Camera van on way to Scunthorpe

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

We've all driven too fast, but even on a straight, flat stretch of motorway, a puncture, a loss of concentration, and at that speed you can easily kill yourself and maybe some others too.

Whereas 70mph is a lot safer???

Speed limits are arbitary limit anyway. If the road was dry, visibility good, and traffic light then 90mph is not as issue.

If it's wet, foggy and busy, 60mph can be suicidal.

Drive to the conditions. a flat limit give people the impression that they should hit that speed whatever the conditions.
 



Eh?

It's a criminal offence to speed. If you don't accept the fixed penalty, you would be tried in the criminal courts.

Double Eh?

How can it be a criminal offence when no harm or loss has been incurred?
 
We've all driven too fast, but even on a straight, flat stretch of motorway, a puncture, a loss of concentration, and at that speed you can easily kill yourself and maybe some others too.

My advice is to set off 10 mins earlier and drive with your right toe slightly higher off the floor than usual. Its much cheaper...

My advice to your situation, purchase run flat tyres, don't allow for distractions and set off 10 minutes later and put your foot down :)
 
speed kills
is a ridiculous statement

if I hit a kid at 35 mph in my car, it might live
I hit a kid at 35 mph with my van , it wont

the speeds irrelevant , science tells us its bloody heavy objects hitting you is fatal , speed is only a factor

If a car comes out of a side road and hits your drivers door at 40 its doint the same damage more or less at 30
only head on collisions speed really ups the ante
If you lkose control on the motorway and run into a concrete bridge pillar , 71mph or 94 mph , youll still need scraping off the pillar

Another myth is seat belts
heard one quote on radio today where 20% wearing seat belts in major crashes survive , that means 4 fifths wearing seat belts dont
which quirkily enough was the figure of those getting out alive before seat belts were introduced

a lot of figures are massaged , and seat belts were given kudos for a drop in deaths , funnily enough at the same time doors and chassis had been beefed up by manuafacturers, but this wasnt given as a reason
ehcap had enforced cars to be more cage like , which worked , but seat belt nuts claimed all the glory

they claim 20% is success , but theyve admitted last month some gatso fixed cameras had increased accidents at some sites by 20%
but thats not bad
 
speed kills
is a ridiculous statement

if I hit a kid at 35 mph in my car, it might live
I hit a kid at 35 mph with my van , it wont

And if the kid isn`t in the middle of the f**king road in the first place, no one dies...
 
Because you broke the law which says it is a criminal offence.

But surely it could only become a criminal offence after the offer and acceptance procedure was completed and fraud in contract was committed. Couldn't it?

If you could point me in the direction of where the Law says it's a criminal offence to break a statutory speed regulation i would be most grateful.
 
But surely it could only become a criminal offence after the offer and acceptance procedure was completed and fraud in contract was committed. Couldn't it?

If you could point me in the direction of where the Law says it's a criminal offence to break a statutory speed regulation i would be most grateful.

Im no lawyer but, um, come again?
 
Hope you all get banned and locked up. Most of you were quick enough to call for this and worse for those rioting. What is it with drivers thinking they all know better than the law?

Perfectly normal, wonderful people all - can sometimes be turned into instant twats by the simple expedient of 'just add car'.

Top post Rusty.
 
Do you know which section of the driving community has the biggest accident rate

thats right ,,, the police

How many other sections of the driving community spend chunks of their time tearing from one crime scene to the next or chasing villains? Its a stupid point.
 
But surely it could only become a criminal offence after the offer and acceptance procedure was completed and fraud in contract was committed. Couldn't it?

If you could point me in the direction of where the Law says it's a criminal offence to break a statutory speed regulation i would be most grateful.

You are mixing up contract law with criminal law. A crime is committed if you commit an offence as so defined by common law or an Act of parliament. Contracts have absolutely nothing to do with it.

S89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is what you are looking for.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/89
 
You are mixing up contract law with criminal law. A crime is committed if you commit an offence as so defined by common law or an Act of parliament. Contracts have absolutely nothing to do with it.

S89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is what you are looking for.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/89

I'm mixing up contract law with criminal law?!?

Is an Act of Parliament not given the force of law by consent? In other words is it not contractual?

I like how you've given the impression that common law and Acts of Parliament are on an equal footing.

Where in common law does it state that it's unlawful to break a statutory speed restriction?
 
I'm mixing up contract law with criminal law?!??

Yes, very badly.

---------- Post added at 12:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 PM ----------

Is an Act of Parliament not given the force of law by consent? In other words is it not contractual?

No, its not.

---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 PM ----------

Where in common law does it state that it's unlawful to break a statutory speed restriction?

Hes already answered that question...

S89 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is what you are looking for.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/89
 



Yes, very badly.

---------- Post added at 12:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 PM ----------



No, its not.

---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 PM ----------



Hes already answered that question...

Unless your stuation has changed since post #28 I would suggest that Darren can answer these questions on his own.
 
I'm mixing up contract law with criminal law?!?

Is an Act of Parliament not given the force of law by consent? In other words is it not contractual?

I like how you've given the impression that common law and Acts of Parliament are on an equal footing.

Where in common law does it state that it's unlawful to break a statutory speed restriction?

No, an act of parliament is not contractual. An act of parliament becomes law when it is approved by the House of Commons and the House of Lords (though the approval of the latter can be dispensed with pursuant to the terms of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949) and given the Royal Assent. Apart from those bodies no-one else has to agree to it.

Common law and acts of parliament are on an equal footing. Common law is law made by judges on the basis of precedent and has as much validity as acts of parliament. Until 2003 to commit rape was to commit an offence against common law,.

Your last question makes no sense at all. Breaking a speed restriction is an offence against the 1984 act, not an offence against common law.
 
Drive to the conditions. a flat limit give people the impression that they should hit that speed whatever the conditions.

That people, in your opinion, are too stupid to understand the meaning of the word 'limit' is hardly the fault of the law now, is it?

And besides, your proposition is unworkable. Drive to the conditions you say. Well, no doubt you are an expert on these things, are supremely aware of your own capabilities as a driver and know to a nicety the exact amount you should reduce your speed by for any possible conditions. I have no doubt at all that others are of exactly the same opinion.

I am also just as bloody sure that among all these absolutely brilliant drivers, there would be little agreement as to what that amount is.
 
No, an act of parliament is not contractual. An act of parliament becomes law when it is approved by the House of Commons and the House of Lords (though the approval of the latter can be dispensed with pursuant to the terms of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949) and given the Royal Assent. Apart from those bodies no-one else has to agree to it.

Common law and acts of parliament are on an equal footing. Common law is law made by judges on the basis of precedent and has as much validity as acts of parliament. Until 2003 to commit rape was to commit an offence against common law,.

Your last question makes no sense at all. Breaking a speed restriction is an offence against the 1984 act, not an offence against common law.

I acknowledge your obviously qualified legal stance on all of this but if you could just clarify. Does an Act become law or is it given the force of law? If you are adamant that it becomes law? perhaps ,again, could you point me in the direction of where this is written? This may seem a pedantic question but i'm sure you can appreciate the gravity of it.

That last question btw was deliberate. Just to determine the fact that there is a difference between common law and statutes (acts).
 
Unless your stuation has changed since post #28 I would suggest that Darren can answer these questions on his own.

I am, indeed, no lawyer but I have sat and passed an exam in Contract Law for my professional qualifications a few years back.
 
I acknowledge your obviously qualified legal stance on all of this but if you could just clarify. Does an Act become law or is it given the force of law? If you are adamant that it becomes law? perhaps ,again, could you point me in the direction of where this is written? This may seem a pedantic question but i'm sure you can appreciate the gravity of it.

That last question btw was deliberate. Just to determine the fact that there is a difference between common law and statutes (acts).

The UK has an unwritten constitution so nowhere is it written that after passage through parliament and after being given the Royal Assent a statute becomes law. That is just a constitutional convention that everyone (most notably the courts) accepts.

I don't see a distinction between an act becoming law and having the force of law. It amounts to the same thing.
 
The t***s are always at that location.

I often travel along the M180 due to work commitments.

I now know to watch for the barstewards there, but it's so easy, just one lapse in concentration and........................... :mad:
 
70 is too slow, particularly when most people zip along at 80 mph (except the obligatory driver sat doing 68 mph in the middle lane).
 
You speed you get nicked. We all do it and we all know it can happen.

At what point does this have anything to do with Sheffield United by the way? Or is this Blackwells fault?
 
Do you know which section of the driving community has the biggest accident rate

thats right ,,, the police

Many years ago I used to work as a waiter at Abbeydale Golf Club where SYP would have an annual do. The number of times I heard phrases like "Oh don't worry you had those four pints hours ago, you had a big meal since then, have another whiskey" when discussing driving home afterwards was frankly horrible.
 



All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom