Some people make bad decisions and take risks. A relative if mine wrote his car off the day he got his licence back after a ban for drink driving. He also worked in a saw mill and decided to remove the guard from the machine he was using and lost most of a thumb and his job. He is in his late 30s and still makes some daft decisions.

 

 

Can I nominate him for a Darwin Award? ;)

Hang on a sec, no one is having a pop at anyone here? I for one admire Rainbowfire for posting this thread. He's asking for the thoughts of others and that is exactly what is contained in this thread.

 

 

You're not seriously thinking about trying to get the severity of your young brothers speeding ticket increased!?

 

Younger brother may be, but he's 26, a grown man. Let him make his own way in life. We all have to learn, sometimes the hard way.

 

That could apply to anyone who views speeding, talking on the phone etc. as trivial.

 

It is for this reason we have the punishments in place to discourage motoring offences.

 

Not family looking to grass up their own flesh and blood, a bit extreme to me.

 

I'm all for the cruel-to-be-kind attitiude, but I think at 26 he's old and wise enough to make his own way through life without the additional worry of big brother dropping him in it.

 

 

This is the first time you have indicated you have any understanding or support for his concerns, other than the suggestion that what he is suggesting would be grassing and wrong because they are related. Not just a relative but "family" and "flesh and blood" the whole works.  

 

 

Don't accuse someone who doesn't agree with reporting their family to the authorities for a minor traffic offence as spouting 'utter crap'. Either you would or you wouldn't, personally I wouldn't.

 

It's not a 'minor traffic offence' it is a 'criminal offence' one which is the biggest killer on our roads. I didn't "accuse someone" of anything. What I stated was 'utter crap' as my opinion on it being ok to turn a blind eye if genuinely concerned merely because it's a relative, when it's about real concerns on someones safety on the roads with the rest of us and I stand by that. 

 

 

My 'opinion' is that if I had a grievance against the standards of a family members driving or their attitude in life then I'd be having a word in their ear, not contemplating reporting them to the Police.

 

I'm not suggesting it wouldn't be appropriate to teach them a lesson, I'm saying that there are several other methods I'd consider before involving law enforcement, which would be a last resort for me.

 

He's 26 and has held his license for about 6 years. His stupidity already got a car written off and refusal for anyone in the family to let him use theirs as he was quite happy to demonstrate how he could get them to wheel-spin everywhere. Even his g/f took him off her insurance because of that. Having to wait for a previous car was "lame" as he *needed* it to go out. He was on the Fun truck insurance for a while, but again wheel-spinning and calling it a piece of **** before asking to borrow it didn't endear me to him using it again.

 

Am getting rather sick of the yoof of today treating everything as a laugh and then just walking away from responsibility when things go wrong.

 

 

RainbowFire had already said the recognition of how bad he is from not just himself but other relatives and girlfriend, who seemingly have made their feelings/concerns heard and restricted him from using their vehicles, has gone unheeded! So that's already been done, but he persists. You didn't suggest any other avenue to try.

 

 

There will come a point when you reach an age that your driving standards naturally deteriorate. I'd hope that my family would be able to persuade me that giving back my driving licence is the right thing to do, and not reporting my poor driving to the Police in the hope they'll drag me through the courts to forcibly cancel my licence.

 

 This is the issue though, they try to persuade the crinkly silver1011 in the future and you laugh it off and don't take them seriously, don't see a problem personally, but there actually is, your a danger to yourself and the rest of the road users. There will come a point surely where that will be the best course of action for them and more importantly you to contact the authorities 'if' you refuse to accept it. This seems to be the position RainbowFire and his family are in now as already covered. 

It's not a dig at anyone as I said,said that on my original post too. But you have only given the advice until now of, let him make his own mistakes and don't be a grass to flesh and blood. RainbowFire doesn't seem to want him to have learn his lesson the hard way and dismissed the distinction of being a relative stopping further action being sought if required.

 

The speed camera system as has been touched on is not ideal. It detects a vehicle covering a set distance in too short a time, a single narrow minded incident. It doesn't recognise the surrounding circumstances, fatigue or ignorance of the driver. We do all have bad days etc we are all human as you said but, that is no excuse and no defence. This system of merely detecting speed being a failure to fully identify the issue is the concern here and can that be addressed? 

 

I didn't address you in my post, I can only reply to you now as you addressed me. No need to take it personally, read over the thread in order again if you like but, I stand by my previous post. Had the the information of the family all trying already in vain not been stated, of course the most sensible advice would be, "why not have a serious talk with him first", since that's already failed I wouldn't be happy knowing I did nothing if it all ended in tears and someone was hurt as a result, what kind of a person would that make me? 

I'll pop over and break his legs! He can stick a pic of that up on his FB page

What language?!!

Thing is we don't know where the ops brother was caught speeding, just because its a 30 limit doesn't mean its a built up area, it could be a duel carrageway for all we know,

 

I didn't say your brother was banned, what i said was one more ticket and he will ban himself if hes still within the 2 years after passing his test,

 

I will admit am far from a saint behind the wheel and have had the points in the past to prove it, BUT the times i have been done have been on clear open roads where it is more than safe in a car more than capable of doing it,

 

There is a time and a place and we don't know all the facts apart from what we have been told which isn't alot

I didn't address you in my post, I can only reply to you now as you addressed me. No need to take it personally, read over the thread in order again if you like but, I stand by my previous post.  

 

You referred to those mentioning 'family' or 'blood' as talking 'utter crap'. I mentioned family loyalty and therefore your post was indirectly aimed at me.

 

Even if I've got it wrong no one has posted 'utter crap' in this thread.

 

I'm entitled to my opinion and simply expressed it politely and objectively.

I had a tough day at work today and drove home tired. At one point on the A1(M) I touched 80mph.

 

I wasn't caught or punished.

 

I told my wife when I got home. Would it be appropriate for her to ring the Police when I'd gone to to bed?

 

After all there is every chance I'll do the same tomorrow night, by reporting me she may prevent an accident.

You referred to those mentioning 'family' or 'blood' as talking 'utter crap'. I mentioned family loyalty and therefore your post was indirectly aimed at me.

 

Even if I've got it wrong no one has posted 'utter crap' in this thread.

 

I'm entitled to my opinion and simply expressed it politely and objectively.

 

Me too 

 

*my understanding is that the course is different throughout the country and appears to have no unified structure. Apparently the instructor on one course recommends keeping the car in 2nd gear to limit the speed to 30mph. Epic! Also my understanding is that the £100 is a course fee not an actual fine. With that mentality, no wonder so many people walk away thinking it's not a punishment. (See BrownBarge's comment about his sister.)

Hmmmm. The car I was driving immediately after passing my test would do 65mph in second. 

Just because im a ****

I think there is some confusion here between "Driving at a safe speed" and "Driving within the legal speed limit on an area of road".....

 

I have been on a Speed Awareness course before...... Generally well delivered apart from 3 points.

 

1. When we were all asked how fast we were going when we were shopped by the local plod - Elderly lady at the end was doing THIRTY ONE in a 30 zone. (Told later that allowances were discretionary)

 

2. Demonstration of stopping distances of Motorway at 70 / 80 / 90 used a video of an early 90's Ford sierra (no braking assistance), and a close stationary target.

 

3. When I queried point 2, stating that the car in front would also be moving / braking (hence the distance extended), the instructor mentioned that the target may be stationary at the time. However, at no point in the course was aspects covered to safer driving on the motorway in relation to this point.

 

- Looking ahead to see the flow of traffic and control your speed appropriately (Are lots of brake lights coming on?, is traffic bunching up?)

- Maintaining a safe distance to ensure plenty of reaction time

- Reducing speed in poor conditions / visibility

 

Sorry if this seems a "pro-speeding" rant - It is not. I am all for 20mph zones / peak-time cameras around schools etc. However, Im getting tired of hearing "30mph is safe, 37mph is destroying the lifes of children" etc etc.... Especially as it could be argued that anyone doing 70mph on the M6 / M1 is likely obstructing the flow of traffic, especially in the middle lane.

Another one who thinks speeding is ok.

 

So, as before:

If you assume a 30 mph limit, at what point would you consider speed to be too fast: 35, 40, 50, 60, 90?

If that was made the speed limit, would you accept it as an absolute, or still want some variance in it?

 

Here in Sweden, about 4 MPH is the error margin of every speed test. Doesn't matter if its a camera or handheld, dash mounted or GPS based. However if you look at actual traffic flow, +- 6 MPH (10 KPH) is the variance. That's what is considered "okay" even though its technically illegal.

Then again, the EU has been butting its nose into our business and adjusting speed limits indiscriminately. So all they've accomplished is making even the ordinary driver screw the speed limits. I mean, we've got a old access road nearby that is lethal at 60 KPH in rain, and the limit is 90. And the closest motorway was built for 120 KPH and its got a limit of 90 KPH.

You want my own opinion? I'm perfectly fine with speeding if it doesn't risk anyone else's safely but your own. There is a fine line between speeding and reckless driving, but if you keep yourself on one side, it not bothered by it.

 

 

I think the OP's primary concern isn't the speed, more his ability to drive in the fatigued state mentioned [and his bragging on social media]. An alert, thoughtful driver is less of a risk at speed than one who is fatigued. Just my opinion

Listen, I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it. Regardless of what RainBow thinks is the worse offence (speeding or driving fatigued). I've reported a few drivers in my time too. But there is a difference between not helping out you brother if he gets in trouble just to teach him a lesson, and a whole 'nother to actively trying to get him in even more trouble. I'm not bashing his character, just saying that in my opinion, ratting out your own brother just to prove a point is a jerk move when you have plenty of other alternatives that doesn't involve the authorities. Keeping it in-house so to speak. 

Im 21 so id best no get any grief being age related...

 

Iv got caught speeding 38 in a 30, i was let off with a slap on the wrist, learnt my lesson then and there needless to say i do drive at the speed limit and as careful as i can, with the occasion swift B road bash.

 

Been pulled a few times for accelerating - "Its not a goal, its a limit" is what i always get told and nothing more

 

Id honestly leave him to learn his own lessons chap, everyone speeds but not everyone gets caught that's the trut. Unfortunately his attitude is what i dislike the most and is across our generation the reason to my insurance being pretty high.

 

Id pull him to one side and have a stern word but id never  wish a higher penalty on someone unless it was a worst case scenario.. E.g if he had injured someone and tried to worm out of it. 

 

Best of luck chap

I think there is some confusion here between "Driving at a safe speed" and "Driving within the legal speed limit on an area of road".....

 

 

You started so well

 

However, the legal speed limit is set and enforced by law. There are criteria for setting the limits on the roads in the UK. Whether or not you agree with the criteria or the resulting limit is immaterial, the legal limit has been set. What you consider a safe speed on the road is purely subjective, and is not enforced by law, but by your own convictions. Your definition of a safe speed on a section of road will no doubt differ from many others on here. I take it you're up for a return to pre-1965 "unrestricted" limits on motorways too.

 

It would be interesting to see if any of the officers on here would pull someone for the scenario you suggest.

 

Safe vs Legal is perennial argument. During the summer it would be safer to have slick tyres on your car: more surface contact will give much better braking than patterned tyres. (Or, in the "I can go as fast as I feel it is safe to do so" argument: you can accelerate faster and corner faster.) However, the authority of the land has decreed that there is a minimum limit to tread depth. There are legally enforceable penalties for breaking that limit.

 

Another Safe vs Legal will be drink-driving. The law has a clearly defined limit. Over that limit and you're into license-loosing territory very very quickly. Yet it fails to take into account several factors that mean the the limit doesn't necessarily mean you are affected by the amount of alcohol in your body. Thinner people are usually more affected than larger people, for example. It's possible to be under the legal limit and be unfit to drive, it's also possible to be twice the limit and be completely coherent and not have your re-actions affected.

 

Again, the law is there for a reason, whether or not you agree with the law, or the reason, is immaterial, in all cases the law is still the law. In a head-to-head between law and opinion, I know where my money would be.

So, in light of this discussion, what is your plan?

You started so well

 

However, the legal speed limit is set and enforced by law. There are criteria for setting the limits on the roads in the UK. Whether or not you agree with the criteria or the resulting limit is immaterial, the legal limit has been set. What you consider a safe speed on the road is purely subjective, and is not enforced by law, but by your own convictions. Your definition of a safe speed on a section of road will no doubt differ from many others on here. I take it you're up for a return to pre-1965 "unrestricted" limits on motorways too.

 

It would be interesting to see if any of the officers on here would pull someone for the scenario you suggest.

 

Safe vs Legal is perennial argument. During the summer it would be safer to have slick tyres on your car: more surface contact will give much better braking than patterned tyres. (Or, in the "I can go as fast as I feel it is safe to do so" argument: you can accelerate faster and corner faster.) However, the authority of the land has decreed that there is a minimum limit to tread depth. There are legally enforceable penalties for breaking that limit.

 

Another Safe vs Legal will be drink-driving. The law has a clearly defined limit. Over that limit and you're into license-loosing territory very very quickly. Yet it fails to take into account several factors that mean the the limit doesn't necessarily mean you are affected by the amount of alcohol in your body. Thinner people are usually more affected than larger people, for example. It's possible to be under the legal limit and be unfit to drive, it's also possible to be twice the limit and be completely coherent and not have your re-actions affected.

 

Again, the law is there for a reason, whether or not you agree with the law, or the reason, is immaterial, in all cases the law is still the law. In a head-to-head between law and opinion, I know where my money would be.

 

Not "unrestricted", no. But an acknowledgement that vehicular safety has moved on since 1965 would be nice.  The government increase to 80mph (currently being shouted down by road safety campaigners as the apocalypse) is a welcome start. 

 

I'm not starting the "safe vs legal" argument (that will go on forever), and trying to use that as an excuse to an officer (who is enforcing law, not safety) is idiotic. I'm simply stating that "not legal" does not automatically mean "not safe", nor the opposite true either. I have (forcibly) taken keys from friends after nudging the alcohol limit...... Not necessarily for their safety (or others), but for the protection of their license and livelihood. It is possible to respect the law, and disagree with it at the same time

 

(Disclaimer - I have lost a cousin in the past due to unsafe driving... his own. within speed limits in a 40-zone, he took a series of tight-S bends too quickly in his Cavalier SRi 2.0 (cocky driver) and lost the back-end, going side-on into a tree)

Quick case study of "safe, legal, impossible".

 

On the M6 around Birmingham, 70mph is usually legal, but frequently impossible due to sheer volume of traffic.

Continuing North, on the 3-lane stretches of the M74 through the Scottish borders, say Gretna to Lockerbie, you can be separated from the nearest vehicles on your carriageway by half a mile or more. 70mph is still legal, but would 100 increase the hazard to anyone else?

Continuing further North, leaving the M8 onto the M898 (Erskine Bridge) 70mph is legal, but pretty much impossible due to the acuity of the turns on some of the slip roads.

1. When we were all asked how fast we were going when we were shopped by the local plod - Elderly lady at the end was doing THIRTY ONE in a 30 zone. (Told later that allowances were discretionary)

 

 

 

That must have been Gentle Giants mother. (Wonder if she's back off her holliers yet)

Not "unrestricted", no. But an acknowledgement that vehicular safety has moved on since 1965 would be nice.  

 

Whilst vehicular safety has come on in leaps and bounds, sadly driver attitude hasn't. The expectation is that the safety systems built-in to today's cars will get the driver out of trouble, trouble which a good driver would never have got in to in the first place. Good examples will be numerous when the snow arrives and there's a plethora of 4x4's buried in ditches and hedges.

That must have been Gentle Giants mother. (Wonder if she's back off her holliers yet)

 

Oh please, I thought we were staying out of fantasy land.

Good examples will be numerous when the snow arrives and there's a plethora of 4x4's buried in ditches and hedges.

 

The new Volvo radio advert does my head in, the one that goes something like:

'In the UK, 1/2 inch of snow fell overnight and its chaos. In Sweden 2 feet of snow fell and noone cares. Buy a Volvo XC60 and you will be fine, just like they are.'

 

ARGHGGHGHHHGGHHGHGH!!!! They're not fine because they all drive four wheel drive vehicles...ghrrgghhhhh *twitch*

 

Very, very bad 'advice' for safety.

The new Volvo radio advert does my head in, the one that goes something like:

'In the UK, 1/2 inch of snow fell overnight and its chaos. In Sweden 2 feet of snow fell and noone cares. Buy a Volvo XC60 and you will be fine, just like they are.'

 

ARGHGGHGHHHGGHHGHGH!!!! They're not fine because they all drive four wheel drive vehicles...ghrrgghhhhh *twitch*

 

Very, very bad 'advice' for safety.

We're fine because we don't get our drivers licences in a cereal box. I'm not saying there aren't issues with the system, but overall we have a fairly high standard. The issue is that foreign drivers licences are accepted without any fuss whatsoever.  

Dont sweden have a very strict driving test? Or is that norway? Something like a minimum of so many years training first

Dont sweden have a very strict driving test? Or is that norway? Something like a minimum of so many years training first

We used to have the same requirements, but then the EU stepped in. Norway still has the same requirements though.

Very, very strict over there. I've gotten roadside quizzes from the Norwegian police on occasion. They notice that you have a foreign licence and ask you ten traffic related questions just to make sure you know your stuff. Its a great idea and I would be totally fine with that if I understood what the hell they were saying.

Edited 12 December, 201312 yr by DaKKs_152

The new Volvo radio advert does my head in, the one that goes something like:

'In the UK, 1/2 inch of snow fell overnight and its chaos. In Sweden 2 feet of snow fell and noone cares. 

 

 

Some years ago a friend was in Stockholm at the very end of spring.  There was an unexpected snowfall overnight and in the morning the trains were stuck in the sidings, the roads hadn't been gritted and it was total chaos!  If you are prepared for something it shouldn't be a problem, but if it is unexpected then anything could happen.

Idiot youngest brother has picked up his first speeding ticket (37 in a 30). All seems to be a bit of a laugh and joke as far as he's concerned. Has quite happily put on his FB that it's because it had been a very long day and he wasn't paying attention as he was quite tired. (Birmingham and back to see a concert) Which does seem to me to place it into "Driving Without Due Care and Attention" (IMHO) which carries a greater penalty.

 

He's put the NIP on FB too, so I have a reference number, and would rather like for him to actually appreciate the gravity of the situation instead of it being just a big joke.

 

From the tone of your other posts I take it you're looking for ways to encourage TPTB to increase the severity of the offence. ;-)

 

He does seem like a loose cannon. Has anyone (parent/uncle etc) tried to sit him down and get the little grey cells working a smidge?