From: Phil Bradby on 27 Jun 2010 06:24 Ret. wrote: > I agree - but Adrian referred to regularly doing 90 on non-motorway > roads - which is 50% above the legal speed limit. Not on dual carriageways.
From: Phil Bradby on 27 Jun 2010 06:31 Brimstone wrote: > "greensha" <greensha.4d4hux(a)no-mx.forums.travel.com> wrote in message > news:greensha.4d4hux(a)no-mx.forums.travel.com... >> I grew up in the UK but moved to the US in 1986. I used to return >> fairly frequently in the 80's and early 90's, but I haven't been back >> in quite a while. The last time I drove on the motorway system, the >> average speed was between 80-85mph. Now with all the speed cameras >> I've been hearing about, is this still the case? How much tolerance >> are you allowed? Do they start ticketing at 1pm over? I'll be coming >> over for a week in August and have quite a bit of driving planned, >> mostly in the Northwest. I don't really want to get any tickets, but I >> don't want to the slowest driver on the road either. >> > In general, there are no speed cameras on the motorways. They do put up > average speed cameras through road works though. In general, there are no *fixed* speed camera on the motorways (with some exceptions, e.g. M4 going into London). However, the money-grabbing scrotes from the scameraships frequently operate mobile speed traps on over-bridges. The M6 in the northwest, where the OP is headed, is one of the worst areas for this - quite often I see talivans sitting upstairs and raking in cash from our safest roads. Near Tebay services is a favourite spot, and sometimes you see them a bit north of Manchester too. I never use M6 toll, but apparently that's worst of all (easy pickings - lower traffic volumes means more cars able to make good progress). There are no camera warning signs, but only blue "police speed trap area" signs that cover miles and miles of motorway without pinpointing specific scamera locations. Dishonest and disgusting.
From: Adrian on 27 Jun 2010 06:56 Phil Bradby <nospam(a)nospam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >> I agree - but Adrian referred to regularly doing 90 on non-motorway >> roads - which is 50% above the legal speed limit. > Not on dual carriageways. Shush. I was looking forward to seeing how long it took him to realise.
From: Phil Bradby on 27 Jun 2010 07:35 Adrian wrote: > Phil Bradby <nospam(a)nospam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they > were saying: > >>> I agree - but Adrian referred to regularly doing 90 on non-motorway >>> roads - which is 50% above the legal speed limit. > >> Not on dual carriageways. > > Shush. I was looking forward to seeing how long it took him to realise. In any case, % over the limit isn't a meaningful measure. Many (probably the majority) of drivers regularly exceed the 30 limit by 50% or more - especially in rural areas, and especially drivers who grew up in a world before speed cameras, where you learned to choose your speed based on the conditions, not based on an arbitrary number that a local nannying busybody decided to stick on a pole. This idea that 30 should literally mean 30, rather than being a friendly hint that a slower speed might be appropriate on this section of road, is a very recent one.
From: Adrian on 27 Jun 2010 07:38
Phil Bradby <nospam(a)nospam.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > In any case, % over the limit isn't a meaningful measure. Many (probably > the majority) of drivers regularly exceed the 30 limit by 50% or more - > especially in rural areas It's also worth pointing out that, on a lot of roads around here, 100% over the limit would have been legal a couple of weeks ago. The idea that a speed above the limit is never safe or appropriate leads inevitably to the flip-side, that a speed at or below the limit can never be unsafe or inappropriate. Which is patently complete bollocks. |