Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Driving At 159mph Is Safe

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Driving At 159mph Is Safe

Old 23rd Oct 2006, 09:05
  #321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Coconutty

Quote:
"Did YOU know that there are legitimate times when you CAN enter and stop in a box junction when your exit is blocked ??? "

The highway code says.......

150: Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see Other road markings section). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.
Law TSRGD regs 10(1) & 29(2)

So when are these times you can enter if your exit is blocked?


I agree, there are many drivers who do not know, or when stopped claim not to know what they can, and cannot do on the roads.

The same for drivers who when stopped for speeding often have no idea what the speed limit is.

Remember back to your driving test, all drivers sign a form to say they had read and understood the highway code, So no excuse for a lack of knowladge. In any case, ignorance is mitigation, not a defence, although, I grant you there is no room for mitigation in enforcement camera offences.

Box juctions do reduce congestion, if only because, if used properly (and placed properly) they prevent a jucntion from becoming clogged, ie, no one can go anywhere because of inconsiderate positioning. Again, I'll conceed that I have used the words, "if used properly", and they arn't.

Your point over warnings may have some justification in some cases, but to be honest, drivers have only to go to any book shop and buy a copy of the highway code, and do what it says, that way, they avoid any possibility of being fined. It's also free on the internet.

If a driver can't be bothered to find out what he should or should not do on the roads, then he shouldn't be there, and certainly has no right to complain if fined.

Lastly, it seems that the opinion of many there is some "right" is to be given a warning for any traffic offence committed, it's not. The principle is the same as any other offence, commit it and take your punishment, if you get a warning, well, it's good luck, not a right. I happen to believe in warnings being better, but thats just my opinion.

UR

I grant you things may well have changed, but the majority of guilty plea burglars I have arrested were dealt with by a magistrate. The sentence was often as not a small fine, even if it was a second or third offence. The majority of traffic offences I saw, or dealt with were fined to a heavier degree. Albeit, a driver could normally afford it, even if that meant having to sell the car.
bjcc is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 09:25
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 735
So when are these times you can enter if your exit is blocked?
The highway code says.......
................ However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right.............
Errrrr - those times ! ! ! ! !

( I know LOTS of motorists who haven't got a clue that they can drive into a box junction if they want to turn right, and can lawfully stop there when prevented from turning because their exit is blocked - EITHER by oncoming vehicles OR by other vehicles ahead of them also waiting to turn right ).

Yeah, yeah, same old song - do the crime, pay the fine, blah, blah - and I AGREE If I committed an offence I would probably accept the punishment - I like to think I DO know better, but that's not my point - plenty of motorists actually DON'T know better

Do you really think the majority of motorists either remember everything they learnt, or that those who don't will suddently go out and buy the latest Highway Code ? - I think not - So wouldn't re-educating along the lines I propose be better than just thinking of more and more ways to grab cash from motorists ?

Coconutty is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 09:56
  #323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Coconutty

The exit is the road leading off the junction, your original point appeared to mean that if that is blocked, and you are turning right you can enter the box, you can't.

Moving on, ok, so you know, and I know, and of course everyone who posts on here will now claim they knew....If thats the case, why doesn't every driver? Why should we lead people by the nose because they are too lazy, or more probably can't be bothered?

Why give those that can't be bothered a freebe? Commit an offence, and all you get is a letter, never mind if, though someones disinterest, idleness or sheer inconsideration they caused others delays. Drivers have always had the oportunity to learn, if they can't be arsed to keep thier knowladge up to date, then I would prefer them to be banned, until they can be bothered.

Enforcement cameras may well make people bothered, it's that or a fine. Simple.

These days, anyone with a bit of sense would make it thier buissness to learn, if for no other reason that to avoid giving money away. The solution, as in all these threads is down to each driver, and not blame to be laid at someone elses door.
bjcc is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 10:53
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 735
bjcc,

To clear this up once and for all - The exit is the road leading off the junction that you are intending to leave by - i.e - as stated your exit, which is not necessarily straight ahead, or any other exit that anyone else is using. If you want to turn right at a cross roads protected by a box junction you can enter and stop in the box if your exit is blocked by oncming vehicles or other vehicles ahead fo you also waiting to turn right.

Were you ever caned as child for being "naughty" ?? Times have moved on - Simply handing out punishments doesn't always work - probably why the prisons are always full - I did get the cane - but it didn't stop me from being naughty ever again, just made me resent the chap with the stick

Why should we lead people by the nose because they are too lazy, or more probably can't be bothered?
Precisely because they are too lazy etc. to learn for themselves.
Yes there will be those that still take no notice, don't heed the advice etc, but they would still get their punishment if they continue to comit the offence, not heeding the advice & warning.

Those who have "offended" through ignorance, momentary lack of concentration, or any other reason that might be accepted by a level headed Traffic cop ( if that's not an Oxymoron ), are far more likely to take notice of an initial warning and advice, and as a result not "re-offend" so everyone ends up happy

Coconutty is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 11:51
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Coconutty

I'm sorry, but I am not interested in playing on words. Your original point was misleading. You have staed exactly what I have, so why you are labouring the point, I have no idea.

Again, on your next point, I have no idea why you are labouring the point. I agree, warnings can be better, although why you mention traffic police, I have no idea, as the chances are, that the offence you are on about is more lighley to be dealt with by 'uniform' Police.

Of course I was canned as a child, did it stop me doing it again? No, it stopped me getting caught. Times may have moved on, but that doesn't in my opinion mean we should hold peoples hands for them. My point remains, you are allowed a drivers licence on the understanding you have read and understood a document, there no excuse for not knowing it therefore.

To say that because people are lazy or can't be bothered is an excuse, and therefore we should treat them differently is simply rediculous. I have every sympathy for someone who makes a simple mistake, and when stopped admits it, I have none whatsoever for those who do things because they can't be bothered to learn or retain information.
bjcc is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 12:17
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 59
Posts: 587
Monkey
'Do I think speeding is OK?'

Bit like 'Do you still beat your wife?' isn't it?

Setting speed limits is an impossible task. Some are too high some too low.

Some are good during certain times of the day- speed limits outside a school when the kids are there.- but totally bad at other times of the day- same road ouside a school but at 0430 saturday morning.

Speed limits fail to take account of road conditions- wet or dry? Foggy or not? etc etc.

Speed limits are outdated. 70 mph on motorways for example. 'Safe' and legal on the M1 in 1964 in your moggy minor??? Just as limiting now in your Audi Quattro??

Given that it's impossible to post a limit for all roads on a sign, that will cover all combinations of congestion, conditions, time etc I think that a flexible approach to enforcement is the only proper course of action.

30 in a 30 can be outrageously fast but is legal from a speeding point of view even tho it could be recklessly fast. Equally 90 on a motorway in good conditions is not an issue.

Truthfully tho, I have to say 'yes' to your q. I speed all the time and haven't had a bump for many years. So I MUST think it's ok. But I don't think it's always ok and there are plenty of limits that I stick to.

Cameras are crap because they are incapable of seeing whether your speed is appropriate and not excessive as a result of the good conditions or way out of line and deserving of censure, which could be the case even below the posted speed limit.
brain fade is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 12:35
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 735
Aww shucks - I love word games

I stated what I stated ,and because you didn't understand what I thought was quite clear, I explained further - call it labouring the point ( for you ) if you prefer

I'm glad that at least we agree on something - that warnings can be better - that's all I'm getting at really, and suggesting this as an alternative to cameras that have no discretion etc...

( It's actually more likely that you'd get a ticket from a PCSO or Traffic warden as all the "real" Police - Traffic or Uniformed - are bogged down with paperwork, or are working overtime looking after the prisoners in Police cells because the prisons are full ).

We are all entitled to our opinions and I respect yours - BUT - take my old Dad ( I wish someone would ) - He took his driving test donkeys years ago, well before the Road Traffic Act of 1972 ( as amended etc ), so he didn't have to prove that he knew that the National Speed limit was different depending what type of road he was on, or anything else that has changed since then, so your arguement falls down.
Soon he will be so old that he has to take a retest and he may well get himself a new copy of the Highway Code to swat up on, but Today - he probably doesn't know all the answers - and neither do I

It doesn't make him someone that can't be bothered to learn or retain information. He's just old

The Police have a thing called the Vehicle Rectification Scheme which is for just those kind of people that can't be bothered to check their lights, washer bottle, tyres etc etc etc before every journey ( like most of us ) - and it works exactly the way I am suggesting with an Advice & Warning letter.

If I "haven't bothered" ( been too busy etc. ) to top up my windscreen washer bottle and it runs out - I am GUILTY of an offence.
You might suggest I should be fined for not bothering to check, whereas I - being the generally law abiding decent kind of nut that I am - would prefer to be advised of my wrong doing, issued a warning and given the opportunity to put things right.

Now - before this turns into the Coconutty and bjcc show - has anyone else got any comments ?

Coconutty is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 12:55
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Retirement home..
Posts: 132
Yes,

bjcc,

Driving = Highway Code and driving test.

Spelling = Dictionary and spellcheck.

Clunk click every trip. You know it makes sense.
Skycop is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 13:22
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Clunk click every trip. You know it makes sense.
Yeah to about 80% of those who drive!

Traffic cops stop more now, with no seatbelts excuses , than when the slogan came out in the 1970's
Wheel Nuts is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 13:22
  #330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Coconutty

At risk of continuing the show, Traffic wardens can't issue FPN's for offences other than VEL, and parking regs. PCSO's may be able to, never took a great deal of interest in them.

Police officers can be seen enforcing traffic offences, I've just seen 2 doing red lights. As for filling prisons, thats not a police function, the courts decide who to imprison, not police. All police do is forfil their primary objective.

The vehicle rectification scheme invloves reporting the person for the offences, BUT, issuing them with a form which, if they have the defect fixed and the document endorced to prove that by an MOT tester, the offences are not procceded with. Not quite the same thing as you you suggest for Box Junction offences.

It should be remmebered of course that the cameras are not just going to be used for that offence, others include traffic lights and failing to comply offences and bus lanes.

While we have debated one of the range, there are others. I am sure you wont be suggesting that drivers were not aware that failing to stop at the solid white line at a red traffic light is an offence, not to mention, stupid.
bjcc is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 14:54
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 735
bj....


Point taken about the Wardens and PCSO's powers although I would add "NOT YET"

Filling prisons sure isn't a Police"person"s lot - and from what I hear in the news about the government failing to give them their annual pay award this year it's a good job too !

The Vehicle Rectification Scheme - "VRS" I think they like to call it, IS quite similar to what I am proposing : Along with the "Advice and Warning" letter I have suggested, you could include a "Notice" which states that not only will you be prosecuted if you commit any more similar offences, but you will also get done for the original one.

By NOT committing any more offences this would be analagous to taking your car to have the defect fixed - sort of "fixing" the bad driving
Cheers for the inspiration on that one

And of course you're absolutely correct - I am NOT going to suggest that most drivers are stupid enough to know that they should stop at the white line etc. ( but how many do you see every day that think it doesn't apply to them and they can stop five or 6 feet over it ? ), just like I'm sure YOU would never dare to suggest, being an EX-COPPER that
there is only one offence in life....Getting caught.
Would you

Some might interpret such a comment as saying "It's OK to commit any offence as long as you don't get caught."

Coconutty is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 14:56
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South East England
Posts: 305
A number of PPRuNers have commented on the police failing to enforce the law on the use of mobile phones whilst driving.

I am indebted to this morning's edition of The Times......

Motorist catches police chief talking on his mobile phone
By Steve Bird

IT WAS the grovelling apology no senior policeman would ever want to make. For seven miles Chief Superintendent Guy Darby was followed by a motorist who had spotted him driving while talking on his mobile phone.
After the officer parked outside his police station, Leon Donohue, the driver who spotted the offence, pulled up and demanded justice be done.
Yesterday Mr Darby, the area commander for East Surrey Police, issued a statement apologising for his “error of judgment” and, inevitably, admitted feeling somewhat embarrassed. The officer, who earns up to £80,000 a year, was reprimanded by his force and ordered to pay £30, the equivalent of the fixed penalty fine for the offence, to charity.
Mr Donohue, 39, a former soldier, had seen Mr Darby driving with one hand on the steering wheel and the other holding his mobile phone to his ear. He claims the officer cut in front of him at Deepdene roundabout, Dorking, while using the telephone.
“I saw he had a fluorescent police jacket on. I was not that bothered at first because I thought he must be on important police business,” said Mr Donohue, 39. “But as I followed him I realised he was talking on his mobile phone as he drove along. I was horrified because the weather conditions were hazardous. I tried to flash him to warn him but he didn’t see and I thought to myself, ‘This is getting ridiculous’.
Mr Donohue, a carpenter, said that he followed the car for seven miles until it turned into the police station at Reigate, Surrey. “I stopped and approached the policeman as he got out of his car,” he said. “But he was blasé to the point of rudeness. His reaction was as if to say, ‘I don’t know what you hope to achieve by this’.”
Mr Donohue, of Dorking, Surrey, said that he asked the officer for his name and told him he would be making a complaint to the Surrey force.
Mr Darby was later interviewed about using a mobile phone while driving, which has been banned since December 2003. He admitted the offence and was given a formal written warning that will remain on his file for a year.
The force was unable to issue a formal fine because the offence can be detected only by a police officer.
In a statement issued by Surrey Police, Mr Darby said: “If this incident highlights these dangers to anyone else, then it will be worth the embarrassment I am feeling. Answering my mobile while driving was a serious error of judgment.”
A spokesman for Surrey Police said: “When Mr Darby was confronted by the motorist he went straight into the police station and telephoned the Deputy Chief Constable to confess what he had done.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2416961.html

They don't like it up 'em
None of the above is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 15:21
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Coconutty

If you arn't caught, you can't be prosecuted, if you arn't prosecuted, you can't be found guilty.....Thus the only real offence is getting caught.

Simplistic, yes, but lets face it we all speed, we all have been known to cross stop lines at red or amber, we have not all been caught.
bjcc is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 15:51
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 735
If you arn't caught, you can't be prosecuted, if you arn't prosecuted, you can't be found guilty.....Thus the only real offence is getting caught.
... so if you don't get caught there's no "real offence" offence then

STOP PRESS
Police are still seeking the driver of a stolen vehicle who fled after he caused a fatal three-car crash Tuesday, killing one of the occupants of the car and injuring several others.
Your comments suggest that you think it is OK to commit an offence as long as you can get away with it - which smacks of a lack of morals and maybe even dishonesty.

I am releived that I have never been stopped by a Police Officer who thinks like that, and I don't want to continue a debate with someone who does.

Coconutty is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 16:01
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Coconutty

No, it does not smack of anything other than, if you arn't caught, you can't be found guilty. An obvious statement.

If you can sit and type that you have never committed any ofence, be that traffic or criminal, then feel free to sit on your moral high ground. I doubt, if you are honest, that you can. How do you know the Police officers who stopped you don't have that attitude. You don't. You have no idea what goes on in a police officers mind.

I'm not sure why you have produced a quote, which proves nothing whatsoever, other than Police are looking for someone. It does nothing to support your point. Police are still looking for Jack the Ripper(murder files don't close), it does not mean that anyone is dishonest, or morally wrong.
bjcc is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 16:21
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 735
Because YOU said, ( which you conveniently forgot to mention in your last post ) "The only real offence is getting caught" - Clearly this is NOT the case - any offence IS committed when it is committed - it is immaterial whether you "get caught" or not - the offence is still committed, which is why the Police are looking for someone

I take NO moral high ground and do not profess to be free of conviction I am simply pointing out that what you have said just does not add up - Are you really saying that all those years ago in Police college they taught you that no offence had been committed unless you caught the offender ?

Maybe there is a place for that kind of logic these days with the madness of the Home Office counting rules, and it sure would save a lot of paperwork, not to mention making the crime figures look good

This thread has crept enough now so get over what you said and let's move on

I'm off for a blast down the motorway now to cool off

Coconutty is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 16:24
  #337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Coconutty

If a vehicle is seen going through a red light, and the driver summonsed and aquitted, there cannot have been an offence. The same applies to speeding, and in somecases rape and murder.

A simple peice of logic.

Enjoy your blast on the motorway, but don't get caught.....
bjcc is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 16:53
  #338 (permalink)  
419
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 401
If a vehicle is seen going through a red light, and the driver summonsed and aquitted, there cannot have been an offence. The same applies to speeding, and in somecases rape and murder.
A simple peice of logic.
A woman is raped and murdered.
A man is arrested, summonsed and aquitted. There cannot have been an offence.
Therefore, the woman was not raped and murdered, and is still infact alive and well.
A simple piece of logic.

What is the difference between the 2 scenes above?
NONE!

Last edited by 419; 23rd Oct 2006 at 17:45.
419 is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 17:30
  #339 (permalink)  
Recidivist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,239
That white line

Getting on for 40 years ago, I rear ended a Morris Minor at some traffic lights.

The driver was over and clear of the white line when the lights changed to amber. She braked hard and I was unable to avoid a collision as I did not anticipate her action.

Regardless of blame, I was told, when pointing out the position of her car, "the white line is only there for guidance".

Has this changed?
frostbite is offline  
Old 23rd Oct 2006, 17:34
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 735
bjcc - You are now talking just a load of old twaddle !

I just did 85 on the MPH on the motorway ( 'Cos it wasn't the M25 ) and did not get caught - I DID commit an offence of speeding ( I might regret saying that when the postman arrives )

Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act, 2003 defines Rape thus :
A person (A) commits an offence if-
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

So that's it - offence committed - doesn't matter whether the offender gets arrested, summonsed, convicted, hung, drawn or quartered - the offence has been committed.

There is NOTHING in the Act that states if a person is arrested and subsequently acquitted the offence is deemed never to have been committed.

The victim has been raped, it's just that the crime has not been solved.
The person who committed the offence might have been found Not Guilty for any number of reasons.
Just because they are found Not Guilty does NOT mean that they did not commit the offence.

Or in "simple logic" terms - it is an offence to rape someone. Full stop.
Whether that person subsequently gets convicted or not is irrelevant.



ps - Frostbite - YES - According to a quick bit of research you have to stop before the line, and if it's not visible you have to stop before reaching the first traffic signal post !
Coconutty is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.