104 on the motorway.

  • Thread starter Thread starter DM
  • Start date Start date
Break the law take the hit, them's the rules even if sometimes the rules stink. Empty road, 3am in the morning my car could cruise with total safety at 140mph. Sadly it don't work that way, shame really.
 
hurfdurf said:
That's a rather large assumption :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not really, if you drive a £12,000 Vectra VXR with a 2.8 litre V6 Turbocharged engine then you should not be able to plead hardship when given a speeding fine with perhaps the same level of sympathy as a single mother of two driving a £500 Micra to the only job she could find, which is what I presume the means testing thing was designed to cater for.

After all, loading up your outgoings to that level is personal choice and therefore shouldnt result in a reduced speeding fine!
 
[TW]Fox;17010570 said:
Not really, if you drive a £12,000 Vectra VXR with a 2.8 litre V6 Turbocharged engine then you should not be able to plead hardship when given a speeding fine with perhaps the same level of sympathy as a single mother of two driving a £500 Micra to the only job she could find, which is what I presume the means testing thing was designed to cater for.

After all, loading up your outgoings to that level is personal choice and therefore shouldnt result in a reduced speeding fine!
Click to expand...


I believe its worked out on what you have left every week, after all outgoings.

So if Mr Lol had his mortgage etc taken out plus whatever else, maybe they take that into account.
 
Well I'm going to and finance a brand new M3 then so I'm left with £50 a month. Then I can drive it up and down Motorways at 100mph+ picking up 10 quid fines because of what I 'have left' even though my lack of spare cash was entirely my choice as a result of spanking a load of cash on a car.
 
[TW]Fox;17010594 said:
Well I'm going to and finance a brand new M3 then so I'm left with £50 a month. Then I can drive it up and down Motorways at 100mph+ picking up 10 quid fines because of what I 'have left' even though my lack of spare cash was entirely my choice as a result of spanking a load of cash on a car.
Click to expand...
As you don't have any children (i.e. you are not fiscally responsible for innocent parties), you will likely receive a larger fine, even if you had no spare money at the end of each month.
 
I can see what Fox is saying, but what's the alternative, give people fines they cant pay?
 
PMKeates said:
As you don't have any children (i.e. you are not fiscally responsible for innocent parties), you will likely receive a larger fine, even if you had no spare money at the end of each month.
Click to expand...

Thats cool, i'll make some kids as well.

Remember, the government are responsible for easing the burden of your life choices.

Choose to speed when you know that paying a £400 fine would be a real drain on your finances? Thats ok, we'll reduce the fine for you, and subsidise it by charging somebody else who did exactly the same crime 4 times more.

Thats way better than having people so scared of getting a huge fine that they don't speed in the first place, right?

I never, ever do 100mph+ on the Motorway. Before you think this is a holier than thou, read on.

Why not? My car is totally safe at 100mph+ on the Motorway. It's stable, refined, has the latest safety systems. I can afford to pay for the extra petrol it uses. I'd get home quicker with no real detriment to my safety. It would cut serious time off my regular long journeys up the M5. But I never do it.

Why?

Because if I did, I'd get hit with a massive fine that I really, really, really do not want.

I am scared of the large fine I would get, so it is something i never, ever do. It acts as a detterent to me.
 
Last edited:
I think that we ALL speed at some point or another, we know it, whether it is right or wrong..... i think that what most drivers see is the way that the police and government see the motorist as a cash machine that they can keep dipping into, bans and suspensions are in total reducing, as they know the average motorist is likely to speed again, be it accidental or not, so return business for them as far as income is concerned, the problem is removing the seriously dangerous from the equation, the road is NOT a playground, and as pedestrians have the right of way, sometimes you need to stop them wandering onto the road, that is why many cities are now putting railings around roads in public areas.

I watched one of those police reality shows a few months back, the copper stopped someone that was a drug addict, it was obvious, he was tripping his t*ts off ... and after giving him a warning about something he let him drive off ... wtf... stoner head there will likely run someones family over, but the copper see's fit to let him go !
 
[TW]Fox;17010646 said:
Thats cool, i'll make some kids as well.

Remember, the government are responsible for easing the burden of your life choices.

Choose to speed when you know that paying a £400 fine would be a real drain on your finances? Thats ok, we'll reduce the fine for you, and subsidise it by charging somebody else who did exactly the same crime 4 times more.

Thats way better than having people so scared of getting a huge fine that they don't speed in the first place, right?

I never, ever do 100mph+ on the Motorway. Before you think this is a holier than thou, read on.

Why not? My car is totally safe at 100mph+ on the Motorway. It's stable, refined, has the latest safety systems. I can afford to pay for the extra petrol it uses. I'd get home quicker with no real detriment to my safety. It would cut serious time off my regular long journeys up the M5. But I never do it.

Why?

Because if I did, I'd get hit with a massive fine that I really, really, really do not want.

I am scared of the large fine I would get, so it is something i never, ever do. It acts as a detterent to me.
Click to expand...

So you have never taken your 530i above 100mph?
 
Concorde Rules said:
To be honest looking out for what cars are cops is getting beyond possible now.

Recently seen them in Fords, VWs, BMWs, Lexus, Mercedes, Evos, Subarus, Volvos, list goes on and on!
Click to expand...

...Spotted a grey Honda Accord estate thingy, 05 plate, complete with dent in tailgate.

covert light installation and no real distinguishing features made it completely missable as an undercover cop cruiser.

Was pulling over 3 lads in a green Laguna, hence the lights flashing etc, otherwise I wouldn't have even known what it was.

We need more of these I reckon.
 
I think they should all be wrapped in that Dyno-Rod orange colour.
 
MrLOL said:
you need a very sympathetic magistrate to not get banned for 110 if you've no reason to keep your license.
Click to expand...

or just one that understands 100 on an empty motorway is perfectly safe and you were not endangering yourself or anyone else, it does actually go a long way, though if the magistrate is a dick your screwed ^^
 
high visibility is a good argument for deterrent ... visible presence and all that... speed camera's are sign posted (albeit like 20 miles before sometimes) and painted bright yellow or reflective
 
ubersonic said:
or just one that understands 100 on an empty motorway is perfectly safe and you were not endangering yourself or anyone else
Click to expand...
Quite. It's interesting that the people you see supporting the "speed kills" argument often have a vested interest in it being used. I saw a woman on TV the other day who very vehemently stated that people would die because speed camera funding was cut. Then her name came up on a banner, and she worked for the speed camera trust that was having the funding cut.

If you speak to many people that work in automotive safety, they will tell you they are responsible for the reductions in road deaths, and cite studies to show that. Again, a conflict of interest.

However, automotive safety is tangible. It's a seatbelt. It's an airbag. It's ABS. It's passenger cells. It's electronic stability systems. Real things that everyone can see the safety benefits of. "Speed kills" is a game of statistics. A road safety manager gives you statistics that say "speed kills", an engineer can show you how the technology saves lives.

The number of road deaths is reducing in spite of cars being ever more powerful, there being ever more traffic on the roads, and arguably people driving faster. Take the Manchester meet accident as an example: a Civic Type-R, a performance-oriented car built on an everyday car platform, hit the verge so fast it flipped mid-air and landed off the road. In a performance-oriented car built on an everyday platform in 1970, say a Mk1 Escort RS, I dare say the driver wouldn't be giving the "thumbs up" to the camera 5 minutes after.
 
Last edited:
and statistics are always open to manipulation, this is from way back in 2006
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cord-doubt-watchdog-questions-statistics.html

And this is the ONLY thing that drives politicians
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/bargai...le.html?in_article_id=508489&in_page_id=53949

Then there is this kind of stupidity... we are in the middle of a huge recession.... and they can afford this ? get real ......it's no wonder this country is broke !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267278/New-speed-cameras-trap-motorists-space-trial-UK.html

They should try using those to catch criminals, or protect communities from burglaries, which in some areas is just considered by the police as a fact of life if you live in that area.... not good enough


The first post here also makes for interesting reading
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21116
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom