Bollocks

[Desmo]

I'd only try and get off it if I thought it was extremely unfair. I've got a NIP come through for speeding on the motorway. It's a fair cop so I'll take the fine and points.

[Matblack]

Oh well I expect I'll burn in hell taunted by bunny and lambkins killed by carefull drivers who just happened to exceed the limit :/

MB

[mejinks]

Matt, you should know by now that if you hit a child at 30, they wouldn't die, but at the horrendous speed you were doing, they would end up a mangled mess and definitely dead.


/sarcasm

[Garp]

Originally Posted by Matblack

I'd be happy to pay a fine but I don't want the points it has a nasty effect on insurance although as I have just had the only three points I have ever had on my licence expire for totting it wouldn't be the end of the world. I drive to the current conditions of the road and I drive safely and carefully, I do speed but only when it is safe to do so, that road looked like a 40 to me, it was wide and clear and the conditions were conducive with the speed I was going.

By your opinion that was the safe speed of the road. Who's to say you're a good judge of the road? I'm not criticising your driving at all, I'm putting the question forward. Almost everyone thinks they're a good driver, yet look at the number of accidents caused by unsafe driving, tailgating, speeding etc. etc. I thought I was a reasonable judge of the road, but certain recent incidents have forced me to re-consider this.
One of the reasons speed restrictions are in place is precisely because people are not capable of judging safe speeds for roads, and may not be aware of adverse conditions.
There is a section just as you enter Haywards Heath from Balcombe (a major route in) where the road curves uphill. Up until two years ago that was originally still national limit, and it was very easy to see why. Its a nice wide enough road, albeit with that curve uphill. Its a fairly gentle enough curve too. Originally the only reason anyone would ever have braked for it would be if they were local to the area and happened to know you went into a 30 just after the brow. There are few houses around until after the brow of the hill, now cars parked, and so no reason to be watching out for people running into the road or stepping out from behind an obstruction. Two years ago they moved that 30 restriction about 50 further forwards, putting at at the bottom of that section of hill. The main reason why was that due to a quirk of the shaping of the hill, fuel residues would routinely build up; invisibly. Anyone with any judgement of the road, even those who have good judgement wouldn't know and would judge that road as safe at 50 - 60. I would warrant that you'd judge it safely at 50 - 60, despite the clear 30mph sign.
What did used to happen on a frequent basis would be that someone would hit that invisible patch of fuel at 60 and flip their cars. My parents have had to help at such an incident once that I remember, and we've all seen the remains being carted away more times than I'd want to remember.
Since the limit sign has gone in back that little extra distance people are usually hitting that hill at around 40 and are making it through safely for the most part. Still some people push it to 50 and flip their cars though. They've even tried to reshape the road at one stage to stop the buildup but to no avail. Add in even the slightest bit of damp weather, much like we had on NYE and it gets worse there.
There are too many factors that affect a road condition and a lot of them are not apparent to a driver. People that ride motorbikes are often more clued up on things that us car drivers miss, but they still miss stuff.
Limits are in place for a good reason most of the time, its best to take their judgement for it, especially when driving on roads that you're not familiar with the quirks of.

Whilst I'll agree with you from the perspective of wanting the money to go into the right pot, I'm a little baffled by the bit about insurance. You've been caught speeding, which is proven to be a significant factor in the cost of accidents. Your insurance company is the one that'll have to pay out if you do have an accident. So why kick off about paying higher premiums? You did the speed, you have to accept there are certain consequences of doing such things, and one of those is higher premiums.

[8 I3ALL]

matt 3 points should not increase your insurance

When i was hunting for insurance a few years back when i had 3 points i tried lots of companies first i tried it with the points then with out and it made no difference

[Piggymon]

Agree with Mark, I have *counts* 9 points on mine and I can honestly say I haven't noticed an increase in my insurance

[Matblack]

Originally Posted by Garp

By your opinion that was the safe speed of the road. Who's to say you're a good judge of the road? I'm not criticising your driving at all, I'm putting the question forward. Almost everyone thinks they're a good driver, yet look at the number of accidents caused by unsafe driving, tailgating, speeding etc. etc. I thought I was a reasonable judge of the road, but certain recent incidents have forced me to re-consider this.
One of the reasons speed restrictions are in place is precisely because people are not capable of judging safe speeds for roads, and may not be aware of adverse conditions.
There is a section just as you enter Haywards Heath from Balcombe (a major route in) where the road curves uphill. Up until two years ago that was originally still national limit, and it was very easy to see why. Its a nice wide enough road, albeit with that curve uphill. Its a fairly gentle enough curve too. Originally the only reason anyone would ever have braked for it would be if they were local to the area and happened to know you went into a 30 just after the brow. There are few houses around until after the brow of the hill, now cars parked, and so no reason to be watching out for people running into the road or stepping out from behind an obstruction. Two years ago they moved that 30 restriction about 50 further forwards, putting at at the bottom of that section of hill. The main reason why was that due to a quirk of the shaping of the hill, fuel residues would routinely build up; invisibly. Anyone with any judgement of the road, even those who have good judgement wouldn't know and would judge that road as safe at 50 - 60. I would warrant that you'd judge it safely at 50 - 60, despite the clear 30mph sign.
What did used to happen on a frequent basis would be that someone would hit that invisible patch of fuel at 60 and flip their cars. My parents have had to help at such an incident once that I remember, and we've all seen the remains being carted away more times than I'd want to remember.
Since the limit sign has gone in back that little extra distance people are usually hitting that hill at around 40 and are making it through safely for the most part. Still some people push it to 50 and flip their cars though. They've even tried to reshape the road at one stage to stop the buildup but to no avail. Add in even the slightest bit of damp weather, much like we had on NYE and it gets worse there.
There are too many factors that affect a road condition and a lot of them are not apparent to a driver. People that ride motorbikes are often more clued up on things that us car drivers miss, but they still miss stuff.
Limits are in place for a good reason most of the time, its best to take their judgement for it, especially when driving on roads that you're not familiar with the quirks of.

Whilst I'll agree with you from the perspective of wanting the money to go into the right pot, I'm a little baffled by the bit about insurance. You've been caught speeding, which is proven to be a significant factor in the cost of accidents. Your insurance company is the one that'll have to pay out if you do have an accident. So why kick off about paying higher premiums? You did the speed, you have to accept there are certain consequences of doing such things, and one of those is higher premiums.

Eh?

I was going to compose a long post but meh :/

Thanks for your support to those who offered it, this is obviously not the place to discuss this, I'd rather not be held up as a criminal mastermind who kills kidywinks and lambkins for fun.

Those people who know the area are aware that what I was doing wasn't particularly dangerous especially when the roads are deserted and your car is as comunicative as the one I drive, I don't even want to start discussing the ins and outs of insurance, I have 6 points in the last 4 years and in my experience with the insurance company I use when I got my first 3 it did cost me more I can only assume that 6 will have even more effect.

MB

[Will]

I wish you all the best and hope it doesn't affect you too badly.

Let all the tree hugging dolphin saving hippies keep their ignorant views - let the loud pedal do all the talking

[Desmo]

Originally Posted by Matblack

I'd rather not be held up as a criminal mastermind who kills kidywinks and lambkins for fun.

I don't think anybody is saying that mate

I can't see any reason for the camera where it is. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's the same one my old man got done by last year. He got onto the camera partnership and found out about the accident records. By todays rulings on amount of accidents etc, meaning that cameras can be installed, it shouldn't actually be there. But then the camera partnership said that if they remove it and accidents then happen, they get another bollocking, so they're in a lose/lose situation on that one.

I'm on your side Matt, in that I hate speed cameras and wish there were more actual police on the roads to enforce dangerous driving. But if I get a speeding ticket then I'll take it on the chin.

[Matblack]

Open again, following the request of a member.

Sorry if I am defensive this probably wasn't the best place to post, I didn't realise we had quite so many people here who were so law abiding, but it just goes to show.

Yes I break the speed limits I don't do it habitually but I do have a very good understanding of road conditions and I drive very defensively.

I believe that the camera I was caught by was in an area will an unreasonably low speed limit and that makes me unhappy. The fact I haven't had a major road accident and have only ever had one speeding ticket in my eyes makes me one of two things; a good driver who only speeds when it is safe to do so and consiquently in areas the police don't continiously monitor or a very very lucky bad driver.

Anyway, I should never have posted this but as I have been told I was wrong (and other things) to close it then I will leave it to reach its natural conclusion

MB