http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/25/how-many-of-these-laws-have-you-broken-in-the-last-year-6803780/

On average people break 30 laws a year.

Beeped your horn for something other than alerting motorists? Eaten or drank while driving? Changed a CD? Dropped litter? 

Guilty bang to rights.

We live in a society ffs. Not having seen accidents doesn't mean you have a better judgement call on what the limo should be. Maybe there are no accidents because of the cameras. Profiteering is surely a very thin slice of it, the moaning is ridiculous.

And "it's ok to time trial cos the speed limit is 60"? Jesus. Speed limit of 60 does not mean it's blindly ok to drive at 60.

I do feel sorry for the police.

Christ I bet you all drive like Miss Daisy

Everytime I go to England.. which isn't very often.. huge sections of Motorway seem to be restricted to 50 supposedly for roadworks but you never see anyone actually working.. just many many signs warning you they're monitoring you.

There's no question the motorist is an easy target for law enforcement. That's not to suggest people should break the law.

Andy wrote:

… If you get stopped by a divisional unit, it’s probably the most serious infringement they’ve seen for a good week or six. … There are roads policing units (traffic cops). Their job is to make the roads safer.  … if someone gets booked, they were unlucky enough to be seen by one of a small number of traffic cops who will without hesitation apply a law that’s there for us all to read in black and white, or they acted like a dick to an overworked bobby. … the enthusiasm to book drink drivers (even those the morning after) is universal, given that they put all of our lives at risk through their selfishness. …

Brilliant post Andy. Round of applause.

I used to have a mate who was in charge of the speed camera partnership at Strathclyde (before it all got rolled into Police Scotland). He was a proper petrolhead. Owned a near-rally-spec classic Escort. He was staggeringly straightforward about the ‘secret truths’ behind speed camera placement – both fixed and mobile units.

The fixed ones? Placed according to a set of EU guidelines (largely written by the UK). It’s a textbook. If road X is Y miles long with less than Z corners, place camera here. And so on. Your speed limits? determined by a similar rulebook, again following EU guidelines. Speed limits on open roads are mostly based on visibility – what’s the unrestricted viewing distance on road X? Is it interrupted by a corner? Etc. Mobile camera units? Those vans can only set up where existing road signs give drivers ample warning of possible cameras. And only where the van has an unrestricted clear view for the full distance their camera evidence requires. So you know where they’re allowed to be. You’re never caught by surprise.

And for people convinced that speed cameras are just moneymaking exercises? Cameras at traffic lights in city centres, catching people who jump red lights, bring in massively more money than speed cameras do. Ridiculously more.

Yes, but five years before work actually commences is probably a bit excessive...

Endangering everybody around you with that risk of anaphylactic shock behind the wheel, Bob.

What sort of monster goes into a shop, looks at all the available chocolate bar options and plumps for Cadbury’s Whole Nut?

Despicable. Throw the book at him.

Semen.

What do you think the cup holder’s for?

Someone take Bob's shovel off him

Escape wrote:

...while many backroads that remain as 60s would be legit amateur rallying if you dared. Those backroads rely entirely on driver sense to avoid deaths, 'cause you're legally allowed to time-trial on them;...

Always like the camera's in France that take a picture of the incoming traffic. Always made sure to wave when on the motorbike. (I don't think they actually still did anything, but they're are loads of them).

Best way of a motorcycle avoiding a camera I saw was also in France, that guy just did a wheelie when going past.

Andy wrote:

Escape wrote:

Apparently I've said that I time-trial like a dangerous knob because, ostensibly, I could, Goobs.

For what it’s worth, I didn’t think you genuinely time-trial, but the internet has never been the best medium for sarcasm and, by your own admission, your writing style doesn’t always aid understanding.

Fwiw I have a lot of law dealings and I got the impression that Scape wanted to push the limits too. I really hate all that stuff and am the man tootling at 20 when it counts, but that's because I've seen the kids hit and unable to do any sports afterwards.

Indeed. You could be charged for driving without due care, but there's nothing under that law that strictly covers doing 60 across an open, bumpy moor with a 60 limit. I've only had one car (an old Citroen with knackered airbed suspension) that could do that without breaking the bones in my arse. It's also as fast as I've ever cared to go on a motocross bike. 50+ and you're catching some air, and there's mud all over the shop at times. (Come to think of it, the only time I've ever topped 60 was on my CBR on a lovely day, and I rolled off soon enough.)

There's a km-long straight near me with perfect visibility, a full pavement the whole way, and it was reduced from 40 to 30 some time ago. Of their own volition, the vast, vast majority of drivers would drive at around 50. I know this for sure, because that was the norm before mobile cameras frequented it, back when it was 40. Had it been 50 instead, it doesn't actually follow that 60 would've been the average. 50 just feels nice and safe and right for that road.

The main and only danger comes from overtaking, and the desire to do so's dramatically increased by the 30 limit. When our laws were introduced, cars had drum brakes and a lot less grip, but there were far fewer drivers on our roads, and that's the key to our diminishing safety. Traffic volume and lack of concentration are the real dangers, and cameras deal with neither. Volume's increased by roads such as the one I mention, because it's silly-low limit and mobile-camera rep have caused a sharp increase in tailbacks. If an overtaking accident does happen as a result of this, lots of people will say that it vindicates the use of cameras.

Our roads are becoming more dangerous by the year, but I feel that mobile cameras are every bit as likely to exacerbate this danger as to ameliorate it. I don't have a problem with fixed cameras in the proper places, such as near schools and heavily pedestrianised areas.

Remember, I'm prone to a different outlook on this because of how rural my location is. It's common for me to overtake and get annoyed at others for their slowness in-between villages, at the same time as those drivers getting away from me through those villages. There's a horrible one-speed-fits-all mentality with a lot of these country drivers. 30's the limit for the village I live in and I never top 25 (same speed as I reach down hills on my bike).