of what speed other users are driving at.

The actual magnitude of the risk is not the real issue here. The actual problem is the amount of harm that can be done if the risk actually occurs.

[Uncle Peter]

That is not a risk, that's a certainty.

[Nightjar]

Or, you could just say that you should assume that the limit is 30mph
when there are street lights, unless there is a repeater sign saying
otherwise :-)

Colin Bignell

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 18:32:04 +0100, Uncle Peter put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 21:27:04 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 May 2014 21:08:50 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>> The M50 is close to Wales, but none of it is inside the border.
>
>Oh, I thought I'd used it to enter Wales, I guess it changes number before it gets there.

No, the motorway ends at Ross-on-Wye, just under ten miles before the
border. It doesn't change number or anything like that, it simply
terminates at a roundabout. From there, you then take an entirely different
road to continue your journey onwards towards Wales.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk

[Doctor Dave]

On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:29:06 PM UTC+1, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> > Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That's the way the law sees it anyway. Besides, if the risk
> >>> is negligible, the law should mind its own business.
> >>
> >> That's the way the law sees what? That it's better to risk
> >> someone else's life than your own? I don't think so.
> >
> > That the law thinks we don't have a right to risk other people.
>
> Much of the time you have every right to risk other people. Just
> as you have every right to breach a contract. But in each case you
> must be prepared to pay the price for the damage you may cause.

You might have the power to do those things and you might get away with them a large proportion of the time, but you certainly don't have the right.

[Percy Picacity]

The problem would be largely solved if repeaters for higher limits were
closer together and more consistent in their application. So one could
rapidly convince oneself that they were not present.

--

Percy Picacity

[Alex Heney]

They get around that in Merthyr by putting up white signs with the
text "30mph speed limit still applies" at intervals.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Skiier: Avalanche looking for a place to happen.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 18:32:04 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 21:27:04 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 31 May 2014 21:08:50 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 May 2014 20:22:23 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:21:51 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 22:10:27 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:38:30 +0200, "tim....."
>>>>>> <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've had four (and used to almost always drive well above the limit on
>>>>>> motorways/dual carriageways and some non-urban single carriageways).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One was a camera van before they were either common or marked up with
>>>>>> big signs. One was an unmarked police car on an almost empty M50,
>>>>>
>>>>> They should only do you if you're being dangerous. If it was almost empty, you certainly weren't.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why they only gave me a 3 point FP rather than sending it to
>>>> court, as they would normally have done for me doing 95.
>>>
>>> Was this in Wales?
>>
>> The M50 is close to Wales, but none of it is inside the border.
>
>Oh, I thought I'd used it to enter Wales, I guess it changes number before it gets there.

It finishes at Ross on Wye. There is no motorway between that point
and Newport - The border is between Ross and Monmouth, on the A40.

Until a few weeks ago, I drove that road every working day, on my
commute to Cheltenham.

>
>Maybe the pedantry from the Welsh police leaked over the border?

What "pedantry" might that be?

>
>>> I've been stopped for 95 three times on a motorway (all in Scotland). Twice I was let off (when they pulled me over) and once I got 3 points (a car on a raised layby, fine through the post). It was a busy road. I thought only over 100 (30 over the limit) caused a court hearing.
>>
>> Anything where the penalty is likely to be more than 3 points will
>> usually be a court hearing - or was then.
>
>I've never known anyone get anything other than 3 points for a speeding offence, unless it's a ban.

In the rest of the UK, you will usually get 4-6 points for speeds
between the banning level and the upper limit of the guidelines for
fixed penalties.


The magistrates guidelines say that in a 70 limit, the starting point
should be 3 points for speeds up to 90mph, 4-6 points for 91-100mph
(but can disqualify for up to 28 days), and disqualification for 7-56
between 100mph and 110mph (but can give points). Above 100, it should
always be disqualification.

There are similar bands at other speeds.

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/MCSG_Update9_October_2012.pdf

Page 131 for guidelines for speeding offences.

>
>> And over 100 will normally result in an outright ban.
>
>That's what I thought, but a neighbour told me it's "30 over the limit", so you could get banned for exceeding 90 on a country road.
>

It isn't as simple as "30 over the limit". It is less than that at
lower limits.

You could get a ban for doing 51 in a 30 limit, 66 in a 40 limit, etc.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Don't mess with Murphy.

[Uncle Peter]

On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 21:09:49 +0100, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 18:32:04 +0100, Uncle Peter put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 21:27:04 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 May 2014 21:08:50 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The M50 is close to Wales, but none of it is inside the border.
>>
>> Oh, I thought I'd used it to enter Wales, I guess it changes number before it gets there.
>
> No, the motorway ends at Ross-on-Wye, just under ten miles before the
> border. It doesn't change number or anything like that, it simply
> terminates at a roundabout. From there, you then take an entirely different
> road to continue your journey onwards towards Wales.

My memory sux. I was actually thinking of the M56, which er.... does the same.

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 17:47:58 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:13:56 +0100, Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>
>> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I like that idea! Rich people can drive like idiots, poor
>>>> people have to stay within the law where their types belong,

>>>> not with their betters in the fast lane.

>>>
>>> No, rich people can take more risks. Why do you equate that
>>> with being an idiot?
>>

>> When someone takes risks with his own money or safety, that's his
>> business. But when he takes risks at the expense of someone else's
>> money or safety, that is not only not solely his own business, but is
>> disrespectful and uncivilized.
>
>Are you saying you'd prefer to risk your own life than a stranger's? How odd.

It isn't a matter of what he prefers.

It is a matter of what is acceptable to society.

Doing things where the only person at risk of harm is yourself should
generally be acceptable.

Doing things that pose a significant risk of harm to those not
involved with your choices is not acceptable.

Driving recklessly on public roads falls into the latter category.
Doing the same thing on a racetrack would usually fall into the
former.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

Programming Department: mistakes made while you wait.

[Alex Heney]

On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 15:06:44 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 03:24:07 +0100, Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>
>> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When someone takes risks with his own money or safety, that's
>>>>>> his business. But when he takes risks at the expense of
>>>>>> someone else's money or safety, that is not only not solely
>>>>>> his own business, but is disrespectful and uncivilized.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying you'd prefer to risk your own life than a
>>>>> stranger's? How odd.
>>>>
>>>> Would I rather? No, that's not at all what I said.
>>>>
>>>> But if you are bent on risking someone's life, you are well
>>>> within your rights to risk your own, but you have no right to
>>>> risk the life of a stranger.
>>>
>>> That's the way the law sees it anyway. Besides, if the risk is
>>> negligible, the law should mind its own business.
>>
>> That's the way the law sees what? That it's better to risk someone
>> else's life than your own? I don't think so.
>
>That the law thinks we don't have a right to risk other people.
>

And the law is correct on that, in the opinion of the majority.

>> The fact is that if you do something stupid (wilfully or
>> negligently put someone else at risk), and your action causes
>> damage or death, the law is very much minding its business when it
>> calls on you to account for your actions, and to pay the price.
>
>IF the action causes death. But the risk itself should never be illegal.

On that, your view is seriously at odds with the view of society in
general.

Which is why the laws are written the way they are.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

To test a man's character, give him power.

[Doctor Dave]

... if having to drive at a lower speed than you would like over a distance of considerably less than a mile is even worthy of being called a problem!

[Alex Heney]

On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 20:54:46 +0100, "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 20:47:40 +0100, Simon Finnigan <simonf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Uncle Peter" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

>>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:34:40 +0100, Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:

>>>
>>>> On 01/06/2014 11:29, Uncle Peter wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2014 11:10:46 +0100, Nightjar
>>>>> <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/06/2014 04:37, Judith wrote:

>>>> ....

>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is, in itself, an indication of the limit.
>>>>>

>>>>> So it's a guessing game. You don't know what the limit is until you see
>>>>> one. It might be 30 or it might be you haven't passed a repeater yet.
>>>>
>>>> As I said elsewhere, if there are street lights, you assume 30mph,
>>>> unless you see a repeater that says something else,
>>>
>>> Except probably only half of streetlit areas are 30. Ther are plenty at
>>> 20, 40, 50, and even some motorways/dual carriageways at 70. So
>>> basically streetlamps can be ignored.
>>>
>>>> or are driving a car
>>>> that reads speed limit signs and shows the current speed limit on a
>>>> dashboard display.
>>>
>>> I've never heard of one reading speed limit signs. I assume you mean
>>> knowing the limits based on your GPS position?
>>
>> This is a feature on the new ford focus, as well as a friends fairly low
>> end Volvo, so it's not exactly unusual technology.

>
>I was expecting you to say Mondeo. They're filled with silly gimmicks. The daftest thing I saw was the ability to have a different temperature on each side of the car.

The only person who could think that daft would be a person who never
drives with passengers.

It is probably the biggest single factor in me looking to replace my
current Edge model with either a Zetec or Titanium next time.

And that is because I frequently drive with my wife as a passenger,
and she likes the temperature higher than I do.

Actually, there are very few (if any) of the things in my Mondeo which
I think are "Silly" gimmicks - which is a good part of the reason I
want another, having done 122,000 miles in this one over the last
three years.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager

"Nietzsche is dead." --God.

[Percy Picacity]

As does the M54. I think I am beginning to see a pattern here!

--

Percy Picacity

[Percy Picacity]

That is not the problem: causing distraction and annoyance to those
behind you; suffering some aggression from those behind you;
concentration on looking for information leading to distraction from
safe driving; anxiety ditto. Those are the problems. You will
notice the common factor of distracting drivers, this is potentially
dangerous. You may well assert that we should all be too calm and wise
to suffer from these problems. Yes, we should, but many of us aren't.


--

Percy Picacity

[Uncle Peter]

The Welsh don't like speed.

[Judith]

On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:31:32 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:

>
>The entity calling itself Judith wrote:
>>

>>>> But surely - there would be no 30mph repeaters.
>>>
>>>Which is, in itself, an indication of the limit.
>>

>> I agree - but it does seem rather silly to me: it is much easier to
>> spot something than it is to spot the absence of something.
>

>It's necessary for purely practical reasons - how much do you imagine it
>would it cost to erect repeaters, at the correct intervals, on all urban
>roads?

It does not need doing on all rural roads.

There is no reason why the repeaters should not be used in situations on roads
which look as though they might have a higher that 30 mph speed limit.

There are certainly sites where many drivers will actually be unsure whether
they are in a 30 limit or not.

The alternative is for councils to put up "information" signs as Alex H has
commented on.

[Judith]

On Tue, 03 Jun 2014 07:49:23 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:

>
>The entity calling itself Judith wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:31:32 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The entity calling itself Judith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> But surely - there would be no 30mph repeaters.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is, in itself, an indication of the limit.
>>>>
>>>> I agree - but it does seem rather silly to me: it is much easier to
>>>> spot something than it is to spot the absence of something.
>>>
>>>It's necessary for purely practical reasons - how much do you imagine it
>>>would it cost to erect repeaters, at the correct intervals, on all urban
>>>roads?
>>
>> It does not need doing on all rural roads.
>

>Why do you mention rural roads?

Sorry - error - meant urban.

>> There is no reason why the repeaters should not be used in situations
>> on roads which look as though they might have a higher that 30 mph
>> speed limit.
>

>THose wth stret lights, and ...? I can't imagine such a road, frankly.

I know of a number of dual carriageway roads - usually recent by-passes - which
are lit for the whole length of the road - parts of them are often 30mph as
they pass a few houses or similar for a mile or so - with other parts various
speed limits.

Others think so to.

Roads: 30 mph repeater signs
House of Commons Library: Standard Note: SN1921


The review found that there was a case for permitting repeater signs on roads
which looked as though they might have a higher that 30 mph speed limit.
The general prohibition did attract some criticism. For example, in evidence to
the Transport Select Committee for a 2002 inquiry the Automobile Association
argued that the link between the 30 mph limit and streetlights should end as
it was not understood by most drivers and it could be confusing to many in
understanding what the current speed limit was. The AA also argued that
repeater signs should be permitted where it was not obvious that the speed
limit was 30 mph. The Committee agreed.