Speed cameras & actual speed

In

I think vehicle speedos are set to be 10% high, so if your mate was done for
35 his speedo was probably reading closer to 40.

Plods answer, at least in North Wales, is the limit is just that a limit not
a target, so they say drive at 25 then if you drift a couple of mph you'll
still be under.

I think the ACPO decided this is purely a recommendation so forces are free
to decide if there's any leeway. I have a feeling here in Brunstromia he
announced there is no leeway so 30.5 mph is a bust. ICBW of course.

It's useless tat forget it, spend the money on a detector or just ride more
attentively, or just accept it as part of modern motoring.

Yep

 

Clearly I can if I'm responding to you.

 

Pedant! I see them from a mile away as it is very easy to spot, unless
you are not concentrating. Lets be honest, they do stand out rather.

--


'Got a letter from the government the other day, opened it up it said
that they where suckers....'

Nige

Land Rover Discovery II (2001)
Honda CBR900RR Fireblade (1997)

 

You'd be buggered round Birmingham then. There are several Volvos,
one of which is driven by a rather attractive WPC my brother was
seeing. There is absolutely nothing to give them away externally.
You'd only know by seeing the driver in uniform.

 

There is nothing round here,apart from a few have tracker aerials. Most
are too clean & are the wrong type of motor if you know what I mean.

They use Vectras on the A roads, also Subarus, but you can tell them a
mile away. Motorways are nearly always Vulvas.

I don't mind as i don't hoon around town. I may get a tad excited on
the blade on a nice country lane i know very well. But i wouldn't class
myself as any kind of speeder.

My point was that anyone can just drift over by 5 or 10 mph quite
easily without any real thought. I think some of the fuckwitys that see
the cameras cause more danger than folk doing 5mph more than the
speedo. Slamming on & doing fucking 20.


--


'Got a letter from the government the other day, opened it up it said
that they where suckers....'

Nige

Land Rover Discovery II (2001)
Honda CBR900RR Fireblade (1997)

 

No, they are *not*. Unless you know lots of pedestrians who regularly
walk on motorways.

You're not very bright, are you?

In fact, you're an objectionable, as well as thick, ****.

 

In

.... in fact offer to assist in its creation if said Mother is a bit fit

 

In

Darwinism in action ... little fucker should learn not to run out into
traffic, and I'm not convinced by this 5 mph difference making such a
difference to the survival stats, heck 5mph is just over a good walking
speed so I fail to see how it would make *that* much difference.

 

It's usually "hoist". Snot modern English, see? The "petard" gives it
away.

 

And it only applies to engineers, according to Shakespeare.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing her in uniform. Any pics?

 

Precisely.

 

I sometimes get in that zone. Especially at traffic lights, get to the front,
quick flick, and you're all by yourself for a while. Very different dynamics
to the cage.

 

In which case I sit corrected. Sorry Bruce.

 

Wasn't there a anti tank weapon called a Petard in WW2?

--


'Got a letter from the government the other day, opened it up it said
that they where suckers....'

Nige

Land Rover Discovery II (2001)
Honda CBR900RR Fireblade (1997)

 

No. It was a REME weapon mounted on a Churchill tank.

BFO mortar.

From Wiki...

"AVRE - Armoured Vehicle, Royal Engineers was a Churchill tank adapted
to attack German defensive fortifications. The crew included two Royal
Engineers who could easily leave and enter the tank through its side
hatches. The AVRE had the main gun replaced by a Petard Spigot Mortar.
This fired a forty pound (18 kg) HE-filled projectile (nicknamed the
Flying Dustbin) 150 yards (137 metres). The "Dustbin" could destroy
concrete obstacles such as roadblocks and bunkers. This weapon was
unusual in that it had to be reloaded externally - by opening a hatch
and sliding a round into the mortar tube from the hull."
--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/CBX1000Z
|_\_____/_| ..89520../..24457.../..31896.
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 WG*
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 PM#5
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17 IbB#4 YTC#4 two#11
'^' RBR Clues: 10 Pts:0180 Miles:0653

 

Well yes, sounds like a reasonable defence to me. What's your point?

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Grief.

I fail to see how anyone can claim this with 100% certainty.

 

I wonder if the North Wales test examiners are different to all the others
in the UK then as the last three driving/riding tests and the associated
training I've taken in the last 6 years or so have all stressed that if you
aren't within a few (less than 5) mph of the limit providing the road
conditions are favourable you will be marked down for this. So they teach
you to drive to the limit and then tell you it's wrong to do so.

 

.... but the child dies in either case.

seriously though, if it's just about the probabilities, then look at the
likelihood of hitting a random moving target on the road if you're in an
hgv versus if you're on a bike. you just haven't got the width on the bike,
plus you're going to be doing everything you can to avoid a collision
because you're going down the road if it happens - no such motivation exists
for the cager.

we all understand why the speed limit for hgvs or caravans might be lower
than the norm, why would the speed limit for bikes not therefore be higher
using the same logic?