Stitched up by a talivan
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Should I or shouldn't I?
Next: Failed MOT
From: Graz on 19 Sep 2008 18:03 On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:05:46 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote: >"Graz" <graz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:48d3d68e.45149984(a)news.motzarella.org... >> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:09:29 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg" >> <AlexNOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>"Conor" <conor_turton(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:6jhvktF3538tU7(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> In article <gavf70$4ag$1(a)aioe.org>, Road_Hog says... >>>>> >>>>> "Graz" <graz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:48d33ccf.5790687(a)news.motzarella.org... >>>>> >> >>>>> > 55mph is hardly "dawdling". The "official" speed limit is neither a >>>>> > mandatory speed or even a target. You want to be getting up earlier! >>>>> >>>>> If the conditions allow it, then you should drive at the speed limit >>>>> (making >>>>> progress) to complete your journey as soon as can possible and to not >>>>> inconvenience or slow up any other drivers. So yes, it is actually a >>>>> target. >>>>> >>>> Wrong. >>>> >>> >>>While it's not so strict as a target , there is an expectation that >>>drivers >>>will make reasonable progress. >>>That means doing a reasonable percentage of the speed limit where >>>road/vehicle/conditions permit. >>> >>>You would certainly fail a driving test for not doing 30 where it was safe >>>to do so , such as on a main road rather than a quiet residential street. >> >> You would not fail for doing 25 to 28 in a 30 zone. > >If it was a decent width road and there were no hazards or other conditions >that dictated a lower speed then you absolutely would fail for "failing to >make proper progress" if you were just doing 25. If your speed varied between 25 and 28, you wouldn't. Doing 25 isn't failing to make proper progress. It's just cautious driving. As you might expect from a beginner.
From: Keith on 19 Sep 2008 21:15 On 18 Sep 2008 at 22:15, kid joe wrote: > Would I be able to get the ban on an FPN? I'd rather avoid a trip to > court :) No - the only FPN you can be offered is £60 and 3 points. And even if you get offered it, you can't accept it, since that would take you to 6 point which equals a totting-up ban in your first two years. Only a court can issue a driving ban, you can't get one from fixed penalties totted up. >> From your description it sounds like you completely misjudged an >> overtake and panicked when you realized you were approaching the brow of >> a hill and needed to get back on your own side of the road quickly. In >> that case, forget about the points - you should consider yourself bloody >> lucky to be alive. Learning to overtake safely is one of the most >> difficult things to get right - and redoing the L-test certainly won't >> help you with it... > > No, it was a completely safe overtake, I was back on my side just > before the top of the hill, only just past the point where the centre > line goes solid so that you can't begin an overtake. Basically I blame > the fucker in front of me - he was dawdling along at 55mph, less that > the "official" speed limit and much less than the safe camera-limit of > 68mph. He might have all the time in the world but I need to study in > the day, then do an evening shift at a nursing-home to get some extra > cash, and I was already late for work. You're meant to FINISH the overtake before the line turns solid... Most people here are heartless fuckers, but I think we'd all have to admit that we've speeded at some time when we were running late, and that we've got involved in dodgy overtakes when the guy in front is going unreasonably slowly. Maybe not in our first year of driving though... > The speedo was pretty close to 100 when I looked down, but that was > only when I'd accelerated partway down the hill and saw the talivan, > so I may only have been doing 80 or so when I came over the brow. > Sounds like I'd better hope I was going faster :) IF you had clear visibility AND you were a good and experienced driver, I'd defend your right to do 100 on an NSL road. Fact is, you were going over a blind brow and you've only been on the roads for 8 months, so I'd have less faith that you were in control. > Have to say my insurance went up a huge amount for the earlier 3 > points - would a ban be another similar increase? Certainly hope not You're a walking opportunity for the insurance company to make money - of course they're going to take it.
From: The Real Doctor on 20 Sep 2008 00:35 On 20 Sep, 02:15, Keith <ke...(a)mailinator.com> wrote: > No - the only FPN you can be offered is £60 and 3 points. And even if > you get offered it, you can't accept it, since that would take you to 6 > point which equals a totting-up ban in your first two years. Only a > court can issue a driving ban, you can't get one from fixed penalties > totted up. I don't think he is going to get a ban, or just a ban. He's going to lose his licence altogether. Bloody good thing, too. Ian
From: Road_Hog on 20 Sep 2008 01:51 "Graz" <graz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:48d3d630.45055640(a)news.motzarella.org... > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:28:52 +0100, "M............" > <mmmmmmtheobvious(a)freedomnames.co.uk> wrote: > >>Following up to Adrian >> >>>> but not if its snowing, pouring, a bus load of kids are unloading, >>>> theres a queue to a boot fair in total confusion etc etc, hence its not >>>> a target but the maximum. >>> >>> No, it's a target - but with the caveat that conditions may dictate a >>> lower speed. >> >>given you are not supposed to drive beyond it but are encouraged to drive >>below it, "limit" is clearly the right word. Target would be better suited >>to a figure that you missed by equal amounts on either side. >> >>i would have thought etc..... > > See? Didn't I tell you the dickheads such as Adrain referred to > "speed targets"? > Go and talk to a traffic officer, one in his forties or older. One that was taught in the days before political correctness. Ask him to explain the meaning of "making progress". It is a term that has a specific meaning not just a generic term. Then when you know what you are talking about, come back and tell us what he said.
From: Dr Zoidberg on 20 Sep 2008 04:56
"Graz" <graz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:48d420fa.64201890(a)news.motzarella.org... > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:05:46 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg" > <AlexNOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote: > >>"Graz" <graz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:48d3d68e.45149984(a)news.motzarella.org... >>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:09:29 +0100, "Dr Zoidberg" >>> <AlexNOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>"Conor" <conor_turton(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:6jhvktF3538tU7(a)mid.individual.net... >>>>> In article <gavf70$4ag$1(a)aioe.org>, Road_Hog says... >>>>>> >>>>>> "Graz" <graz(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:48d33ccf.5790687(a)news.motzarella.org... >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > 55mph is hardly "dawdling". The "official" speed limit is neither >>>>>> > a >>>>>> > mandatory speed or even a target. You want to be getting up >>>>>> > earlier! >>>>>> >>>>>> If the conditions allow it, then you should drive at the speed limit >>>>>> (making >>>>>> progress) to complete your journey as soon as can possible and to not >>>>>> inconvenience or slow up any other drivers. So yes, it is actually a >>>>>> target. >>>>>> >>>>> Wrong. >>>>> >>>> >>>>While it's not so strict as a target , there is an expectation that >>>>drivers >>>>will make reasonable progress. >>>>That means doing a reasonable percentage of the speed limit where >>>>road/vehicle/conditions permit. >>>> >>>>You would certainly fail a driving test for not doing 30 where it was >>>>safe >>>>to do so , such as on a main road rather than a quiet residential >>>>street. >>> >>> You would not fail for doing 25 to 28 in a 30 zone. >> >>If it was a decent width road and there were no hazards or other >>conditions >>that dictated a lower speed then you absolutely would fail for "failing to >>make proper progress" if you were just doing 25. > > If your speed varied between 25 and 28, you wouldn't. > Doing 25 isn't failing to make proper progress. It's just cautious > driving. As you might expect from a beginner. > To pass a test you are supposed to be a competent driver and not a beginner , and one of the things that you are supposed to show is that you can drive in a confident fashion and not be excessively cautious -- Alex "I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away" www.drzoidberg.co.uk |