Driver risks losing licence for repeatedly breaking 20mph limit

Zebulebu wrote:

"I do respect the 20mph limit" Course you do sweetheart - by repeatedly exceeding it, and being caught doing it and penalised for doing it..

I must say that line is a classic. It's like a rapist saying he respects women's rights.

How stupid is she though seeing as she got caught 3 times? Most people that get caught didn't see the cameras quick enough but still saw them. She must totally clueless and best removed from the roads - god knows what else she won't see, like kids and stuff that 20 zones are for.

CygnusX1 wrote:

Ms Allen wrote:

“I do respect the 20 mph limit but no one drives at that speed. It’s so hard to drive at that speed."

Lift your right foot slightly off the accelerator until the needle on the speedo is hovering on/below the "20" on the dial. See? Not that hard really!

And whilst you are doing that you are not looking at the road. It takes about 2 seconds to check your speedometer and at 20mph thats about 50 feet of action you didn't see. It's just a matter of time before the defense says he had to check his speedometer and whilst doing that he didn't see the cyclist.

Waiting for the abuse as usual but then who cares about the facts?

OldMixte wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

Ms Allen wrote:

“I do respect the 20 mph limit but no one drives at that speed. It’s so hard to drive at that speed."

Lift your right foot slightly off the accelerator until the needle on the speedo is hovering on/below the "20" on the dial. See? Not that hard really!

And whilst you are doing that you are not looking at the road. It takes about 2 seconds to check your speedometer and at 20mph thats about 50 feet of action you didn't see. It's just a matter of time before the defense says he had to check his speedometer and whilst doing that he didn't see the cyclist.

Waiting for the abuse as usual but then who cares about the facts?

Does it bollocks, in any case your checking speed regularly, if you can't check your speed and continually have control/be aware of everything around you then you shouldn't be on the roads, period.

OldMixte wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

Ms Allen wrote:

“I do respect the 20 mph limit but no one drives at that speed. It’s so hard to drive at that speed."

Lift your right foot slightly off the accelerator until the needle on the speedo is hovering on/below the "20" on the dial. See? Not that hard really!

And whilst you are doing that you are not looking at the road. It takes about 2 seconds to check your speedometer and at 20mph thats about 50 feet of action you didn't see. It's just a matter of time before the defense says he had to check his speedometer and whilst doing that he didn't see the cyclist.

Waiting for the abuse as usual but then who cares about the facts?

That maybe so, but if your vision is so poor that you can only see 50 feet ahead, I suggest that your licence is handed in at the first opportunity.

Facts are that you should have enough information from the view ahead in order to make a quick glance at the speedo.

She really is a special kind of stupid and selfish and really shouldn't be on the road.

OldMixte wrote:

And whilst you are doing that you are not looking at the road. It takes about 2 seconds to check your speedometer and at 20mph thats about 50 feet of action you didn't see. It's just a matter of time before the defense says he had to check his speedometer and whilst doing that he didn't see the cyclist.

Waiting for the abuse as usual but then who cares about the facts?

Who cares about the facts?  Not you, clearly.

OldMixte wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

Ms Allen wrote:

“I do respect the 20 mph limit but no one drives at that speed. It’s so hard to drive at that speed."

Lift your right foot slightly off the accelerator until the needle on the speedo is hovering on/below the "20" on the dial. See? Not that hard really!

And whilst you are doing that you are not looking at the road. It takes about 2 seconds to check your speedometer and at 20mph thats about 50 feet of action you didn't see. It's just a matter of time before the defense says he had to check his speedometer and whilst doing that he didn't see the cyclist.

Waiting for the abuse as usual but then who cares about the facts?

No abuse, but if you can't get a good idea of your speed from outside cues like engine tone and the speed at which the surroundings are coming towards you and going past you, maybe you should think about giving up driving.  I regularly hop off the bike and straight into the car whilst still in lycra to go and pick up the missus at the station.  As I'm driving through ___________, which is a 20 limit, I hardly ever need to look at the speedometer, because I can guage my speed with the aforementioned cues.  When I do look, I am rarely out by more than 1 or 2 mph.

OldMixte wrote:

And whilst you are doing that you are not looking at the road. It takes about 2 seconds to check your speedometer and at 20mph thats about 50 feet of action you didn't see. It's just a matter of time before the defense says he had to check his speedometer and whilst doing that he didn't see the cyclist.

Waiting for the abuse as usual but then who cares about the facts?

So please tell me how far you travel when checking your speed at 30mph, 40mph, 50mph, 60mph?  After all, whatever the limit is, you have to check your speed occasionally, or does this somehow magically apply only to 20mph limits?

By using your "logic" any speed limit increases risk because drivers have to check their speed.

I'd like to think of some suitable abuse, but nothing I can think of sums up your complete lack of sense in a snappy, witty way, so consider yourself abused in whatever way offends you most.

burtthebike wrote:

OldMixte wrote:

And whilst you are doing that you are not looking at the road. It takes about 2 seconds to check your speedometer and at 20mph thats about 50 feet of action you didn't see. It's just a matter of time before the defense says he had to check his speedometer and whilst doing that he didn't see the cyclist.

Waiting for the abuse as usual but then who cares about the facts?

So please tell me how far you travel when checking your speed at 30mph, 40mph, 50mph, 60mph?  After all, whatever the limit is, you have to check your speed occasionally, or does this somehow magically apply only to 20mph limits?

By using your "logic" any speed limit increases risk because drivers have to check their speed.

I'd like to think of some suitable abuse, but nothing I can think of sums up your complete lack of sense in a snappy, witty way, so consider yourself abused in whatever way offends you most.

I use the satnav that warns me, and if you care to check the research you will find the safest speed for any road is the 85th percentile not some artificial limit imposed because it seems the right thing to do.

Oh dear Research again, so boring.

OldMixte wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

OldMixte wrote:

And whilst you are doing that you are not looking at the road. It takes about 2 seconds to check your speedometer and at 20mph thats about 50 feet of action you didn't see. It's just a matter of time before the defense says he had to check his speedometer and whilst doing that he didn't see the cyclist.

Waiting for the abuse as usual but then who cares about the facts?

So please tell me how far you travel when checking your speed at 30mph, 40mph, 50mph, 60mph?  After all, whatever the limit is, you have to check your speed occasionally, or does this somehow magically apply only to 20mph limits?

By using your "logic" any speed limit increases risk because drivers have to check their speed.

I'd like to think of some suitable abuse, but nothing I can think of sums up your complete lack of sense in a snappy, witty way, so consider yourself abused in whatever way offends you most.

I use the satnav that warns me, and if you care to check the research you will find the safest speed for any road is the 85th percentile not some artificial limit imposed because it seems the right thing to do.

Oh dear Research again, so boring.

Are you the same guy who came out with this nonsense last time round?   Trying again?  If you check the research you'll find your claim is twaddle.  It's just something some US highway engineers made up.   There's no reason why non-drivers should have to accept the jdugement of drivers as to what speed is 'safe'.  85% of drivers are no more an authority than one driver.  You don't get to make that decision unilaterally.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

OldMixte wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

OldMixte wrote:

And whilst you are doing that you are not looking at the road. It takes about 2 seconds to check your speedometer and at 20mph thats about 50 feet of action you didn't see. It's just a matter of time before the defense says he had to check his speedometer and whilst doing that he didn't see the cyclist.

Waiting for the abuse as usual but then who cares about the facts?

So please tell me how far you travel when checking your speed at 30mph, 40mph, 50mph, 60mph?  After all, whatever the limit is, you have to check your speed occasionally, or does this somehow magically apply only to 20mph limits?

By using your "logic" any speed limit increases risk because drivers have to check their speed.

I'd like to think of some suitable abuse, but nothing I can think of sums up your complete lack of sense in a snappy, witty way, so consider yourself abused in whatever way offends you most.

I use the satnav that warns me, and if you care to check the research you will find the safest speed for any road is the 85th percentile not some artificial limit imposed because it seems the right thing to do.

Oh dear Research again, so boring.

Are you the same guy who came out with this nonsense last time round?   Trying again?  If you check the research you'll find your claim is twaddle.  It's just something some US highway engineers made up.   There's no reason why non-drivers should have to accept the jdugement of drivers as to what speed is 'safe'.  85% of drivers are no more an authority than one driver.  You don't get to make that decision unilaterally.

"It's just something some US highway engineers made up.  "

Now why would they make that up, ever heard of Pareto?

OldMixte wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

Ms Allen wrote:

“I do respect the 20 mph limit but no one drives at that speed. It’s so hard to drive at that speed."

Lift your right foot slightly off the accelerator until the needle on the speedo is hovering on/below the "20" on the dial. See? Not that hard really!

And whilst you are doing that you are not looking at the road. It takes about 2 seconds to check your speedometer and at 20mph thats about 50 feet of action you didn't see. It's just a matter of time before the defense says he had to check his speedometer and whilst doing that he didn't see the cyclist.

Waiting for the abuse as usual but then who cares about the facts?

Congratulations you've just made an excuse case for driving at 20.
Let's assume everything you say is true.

So if you drive at 30 and check your speed that would be 75 feet you 'didnt see'.

So definitely drive at 20.

fenix wrote:

OldMixte wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

Ms Allen wrote:

“I do respect the 20 mph limit but no one drives at that speed. It’s so hard to drive at that speed."

Lift your right foot slightly off the accelerator until the needle on the speedo is hovering on/below the "20" on the dial. See? Not that hard really!

And whilst you are doing that you are not looking at the road. It takes about 2 seconds to check your speedometer and at 20mph thats about 50 feet of action you didn't see. It's just a matter of time before the defense says he had to check his speedometer and whilst doing that he didn't see the cyclist.

Waiting for the abuse as usual but then who cares about the facts?

Congratulations you've just made an excuse case for driving at 20. Let's assume everything you say is true. So if you drive at 30 and check your speed that would be 75 feet you 'didnt see'. So definitely drive at 20.

So why not introduce the 4mph limit and the man in the red flag? Speed vs safety is always a compromise, the faster you go the worst the impact, pure physics, so if you follow your argument the motorways should all travel at 5 mph? So should cyclists, they hurt when they hit someone.