Re: Motorway Speed Limits Revisited : Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:27 am  

LGJM has finally lost it, and is rambling. A convenient point to exit his silliness as there's really nothing to add.

Re: Motorway Speed Limits Revisited : Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:01 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: as there's really nothing to add. Except this: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... iving/#a31 Driving without reasonable consideration The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988. The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention. A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users. Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC Charging Practice This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving: flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way; misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers; unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane; unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause; driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians; driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed; driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers. Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates/youth court: R v Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: as there's really nothing to add. Except this: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road ... iving/#a31 Driving without reasonable consideration The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988. The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention. A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users. Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC Charging Practice This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving: flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way; misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers; unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane; unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause; driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians; driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed; driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers. Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates/youth court: R v Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340.

Re: Motorway Speed Limits Revisited : Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:10 pm  

If you genuinely think that driving at 30 mph along a winding country road is, or could ever amount to, a criminal offence of inconsiderate driving, then you are comprehensively befuddled. It's a monumentally stupid suggestion, which could only be made by someone with not the first clue about driving offences.

Re: Motorway Speed Limits Revisited : Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:38 pm  

No one had mentioned winding country roads when you first waded into the argument. Therefore it is you who is clueless.

Re: Motorway Speed Limits Revisited : Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:58 pm  

LF13 wrote:

No one had mentioned winding country roads when you first waded into the argument. Therefore it is you who is clueless.

How subjective do you think the relevant part you quoted is?

What constitutes "unnecessarily slow driving"?

Re: Motorway Speed Limits Revisited : Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:18 pm  

LF13 wrote:

No one had mentioned winding country roads when you first waded into the argument. Therefore it is you who is clueless.

Is that right?

So, the post that I actually responded to that stated said what. exactly? Let' see, shall we? :

christopher wrote:

Agreed, I actually drive mine sensibly as it would cost me a fortune if I was heavy footed. I very rarely speed but I do like a nice blast on a country B road but don't venture over 60 much as it feels fast enough on a winding road anyway.

Although one of my biggest annoyances is people driving at 30 in a 60 when the road and conditions mean that 50-60 is perfectly safe.

Well, I never. Perhaps you could look at it again, and come back any time you like (after you've picked up your bollock) to see if you can make an even bigger prat of yourself, as it is amusing.

I do hope your powers of observation when driving are better than when reading.

Re: Motorway Speed Limits Revisited : Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:35 pm  

I was thinking of this thread yesterday while driving and realised that I can see in my wing mirrors whilst looking directly ahead. Not that I could give it my full attention but when you think about it you can actually see far more than you realise you can (if that makes any sense).

Re: Motorway Speed Limits Revisited : Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:23 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

I was thinking of this thread yesterday while driving and realised that I can see in my wing mirrors whilst looking directly ahead. Not that I could give it my full attention but when you think about it you can actually see far more than you realise you can (if that makes any sense).

While concentrating on an object directly in front of you, you should have a field of vision of almost 180 degrees especially if the object on the periphery is moving.

Re: Motorway Speed Limits Revisited : Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:34 pm  

wigan_rlfc wrote:

I was thinking of this thread yesterday while driving and realised that I can see in my wing mirrors whilst looking directly ahead. Not that I could give it my full attention but when you think about it you can actually see far more than you realise you can (if that makes any sense).

Having something in your field of vision doesn't mean you are *SEEING* something. If a terrible driver refuses to look in their mirrors to actually see what is driving around them then they aren't going to know what's around them. Having the wide field of vision doesn't make up for the awful practice of not looking in your mirrors often.

A more pertinent experiment would be to properly look at a building on every road you drive on. The same level of looking that you'd give to the beautiful scenes that FA would drop from 60mph to 30 for. Do that on each road you drive on and I think you'll quickly realise that it is terrible driving, and driving a car deserves more attention than allowing your gaze to be focused on something else for vital seconds.

Do I think most people can get away with doing that for a long time before having an accident? Yes. I think you can do it and get away with it. But then people have driven while drunk for years before getting busted for it. Thousands of idiots will use their mobile to talk and text and not cause an accident. But that doesn't mean you should do it.

I think most guys on here will have checked out some hottie while moving in city traffic and had to drop anchor because the cars had stopped in front of them. There might even be a couple of people who have gone into the back of someone after doing it.

Re: Motorway Speed Limits Revisited : Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:24 am  

I think there's a middle ground here. It certainly wouldn't be safe to give the scenery your full attention whilst driving - you wouldn't stare in wonder at the top of a mountain, or watch a bird of prey as it swooped down to make a kill - but you can still appreciate that you are in a place of natural beauty as opposed to, say, a council estate in Runcorn. With that in mind, it wouldn't be unreasonable to slow down and enjoy that beauty for a little longer, would it?