See:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece

In my view, speed restrictions should be more prominently displayed so
that you know at any point on the road what the speed limit is.  We
should have blue lines for 30mph, broken blue lines for 40mph, green
lines for 50mph and broken green lines for 60mph on dual carriageways.

As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit  especially when they change
from one to the other in short order.

-- 
Alasdair.

On 28 Sep, 11:14, Alasdair  wrote:
> See:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>
> In my view, speed restrictions should be more prominently displayed so
> that you know at any point on the road what the speed limit is.  We
> should have blue lines for 30mph, broken blue lines for 40mph, green
> lines for 50mph and broken green lines for 60mph on dual carriageways.
>
> As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
> whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit  especially when they change
> from one to the other in short order.
>
> --
> Alasdair.

Not a bad idea, but you would have to balance the cost of this against
putting up a sensible number of repeater speed limit signs (like they
have in the USA). I suspect that it would be cheaper simply to paint
the limit on the road (like they do already) but much more frequently.

I agree about the problem of knowing at any instant what the speed
limit is. OK, the book says that if there are street lights spaced at
about 180 yards (or whatever) and there are no repeater signs, the
limit will be 30, but more indications on the road (especially in
places where you might be unsure) would remove any element of doubt.

An example in mind is the A40 into east High Wycombe. Until recently,
the limit changed from 50 to 40, well out of town, with repeater signs
for both. Only the last mile was 30. However, things have changed
recently. The 40 limit has moved half a mile into what was 50, and the
long 40 stretch has now become 30. All the 40 repeater signs have (of
course) been removed, and there are no 30 repeaters (not required
legally, of course, but helpful to remind you of the changed
situation). So, if you miss the only 30 sign, and thought that the
limit was still the old 40, you might be in for a shock.

Ian.

> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece

To paraphrase the article...

"Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal 
accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding 
drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of 
judgment or careless driving. 

While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's 
a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the 
ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which 
seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.

I do like the idea of the marking scheme you suggested though, but 
people who are colourblind might have problems differntiating.

> On 28 Sep, 11:14, Alasdair  wrote:
>> See:
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>
>> In my view, speed restrictions should be more prominently displayed so
>> that you know at any point on the road what the speed limit is.  We
>> should have blue lines for 30mph, broken blue lines for 40mph, green
>> lines for 50mph and broken green lines for 60mph on dual carriageways.
>>
>> As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
>> whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit  especially when they change
>> from one to the other in short order.

Sod your excuses. If you are not capable of keeping to the speed limit 
you shouldn't be driving.

"Alasdair"  wrote in message 
news:jmlud45srohvi9krom1cda1q9jnvvmhsdv@4ax.com...
> See:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>
> In my view, speed restrictions should be more prominently displayed so
> that you know at any point on the road what the speed limit is.  We
> should have blue lines for 30mph, broken blue lines for 40mph, green
> lines for 50mph and broken green lines for 60mph on dual carriageways.
>
> As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
> whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit  especially when they change
> from one to the other in short order.

They make aribtrary changes like this in some authorities (e.g. A161) and 
then they can rake in even more 'fines'...

It's a fair cop if you do 40mph in an obviously built up area, but some 
local councils do this to tax people from outside the area (who don't know 
their caprice).

>
> -- 
> Alasdair.

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "Alasdair"  wrote in message 
> news:jmlud45srohvi9krom1cda1q9jnvvmhsdv@4ax.com...
>> See:
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>
>> In my view, speed restrictions should be more prominently displayed so
>> that you know at any point on the road what the speed limit is.  We
>> should have blue lines for 30mph, broken blue lines for 40mph, green
>> lines for 50mph and broken green lines for 60mph on dual carriageways.
>>
>> As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
>> whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit  especially when they change
>> from one to the other in short order.
> 
> They make aribtrary changes like this in some authorities (e.g. A161) and 
> then they can rake in even more 'fines'...
> 
> It's a fair cop if you do 40mph in an obviously built up area, but some 
> local councils do this to tax people from outside the area (who don't know 
> their caprice).
> 

How can someone from outside an area not know they are driving
through a built up area? Stop the silly excuses and learn to drive.

Diddly Doo wrote:
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> "Alasdair"  wrote in message 
>> news:jmlud45srohvi9krom1cda1q9jnvvmhsdv@4ax.com...
>>> See:
>>>
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>
>>> In my view, speed restrictions should be more prominently displayed so
>>> that you know at any point on the road what the speed limit is.  We
>>> should have blue lines for 30mph, broken blue lines for 40mph, green
>>> lines for 50mph and broken green lines for 60mph on dual carriageways.
>>>
>>> As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
>>> whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit  especially when they change
>>> from one to the other in short order.
>>
>> They make aribtrary changes like this in some authorities (e.g. A161) 
>> and then they can rake in even more 'fines'...
>>
>> It's a fair cop if you do 40mph in an obviously built up area, but 
>> some local councils do this to tax people from outside the area (who 
>> don't know their caprice).
>>
> 
> How can someone from outside an area not know they are driving
> through a built up area? Stop the silly excuses and learn to drive.

30mph speed limits are frequently found outside built-up areas.

JNugent wrote:
> Diddly Doo wrote:
>> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> "Alasdair"  wrote in message 
>>> news:jmlud45srohvi9krom1cda1q9jnvvmhsdv@4ax.com...
>>>> See:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>>
>>>> In my view, speed restrictions should be more prominently displayed so
>>>> that you know at any point on the road what the speed limit is.  We
>>>> should have blue lines for 30mph, broken blue lines for 40mph, green
>>>> lines for 50mph and broken green lines for 60mph on dual carriageways.
>>>>
>>>> As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
>>>> whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit  especially when they change
>>>> from one to the other in short order.
>>>
>>> They make aribtrary changes like this in some authorities (e.g. A161) 
>>> and then they can rake in even more 'fines'...
>>>
>>> It's a fair cop if you do 40mph in an obviously built up area, but 
>>> some local councils do this to tax people from outside the area (who 
>>> don't know their caprice).
>>>
>>
>> How can someone from outside an area not know they are driving
>> through a built up area? Stop the silly excuses and learn to drive.
> 
> 30mph speed limits are frequently found outside built-up areas.

Yes with 30 MPH signs

On 28 Sep, 13:26, JNugent  wrote:
> Diddly Doo wrote:
> > R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> >> "Alasdair"  wrote in message
> >>news:jmlud45srohvi9krom1cda1q9jnvvmhsdv@4ax.com...
> >>> See:
>
> >>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>
> >>> In my view, speed restrictions should be more prominently displayed so
> >>> that you know at any point on the road what the speed limit is.  We
> >>> should have blue lines for 30mph, broken blue lines for 40mph, green
> >>> lines for 50mph and broken green lines for 60mph on dual carriageways> >>> As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
> >>> whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit  especially when they change
> >>> from one to the other in short order.
>
> >> They make aribtrary changes like this in some authorities (e.g. A161)
> >> and then they can rake in even more 'fines'...
>
> >> It's a fair cop if you do 40mph in an obviously built up area, but
> >> some local councils do this to tax people from outside the area (who
> >> don't know their caprice).
>
> > How can someone from outside an area not know they are driving
> > through a built up area? Stop the silly excuses and learn to drive.
>
> 30mph speed limits are frequently found outside built-up areas.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Frequently? Occasionally, yes, but surely not frequently?

However, I reckon that good drivers drive first according to the speed
limit (ie they always drive within the limit, but not necessarily just
below the limit). They also drive according to the actual road
conditions. If necessary, they will drive at 20 in a 30 or 40 limit).
Unfortunately, the same good drivers can get caught out if they
legitimately judge that the road conditions allow them to drive safely
at (say) 40, but find that the limit is an often arbitrary 30.

Ian.

"Colin Wilson"  wrote 
in message news:MPG.23497883bc3000399899c4@news.motzarella.org...
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>
> To paraphrase the article...
>
> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
> judgment or careless driving.
>
> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.

And bearing in mind that car speedos all over-read by between 8-10% that 
means that a driver has to be showing serious speedo readings before he will 
be banned on this totting up process.

Ret.

Alasdair  wrote:

>As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
>whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit  especially when they change
>from one to the other in short order.

In my view if a significant proportion of drivers can't tell if the road
they are driving on should have a 30/40/50 mph limit the limit is obviously
arbitrary and does not deserve strict enforcement or harsh punishment for
transgression. 
--

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Ian Jackson
 wrote:


>
>Frequently? Occasionally, yes, but surely not frequently?

Let's say often then.

>
>However, I reckon that good drivers drive first according to the speed
>limit (ie they always drive within the limit, but not necessarily just
>below the limit). They also drive according to the actual road
>conditions. If necessary, they will drive at 20 in a 30 or 40 limit).
>Unfortunately, the same good drivers can get caught out if they
>legitimately judge that the road conditions allow them to drive safely
>at (say) 40, but find that the limit is an often arbitrary 30.
>

If you leave the M25 and drive towards London on the A3 you will find
that there is a stretch of D.C. at the national speed limit which
changes to a 40 limit without any change to the character of the road,
presumably to slow traffic down before it reaches the built up area
ahead. There is a GATSO speed camera on the 40 limit section and the
40 limit sign could easily be obscured by one or more HGV's.

If the 40 limit really is there for the notional purpose of slowing
traffic because there is a built up area ahead and out of sight it's
hard to argue that individual drivers who missed seeing the sign
should be penalised with points and fines.

If most drivers obey it it's done it's job.

Derek (who got flashed but no ticket came)

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:06:21 +0100, "Ret."  wrote:

>
>"Colin Wilson"  wrote 
>in message news:MPG.23497883bc3000399899c4@news.motzarella.org...
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>
>> To paraphrase the article...
>>
>> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>> judgment or careless driving.
>>
>> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
>> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
>> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>
>And bearing in mind that car speedos all over-read by between 8-10%

*ALL*  ?

Checked mine yesterday 2mph. Optimistic at 70 mph.

> that 
>means that a driver has to be showing serious speedo readings before he will 
>be banned on this totting up process.
>
Derek

Ret. wrote:
> 
> "Colin Wilson"  
> wrote in message news:MPG.23497883bc3000399899c4@news.motzarella.org...
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>
>> To paraphrase the article...
>>
>> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>> judgment or careless driving.
>>
>> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
>> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
>> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
> 
> And bearing in mind that car speedos all over-read by between 8-10% that 
> means that a driver has to be showing serious speedo readings before he 
> will be banned on this totting up process.
> 
> Ret.

All speedos do NOT over read by 8-10%, where did you get this idea?
The fact that they might be ALLOWED to is another matter, the 
manufacturer of the guages win order by being MORE accurate, not less.

I've tried my 2 sat-nav in 8 or 10 cars and every one of them has been 
within 1-2 mph of the sat nav figure at 70 which is more like 2%

"Diddly Doo"  wrote in message news:gbnrog$omd$2@aioe.org...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> "Alasdair"  wrote in message 
>> news:jmlud45srohvi9krom1cda1q9jnvvmhsdv@4ax.com...
>>> See:
>>>
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>
>>> In my view, speed restrictions should be more prominently displayed so
>>> that you know at any point on the road what the speed limit is.  We
>>> should have blue lines for 30mph, broken blue lines for 40mph, green
>>> lines for 50mph and broken green lines for 60mph on dual carriageways.
>>>
>>> As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
>>> whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit  especially when they change
>>> from one to the other in short order.
>>
>> They make aribtrary changes like this in some authorities (e.g. A161) and 
>> then they can rake in even more 'fines'...
>>
>> It's a fair cop if you do 40mph in an obviously built up area, but some 
>> local councils do this to tax people from outside the area (who don't 
>> know their caprice).

on NON urban roads (missed that bit)

>>
>
> How can someone from outside an area not know they are driving
> through a built up area? Stop the silly excuses and learn to drive.

Colin Wilson wrote:
> 
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
> 
> To paraphrase the article...
> 
> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
> judgment or careless driving.
> 
> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.

I don't believe this is true at all. There is a speed camera near
Chalfont St Peter in Buckinghamshire; sometimes the Court reports
are published in The Bucks Advertiser, there are several fines for
35mph every week. Local people know of course...

johannes wrote:
> 
> Colin Wilson wrote:
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>> To paraphrase the article...
>>
>> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>> judgment or careless driving.
>>
>> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
>> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
>> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
> 
> I don't believe this is true at all. There is a speed camera near
> Chalfont St Peter in Buckinghamshire; sometimes the Court reports
> are published in The Bucks Advertiser, there are several fines for
> 35mph every week. Local people know of course...

The speed limit there is 30 MPH. What is your problem?

Ian Jackson wrote:
> 
> On 28 Sep, 13:26, JNugent  wrote:
> > Diddly Doo wrote:
> > > R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> > >> "Alasdair"  wrote in message
> > >>news:jmlud45srohvi9krom1cda1q9jnvvmhsdv@4ax.com...
> > >>> See:
> >
> > >>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
> >
> > >>> In my view, speed restrictions should be more prominently displayed so
> > >>> that you know at any point on the road what the speed limit is.  We
> > >>> should have blue lines for 30mph, broken blue lines for 40mph, green
> > >>> lines for 50mph and broken green lines for 60mph on dual carriageways.
> >
> > >>> As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
> > >>> whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit  especially when they change
> > >>> from one to the other in short order.
> >
> > >> They make aribtrary changes like this in some authorities (e.g. A161)
> > >> and then they can rake in even more 'fines'...
> >
> > >> It's a fair cop if you do 40mph in an obviously built up area, but
> > >> some local councils do this to tax people from outside the area (who
> > >> don't know their caprice).
> >
> > > How can someone from outside an area not know they are driving
> > > through a built up area? Stop the silly excuses and learn to drive.
> >
> > 30mph speed limits are frequently found outside built-up areas.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
> 
> Frequently? Occasionally, yes, but surely not frequently?
> 
> However, I reckon that good drivers drive first according to the speed
> limit (ie they always drive within the limit, but not necessarily just
> below the limit). They also drive according to the actual road
> conditions. If necessary, they will drive at 20 in a 30 or 40 limit).
> Unfortunately, the same good drivers can get caught out if they
> legitimately judge that the road conditions allow them to drive safely
> at (say) 40, but find that the limit is an often arbitrary 30.
> 
> Ian.

It's is a misunderstanding that 'road conditions' plays a part, neither
should it. Speed limits is an agreement of the speeds you can expect
when e.g. trying to cross the road; it is tied up with traffic calming.

Diddly Doo wrote:
> 
> johannes wrote:
> >
> > Colin Wilson wrote:
> >>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
> >> To paraphrase the article...
> >>
> >> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
> >> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
> >> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
> >> judgment or careless driving.
> >>
> >> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
> >> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
> >> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
> >> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
> >
> > I don't believe this is true at all. There is a speed camera near
> > Chalfont St Peter in Buckinghamshire; sometimes the Court reports
> > are published in The Bucks Advertiser, there are several fines for
> > 35mph every week. Local people know of course...
> 
> The speed limit there is 30 MPH. What is your problem?

No problem, but rebuke the poster's statement that 30+15 will be
in the clear.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:20:20 +0100, Diddly Doo  wrote:

>
>> On 28 Sep, 11:14, Alasdair  wrote:
>>> See:
>>>
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>
>>> In my view, speed restrictions should be more prominently displayed so
>>> that you know at any point on the road what the speed limit is.  We
>>> should have blue lines for 30mph, broken blue lines for 40mph, green
>>> lines for 50mph and broken green lines for 60mph on dual carriageways.
>>>
>>> As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
>>> whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit  especially when they change
>>> from one to the other in short order.
>
>Sod your excuses. If you are not capable of keeping to the speed limit 
>you shouldn't be driving.

Read what he said .He isn't saying he can't keep to the speed limit
.He is simply asking for ways to make it easier to recognise what the
limit is .

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:20:20 +0100, Diddly Doo  wrote:


>
>Sod your excuses. If you are not capable of keeping to the speed limit 
>you shouldn't be driving.

The trouble is the limit is arbitrary.

There is (always) an error in the measurement apparatus used to
enforce the limit, there is (always) an error (legally allowed) in the
apparatus on board the car to measure the speed. The limit in force on
any particular stretch of road cannot always be determined.

You could well say that:  "If you are not capable of keeping to the
speed limit you shouldn't be driving" but it's scarcely more useful
than having a man walk in front of every car carrying a red flag.

If you don't like cars say so,  put yourself up at the next election
and democracy will take it's course.

Derek

Diddly Doo  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> How can someone from outside an area not know they are driving through a
> built up area? Stop the silly excuses and learn to drive.

Umm, are you talking to yourself? Because it's clearly stated in the HC 
and in law as to what the default limit is, if there's no regular 
repeaters - NSL or 30, it's easy to tell.

> Yes with 30 MPH signs
>
That would be fine in an ideal world.  And indeed I used to support the "Any 
reasonably observant driver should know the limit" argument.  But The A325 
through Farnborough keeps changing between 30 and 40 along its length.  But 
the signs going into several of the 30s are lost in a mass of other signs on 
the approach to roundabouts.

Even as a local looking out for them its easy to miss one.  I try very hard 
to keep to the limits especially in the 30 stretches. But it isn't easy to 
know exactly which you're in.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:20:20 +0100, Diddly Doo  wrote:

>Sod your excuses. If you are not capable of keeping to the speed limit 
>you shouldn't be driving.

It's not a question of keeping to it; it's knowing what it is

-- 
Alasdair.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:19:18 +0100, Colin Wilson
 wrote:

>I do like the idea of the marking scheme you suggested though, but 
>people who are colourblind might have problems differntiating.

Are you allowed to drive if you are colour blind?

--
Alasdair.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:41:24 +0100, Diddly Doo  wrote:

>The speed limit there is 30 MPH. What is your problem?

What's happened to the 10% + 2mph rule?

-- 
Alasdair.

Alasdair  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

>>The speed limit there is 30 MPH. What is your problem?

> What's happened to the 10% + 2mph rule?

Guideline, not rule.

"Derek Geldard"  wrote in message 
news:5p3vd4dfdiqsuspqoc79jbmc1rtbe2qg5p@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:06:21 +0100, "Ret."  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Colin Wilson"  
>>wrote
>>in message news:MPG.23497883bc3000399899c4@news.motzarella.org...
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>
>>> To paraphrase the article...
>>>
>>> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>>> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>>> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>>> judgment or careless driving.
>>>
>>> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
>>> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>>> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
>>> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>>
>>And bearing in mind that car speedos all over-read by between 8-10%
>
> *ALL*  ?
>
> Checked mine yesterday 2mph. Optimistic at 70 mph.

How did you check it as a matter of interest? With a sat-nav (which is the 
simplest and most accurate method of checking speedo accuracy)?

Ret.

"Blah"  wrote in message 
news:6k9hl5F6p7ptU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ret. wrote:
>>
>> "Colin Wilson"  
>> wrote in message news:MPG.23497883bc3000399899c4@news.motzarella.org...
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>
>>> To paraphrase the article...
>>>
>>> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>>> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>>> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>>> judgment or careless driving.
>>>
>>> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
>>> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>>> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
>>> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>>
>> And bearing in mind that car speedos all over-read by between 8-10% that 
>> means that a driver has to be showing serious speedo readings before he 
>> will be banned on this totting up process.
>>
>> Ret.
>
> All speedos do NOT over read by 8-10%, where did you get this idea?
> The fact that they might be ALLOWED to is another matter, the manufacturer 
> of the guages win order by being MORE accurate, not less.
>
> I've tried my 2 sat-nav in 8 or 10 cars and every one of them has been 
> within 1-2 mph of the sat nav figure at 70 which is more like 2%

Interesting - because my experience of checking speedos with Sat Navs is 
just the opposite - the majority of cars I have checked out have an actual 
speed of around 65 at a speedo indicated 70. My own car is actually doing 27 
mph at an indicated 30 mph - and it is very noticeable that when I am 
travelling in a line of cars that are obviously keeping to the 30 limit, my 
speedo is reading........30 mph. This tends to indicate that most other cars 
over read by a similar amount.

Car manufacturers are not allowed to sell cars with speedos that under-read 
and so they tend to err on the side of safety and insist on speedos that 
over-read by a comfortable amount.

Ret.

"johannes"  wrote in message 
news:48DF9862.241FC969@sizefi3456666732tter.com...
>
>
> Diddly Doo wrote:
>>
>> johannes wrote:
>> >
>> > Colin Wilson wrote:
>> >>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>> >> To paraphrase the article...
>> >>
>> >> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>> >> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>> >> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>> >> judgment or careless driving.
>> >>
>> >> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
>> >> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>> >> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
>> >> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>> >
>> > I don't believe this is true at all. There is a speed camera near
>> > Chalfont St Peter in Buckinghamshire; sometimes the Court reports
>> > are published in The Bucks Advertiser, there are several fines for
>> > 35mph every week. Local people know of course...
>>
>> The speed limit there is 30 MPH. What is your problem?
>
> No problem, but rebuke the poster's statement that 30+15 will be
> in the clear.

ACPO's recommended prosecution limit is 10% + 2 mph of course - but most 
speed cameras are set to trigger at 10 mph above the limit (on 30 and 40 
limits).

Ret.

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:11c147d2-c6eb-4d66-b1c4-bff4af8cb2a1@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 28 Sep, 11:14, Alasdair  wrote:
> See:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>
> In my view, speed restrictions should be more prominently displayed so
> that you know at any point on the road what the speed limit is. We
> should have blue lines for 30mph, broken blue lines for 40mph, green
> lines for 50mph and broken green lines for 60mph on dual carriageways.
>
> As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
> whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit especially when they change
> from one to the other in short order.
>
> --
> Alasdair.

Not a bad idea, but you would have to balance the cost of this against
putting up a sensible number of repeater speed limit signs (like they
have in the USA). I suspect that it would be cheaper simply to paint
the limit on the road (like they do already) but much more frequently.

I agree about the problem of knowing at any instant what the speed
limit is. OK, the book says that if there are street lights spaced at
about 180 yards (or whatever) and there are no repeater signs, the
limit will be 30, but more indications on the road (especially in
places where you might be unsure) would remove any element of doubt.

An example in mind is the A40 into east High Wycombe. Until recently,
the limit changed from 50 to 40, well out of town, with repeater signs
for both. Only the last mile was 30. However, things have changed
recently. The 40 limit has moved half a mile into what was 50, and the
long 40 stretch has now become 30. All the 40 repeater signs have (of
course) been removed, and there are no 30 repeaters (not required
legally, of course, but helpful to remind you of the changed
situation). So, if you miss the only 30 sign, and thought that the
limit was still the old 40, you might be in for a shock.

-----------------

Not only are 30 repeaters not required legally, it is actually illegal for 
any road authority to provide them where there is a qualifying system of 
street lighting (except at the start of the limit).  Also the reminder 
roundels often painted on the road are more often than not illegally 
displayed.  They are permitted at the start of a 30 mph limit, but may not 
appear anywhere else on the road if it is lit by street lighting (the actual 
legislation is that they can only be painted on the road next to a post 
mounted speed limit or repeater sign.  They may not appear on their own. 
(Direction 18(1) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 
2002).

Where a higher speed limit is reduced to a 30 limit, the sudden absence of 
repeaters may go unnoticed.  The Traffic Signs Regulations and General 
Directions 2002 allows the display of a reminder notice at the start of the 
limit *and nowhere else* (Direction 37(2)). There are restrictions on 
whether the sign can be show at all and it is illegal to display it for 
longer than 6 months.

There are places where speed limit signs don't need to be displayed at all 
(or only on the near side of the road) when the speed limit changes 
(Direction 9 (1-5) is a rivetting read on the matter).

Of course a cynic such as myself would think that these restrictions are 
designed to make it harder to identify the speed limit that applies to a 
road rather than easier (and hence maximise the receipts from the speed 
cameras).

"Ret."  wrote in message 
news:oZ-dnU8LbajRHELVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "Colin Wilson"  
> wrote in message news:MPG.23497883bc3000399899c4@news.motzarella.org...
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>
>> To paraphrase the article...
>>
>> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>> judgment or careless driving.
>>
>> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
>> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
>> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>
> And bearing in mind that car speedos all over-read by between 8-10% that 
> means that a driver has to be showing serious speedo readings before he 
> will be banned on this totting up process.
>

They may over read by up to 10% + 6.25 mph.

On 28 Sep, 15:35, johannes  wrote:
> Colin Wilson wrote:
>
> > >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>
> > To paraphrase the article...
>
> > "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
> > accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
> > drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
> > judgment or careless driving.
>
> > While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
> > a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
> > ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
> > seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>
> I don't believe this is true at all. There is a speed camera near
> Chalfont St Peter in Buckinghamshire; sometimes the Court reports
> are published in The Bucks Advertiser, there are several fines for
> 35mph every week. Local people know of course...

Yes, and it's often a case of 'there, but for there grace of God, go
I'.

Previously, in this thread, I said that good drivers drive first
according to the speed limit, then they drive according to the actual
road conditions. Instead of 'good', maybe I should have said
'prudent'. Many a careful and consciencious driver has been 'done' for
being more observant of the latter than the former, often caused by a
momentary lapse of concentration allowing the vehicle's speed to creep
marginally over an essentially arbitrary limit.

There are well-known places ('grey spots'?) where lots of drivers
exceed the speed limit, and are fined for doing so. Every week, in the
local papers, it's the same story - same places, same fines, same
penalty points. If the 'excessive' speed really constituted a danger,
the authorities would have installed repeater signs - or better still,
SIDs - to remind drivers of the speed limit. As they haven't, one can
only assume that excessive speed is not a real problem.

Ian

"Blah"  wrote in message 
news:6k9hl5F6p7ptU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ret. wrote:
>>
>> "Colin Wilson"  
>> wrote in message news:MPG.23497883bc3000399899c4@news.motzarella.org...
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>
>>> To paraphrase the article...
>>>
>>> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>>> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>>> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>>> judgment or careless driving.
>>>
>>> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
>>> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>>> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
>>> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>>
>> And bearing in mind that car speedos all over-read by between 8-10% that 
>> means that a driver has to be showing serious speedo readings before he 
>> will be banned on this totting up process.
>>
>> Ret.
>
> All speedos do NOT over read by 8-10%, where did you get this idea?
> The fact that they might be ALLOWED to is another matter, the manufacturer 
> of the guages win order by being MORE accurate, not less.
>
> I've tried my 2 sat-nav in 8 or 10 cars and every one of them has been 
> within 1-2 mph of the sat nav figure at 70 which is more like 2%

The last 3 cars that I have had are nowhere near.

At 30 mph, my car speedo actually reads 36.

At 70 mph, my car speedo actually reads 74.

That means that I could drive at an indicated 40 in a 30 area and an 
indicated 80 in a 70 area and be within the ACPO guidelines in both cases.

"johannes"  wrote in message 
news:48DF9862.241FC969@sizefi3456666732tter.com...
>
>
> Diddly Doo wrote:
>>
>> johannes wrote:
>> >
>> > Colin Wilson wrote:
>> >>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>> >> To paraphrase the article...
>> >>
>> >> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>> >> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>> >> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>> >> judgment or careless driving.
>> >>
>> >> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
>> >> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>> >> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
>> >> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>> >
>> > I don't believe this is true at all. There is a speed camera near
>> > Chalfont St Peter in Buckinghamshire; sometimes the Court reports
>> > are published in The Bucks Advertiser, there are several fines for
>> > 35mph every week. Local people know of course...
>>
>> The speed limit there is 30 MPH. What is your problem?
>
> No problem, but rebuke the poster's statement that 30+15 will be
> in the clear.

You haven't been following the thread have you?

The thread is about *banning* drivers who exceed the 30 limit by 15 mph, and 
you introduce an example of a driver *fined* for exceeding the 30 limit by 5 
mph.

"Alasdair"  wrote in message 
news:v280e41smbbq7cu8ud9vn6l1pasvg20sqb@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:41:24 +0100, Diddly Doo  wrote:
>
>>The speed limit there is 30 MPH. What is your problem?
>
> What's happened to the 10% + 2mph rule?
>

What rule would that be then?

There is no such rule.  There is a guideline but the police are under no 
obligation to follow it (and indeed North Wales police don't).

"Alasdair"  wrote in message 
news:ru70e4df31q4g7ei2t2smgl484nlmvpqv2@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 12:19:18 +0100, Colin Wilson
>  wrote:
>
>>I do like the idea of the marking scheme you suggested though, but
>>people who are colourblind might have problems differntiating.
>
> Are you allowed to drive if you are colour blind?
>

Yes.

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:de3c8a4c-73ba-4256-8b24-40430b59299d@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On 28 Sep, 13:26, JNugent  wrote:
> Diddly Doo wrote:
> > R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> >> "Alasdair"  wrote in message
> >>news:jmlud45srohvi9krom1cda1q9jnvvmhsdv@4ax.com...
> >>> See:
>
> >>>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>
> >>> In my view, speed restrictions should be more prominently displayed so
> >>> that you know at any point on the road what the speed limit is. We
> >>> should have blue lines for 30mph, broken blue lines for 40mph, green
> >>> lines for 50mph and broken green lines for 60mph on dual carriageways.
>
> >>> As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
> >>> whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit especially when they change
> >>> from one to the other in short order.
>
> >> They make aribtrary changes like this in some authorities (e.g. A161)
> >> and then they can rake in even more 'fines'...
>
> >> It's a fair cop if you do 40mph in an obviously built up area, but
> >> some local councils do this to tax people from outside the area (who
> >> don't know their caprice).
>
> > How can someone from outside an area not know they are driving
> > through a built up area? Stop the silly excuses and learn to drive.
>
> 30mph speed limits are frequently found outside built-up areas.- Hide 
> quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Frequently? Occasionally, yes, but surely not frequently?

----------------

Frequently these days.

"Derek Geldard"  wrote in message 
news:8t2vd41bnbg178m8b52qs6d8e0khh9a23j@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 05:39:30 -0700 (PDT), Ian Jackson
>  wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Frequently? Occasionally, yes, but surely not frequently?
>
> Let's say often then.
>
>>
>>However, I reckon that good drivers drive first according to the speed
>>limit (ie they always drive within the limit, but not necessarily just
>>below the limit). They also drive according to the actual road
>>conditions. If necessary, they will drive at 20 in a 30 or 40 limit).
>>Unfortunately, the same good drivers can get caught out if they
>>legitimately judge that the road conditions allow them to drive safely
>>at (say) 40, but find that the limit is an often arbitrary 30.
>>
>
> If you leave the M25 and drive towards London on the A3 you will find
> that there is a stretch of D.C. at the national speed limit which
> changes to a 40 limit without any change to the character of the road,
> presumably to slow traffic down before it reaches the built up area
> ahead. There is a GATSO speed camera on the 40 limit section and the
> 40 limit sign could easily be obscured by one or more HGV's.
>

First its 50 mph

Second there are 12 speed cameras (6 in each direction).

Third, the 3 lane dual carriageway continues for a further 8 miles after the 
50 limit starts.  It doesn't really qualify as built up because although 
there are houses on both sides of the road, they are served by their own 
roads which do have 30 limits on them.

Fourth, repeater signs are unusually abundant on this stretch of road.

> If the 40 limit really is there for the notional purpose of slowing
> traffic because there is a built up area ahead and out of sight it's
> hard to argue that individual drivers who missed seeing the sign
> should be penalised with points and fines.
>

All the speed cameras were originally hidden from view (and one still is). 
The speed limit was clearly introduced with the sole aim of making money 
from the 12 associated speed cameras because there is no way of justifying a 
50 limit on a three lane dual carriageway build almost to motorway 
standards.

"Adrian"  wrote in message 
news:6ka2tfF6sdr6U6@mid.individual.net...
> Diddly Doo  gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>> How can someone from outside an area not know they are driving through a
>> built up area? Stop the silly excuses and learn to drive.
>
> Umm, are you talking to yourself? Because it's clearly stated in the HC
> and in law as to what the default limit is, if there's no regular
> repeaters - NSL or 30, it's easy to tell.

Correct.  If it wasn't for the fact that repeaters are often placed much 
much further apart than the recommended distances laid down on the Traffic 
Sign Regulations and General Directions.  If there re no regular repeaters, 
the speed limit is anyone's guess unless street lighting is provided (and 
even then it is not always certain).

"nospam" <nospam@please.invalid> wrote in message 
news:do1vd4tc4hv7qprdibi17dfl06b0vv67ti@4ax.com...
> Alasdair  wrote:
>
>>As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
>>whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit  especially when they change
>>from one to the other in short order.
>
> In my view if a significant proportion of drivers can't tell if the road
> they are driving on should have a 30/40/50 mph limit the limit is 
> obviously
> arbitrary and does not deserve strict enforcement or harsh punishment for
> transgression.
>

Most motorists *can* what speed limit the road *should* have.  The fact that 
the limit is often lower than this these days is the problem.

"M.I.5?"  wrote in message 
news:48e09e85$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Blah"  wrote in message 
> news:6k9hl5F6p7ptU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Ret. wrote:
>>>
>>> "Colin Wilson"  
>>> wrote in message news:MPG.23497883bc3000399899c4@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>>
>>>> To paraphrase the article...
>>>>
>>>> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>>>> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>>>> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>>>> judgment or careless driving.
>>>>
>>>> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
>>>> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>>>> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
>>>> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>>>
>>> And bearing in mind that car speedos all over-read by between 8-10% that 
>>> means that a driver has to be showing serious speedo readings before he 
>>> will be banned on this totting up process.
>>>
>>> Ret.
>>
>> All speedos do NOT over read by 8-10%, where did you get this idea?
>> The fact that they might be ALLOWED to is another matter, the 
>> manufacturer of the guages win order by being MORE accurate, not less.
>>
>> I've tried my 2 sat-nav in 8 or 10 cars and every one of them has been 
>> within 1-2 mph of the sat nav figure at 70 which is more like 2%
>
> The last 3 cars that I have had are nowhere near.
>
> At 30 mph, my car speedo actually reads 36.
>
> At 70 mph, my car speedo actually reads 74.
>
> That means that I could drive at an indicated 40 in a 30 area and an 
> indicated 80 in a 70 area and be within the ACPO guidelines in both cases.

This accords with my own experiences.

I never have the slightest qualms about driving past a 30mph speed camera at 
an indicated 35 mph - because I know that my true speed at an indicated 
35mph is around 31 mph - and that is never going to trigger a speed camera. 
Similarly with 40 mph cameras.

I will quite happily drive at an indicated 70 mph on nsl roads (where it is 
safe to do so) because I know that my true speed is around 64 - 65 mph and, 
again, well below ACPO's recommended prosecution levels.

Ret.

"Diddly Doo"  wrote in message news:gbnp9n$dif$1@aioe.org...
>
>> On 28 Sep, 11:14, Alasdair  wrote:
>>> See:
>>>
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>
>>> In my view, speed restrictions should be more prominently displayed so
>>> that you know at any point on the road what the speed limit is.  We
>>> should have blue lines for 30mph, broken blue lines for 40mph, green
>>> lines for 50mph and broken green lines for 60mph on dual carriageways.
>>>
>>> As things stand at the moment, it is sometimes very difficult to know
>>> whether you are in a 30 or a 40 limit  especially when they change
>>> from one to the other in short order.
>
> Sod your excuses. If you are not capable of keeping to the speed limit you 
> shouldn't be driving.

The problem is this: you're driving at the speed limit of 40 or 50 or 60mph. 
Suddenly you see a yellow speed camera.

Your instinct is to slam your brakes on to slow to 30mph, /just in case/ you 
may have missed a 30mph sign, increasing the changes of a pile-up with the 
traffic behind you.

Many speed limits are artificially low so it's difficult to simply judge the 
required speed using common sense.

For example, a perfectly straight stretch of 4-lane motorway with cones 
along the hard shoulder may have an enforced 50mph limit.

Is this really more dangerous than thousands of miles of A-roads where you 
have a single lane, are not segregated from oncoming traffic, has sharper 
bends, T-junctions, cyclists, dozens of other hazards, yet the limit is 
legally 50 or 60mph?


-- 
Bartc

"Ret."  wrote in message 
news:zaydnemsK7M5XH3VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "M.I.5?"  wrote in message 
> news:48e09e85$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>
>> "Blah"  wrote in message 
>> news:6k9hl5F6p7ptU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Colin Wilson"  
>>>> wrote in message news:MPG.23497883bc3000399899c4@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>>>
>>>>> To paraphrase the article...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>>>>> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>>>>> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>>>>> judgment or careless driving.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
>>>>> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>>>>> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
>>>>> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>>>>
>>>> And bearing in mind that car speedos all over-read by between 8-10% 
>>>> that means that a driver has to be showing serious speedo readings 
>>>> before he will be banned on this totting up process.
>>>>
>>>> Ret.
>>>
>>> All speedos do NOT over read by 8-10%, where did you get this idea?
>>> The fact that they might be ALLOWED to is another matter, the 
>>> manufacturer of the guages win order by being MORE accurate, not less.
>>>
>>> I've tried my 2 sat-nav in 8 or 10 cars and every one of them has been 
>>> within 1-2 mph of the sat nav figure at 70 which is more like 2%
>>
>> The last 3 cars that I have had are nowhere near.
>>
>> At 30 mph, my car speedo actually reads 36.
>>
>> At 70 mph, my car speedo actually reads 74.
>>
>> That means that I could drive at an indicated 40 in a 30 area and an 
>> indicated 80 in a 70 area and be within the ACPO guidelines in both 
>> cases.
>
> This accords with my own experiences.
>
> I never have the slightest qualms about driving past a 30mph speed camera 
> at an indicated 35 mph - because I know that my true speed at an indicated 
> 35mph is around 31 mph - and that is never going to trigger a speed 
> camera. Similarly with 40 mph cameras.
>

It will in North Wales where the speed cameras are set exactly on the speed 
limit.  The ACPO guidelines are ignored by that police force.

On 29 Sep, 10:36, "M.I.5¾"  wrote:
> >
>
> Not only are 30 repeaters not required legally, it is actually illegal for
> any road authority to provide them where there is a qualifying system of
> street lighting (except at the start of the limit).  Also the reminder
> roundels often painted on the road are more often than not illegally
> displayed.  They are permitted at the start of a 30 mph limit, but may not
> appear anywhere else on the road if it is lit by street lighting (the actual
> legislation is that they can only be painted on the road next to a post
> mounted speed limit or repeater sign.  They may not appear on their own> (Direction 18(1) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
> 2002).
>
> Where a higher speed limit is reduced to a 30 limit, the sudden absence of
> repeaters may go unnoticed.  The Traffic Signs Regulations and General
> Directions 2002 allows the display of a reminder notice at the start of the
> limit *and nowhere else* (Direction 37(2)). There are restrictions on
> whether the sign can be show at all and it is illegal to display it for
> longer than 6 months.
>
> There are places where speed limit signs don't need to be displayed at all
> (or only on the near side of the road) when the speed limit changes
> (Direction 9 (1-5) is a rivetting read on the matter).
>
> Of course a cynic such as myself would think that these restrictions are
> designed to make it harder to identify the speed limit that applies to a
> road rather than easier (and hence maximise the receipts from the speed
> cameras).

I didn't realise that it was actually ILLEGAL to display useful signs
like additional speed limit repeaters. Apart from maximising the
possibility of extracting fines from poor unsuspecting motorists, at
first sight this is really weird logic. One wonders what the reasoning
behind it is. All I can really think of is that
(a) it standardises the sinage (ie there isn't any) by preventing
local authorities from placing such signs all over the place simply
because some local councillor has a bee in their bonnet about road
safety, and
(b) it stops local authorities from wasting money (for the same
reason).

Otherwise, weird.

"M.I.5¾"  wrote in message 
news:48e1cf79$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Ret."  wrote in message 
> news:zaydnemsK7M5XH3VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>> "M.I.5?"  wrote in message 
>> news:48e09e85$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>
>>> "Blah"  wrote in message 
>>> news:6k9hl5F6p7ptU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Colin Wilson"  
>>>>> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:MPG.23497883bc3000399899c4@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To paraphrase the article...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>>>>>> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>>>>>> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>>>>>> judgment or careless driving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
>>>>>> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>>>>>> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
>>>>>> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>>>>>
>>>>> And bearing in mind that car speedos all over-read by between 8-10% 
>>>>> that means that a driver has to be showing serious speedo readings 
>>>>> before he will be banned on this totting up process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ret.
>>>>
>>>> All speedos do NOT over read by 8-10%, where did you get this idea?
>>>> The fact that they might be ALLOWED to is another matter, the 
>>>> manufacturer of the guages win order by being MORE accurate, not less.
>>>>
>>>> I've tried my 2 sat-nav in 8 or 10 cars and every one of them has been 
>>>> within 1-2 mph of the sat nav figure at 70 which is more like 2%
>>>
>>> The last 3 cars that I have had are nowhere near.
>>>
>>> At 30 mph, my car speedo actually reads 36.
>>>
>>> At 70 mph, my car speedo actually reads 74.
>>>
>>> That means that I could drive at an indicated 40 in a 30 area and an 
>>> indicated 80 in a 70 area and be within the ACPO guidelines in both 
>>> cases.
>>
>> This accords with my own experiences.
>>
>> I never have the slightest qualms about driving past a 30mph speed camera 
>> at an indicated 35 mph - because I know that my true speed at an 
>> indicated 35mph is around 31 mph - and that is never going to trigger a 
>> speed camera. Similarly with 40 mph cameras.
>>
>
> It will in North Wales where the speed cameras are set exactly on the 
> speed limit.  The ACPO guidelines are ignored by that police force.

You're wrong. The speed cameras in North Wales are *not* set exactly on the 
speed limit. If they were then the only way that North Wales motorists could 
definitely avoid triggering a camera would be by driving consistently below 
the limit.  North Wales police are indeed strict over speeders - but they do 
not set their cameras precisely on the limit. they also offer 'speed 
awareness' courses as an alternative to court for minor speeders.

Ret.

On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 15:44:50 +0100, johannes
 wrote:

>
>
>Diddly Doo wrote:
>> 
>> johannes wrote:
>> >
>> > Colin Wilson wrote:
>> >>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>> >> To paraphrase the article...
>> >>
>> >> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>> >> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>> >> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>> >> judgment or careless driving.
>> >>
>> >> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, there's
>> >> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>> >> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
>> >> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>> >
>> > I don't believe this is true at all. There is a speed camera near
>> > Chalfont St Peter in Buckinghamshire; sometimes the Court reports
>> > are published in The Bucks Advertiser, there are several fines for
>> > 35mph every week. Local people know of course...
>> 
>> The speed limit there is 30 MPH. What is your problem?
>
>No problem, but rebuke the poster's statement that 30+15 will be
>in the clear.

Read the article - he is not saying they are in the "clear"

"Ret."  wrote in message 
news:M4udnQzFVMR3vH_VnZ2dnUVZ8jqdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "M.I.5¾"  wrote in message 
> news:48e1cf79$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>
>> "Ret."  wrote in message 
>> news:zaydnemsK7M5XH3VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>
>>> "M.I.5?"  wrote in message 
>>> news:48e09e85$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Blah"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:6k9hl5F6p7ptU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Colin Wilson" 
>>>>>>  wrote in 
>>>>>> message news:MPG.23497883bc3000399899c4@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To paraphrase the article...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>>>>>>> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>>>>>>> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>>>>>>> judgment or careless driving.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, 
>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>>>>>>> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) which
>>>>>>> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And bearing in mind that car speedos all over-read by between 8-10% 
>>>>>> that means that a driver has to be showing serious speedo readings 
>>>>>> before he will be banned on this totting up process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ret.
>>>>>
>>>>> All speedos do NOT over read by 8-10%, where did you get this idea?
>>>>> The fact that they might be ALLOWED to is another matter, the 
>>>>> manufacturer of the guages win order by being MORE accurate, not less.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've tried my 2 sat-nav in 8 or 10 cars and every one of them has been 
>>>>> within 1-2 mph of the sat nav figure at 70 which is more like 2%
>>>>
>>>> The last 3 cars that I have had are nowhere near.
>>>>
>>>> At 30 mph, my car speedo actually reads 36.
>>>>
>>>> At 70 mph, my car speedo actually reads 74.
>>>>
>>>> That means that I could drive at an indicated 40 in a 30 area and an 
>>>> indicated 80 in a 70 area and be within the ACPO guidelines in both 
>>>> cases.
>>>
>>> This accords with my own experiences.
>>>
>>> I never have the slightest qualms about driving past a 30mph speed 
>>> camera at an indicated 35 mph - because I know that my true speed at an 
>>> indicated 35mph is around 31 mph - and that is never going to trigger a 
>>> speed camera. Similarly with 40 mph cameras.
>>>
>>
>> It will in North Wales where the speed cameras are set exactly on the 
>> speed limit.  The ACPO guidelines are ignored by that police force.
>
> You're wrong. The speed cameras in North Wales are *not* set exactly on 
> the speed limit. If they were then the only way that North Wales motorists 
> could definitely avoid triggering a camera would be by driving 
> consistently below the limit.  North Wales police are indeed strict over 
> speeders - but they do not set their cameras precisely on the limit. they 
> also offer 'speed awareness' courses as an alternative to court for minor 
> speeders.

Further to this: (From "The Speed Trap Bible")

Vehicle construction and use regulations require a vehicle speedometer 
accuracy to be in the range of -0->+10%. The implications are that it must 
never under-read - for obvious reasons - but may over-read. As the cost of 
manufacturing a speedometer with -0% error would be very costly they all 
over-read by a few percent without exception. Even if speed is measured 
correctly the display may not be accurate, so a speedometer error is 
allowed. Because of this, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) 
have an official formula for calculating a speeding offence. It allows a 
leeway of 10% plus 2mph. In reality, most speed traps are triggered at 
higher speeds than this because if they were set bang-on those guidelines, 
the sheer amount of paperwork generated would overrun the police speeding 
departments.

Ret.

"Ret."  wrote in message 
news:cqednZcYmN6ko3_VnZ2dnUVZ8tLinZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "Ret."  wrote in message 
> news:M4udnQzFVMR3vH_VnZ2dnUVZ8jqdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>> "M.I.5¾"  wrote in message 
>> news:48e1cf79$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>
>>> "Ret."  wrote in message 
>>> news:zaydnemsK7M5XH3VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>>
>>>> "M.I.5?"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:48e09e85$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Blah"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:6k9hl5F6p7ptU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Colin Wilson" 
>>>>>>>  wrote in 
>>>>>>> message news:MPG.23497883bc3000399899c4@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To paraphrase the article...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>>>>>>>> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>>>>>>>> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>>>>>>>> judgment or careless driving.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, 
>>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before the
>>>>>>>> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) 
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And bearing in mind that car speedos all over-read by between 8-10% 
>>>>>>> that means that a driver has to be showing serious speedo readings 
>>>>>>> before he will be banned on this totting up process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ret.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All speedos do NOT over read by 8-10%, where did you get this idea?
>>>>>> The fact that they might be ALLOWED to is another matter, the 
>>>>>> manufacturer of the guages win order by being MORE accurate, not 
>>>>>> less.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've tried my 2 sat-nav in 8 or 10 cars and every one of them has 
>>>>>> been within 1-2 mph of the sat nav figure at 70 which is more like 2%
>>>>>
>>>>> The last 3 cars that I have had are nowhere near.
>>>>>
>>>>> At 30 mph, my car speedo actually reads 36.
>>>>>
>>>>> At 70 mph, my car speedo actually reads 74.
>>>>>
>>>>> That means that I could drive at an indicated 40 in a 30 area and an 
>>>>> indicated 80 in a 70 area and be within the ACPO guidelines in both 
>>>>> cases.
>>>>
>>>> This accords with my own experiences.
>>>>
>>>> I never have the slightest qualms about driving past a 30mph speed 
>>>> camera at an indicated 35 mph - because I know that my true speed at an 
>>>> indicated 35mph is around 31 mph - and that is never going to trigger a 
>>>> speed camera. Similarly with 40 mph cameras.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It will in North Wales where the speed cameras are set exactly on the 
>>> speed limit.  The ACPO guidelines are ignored by that police force.
>>
>> You're wrong. The speed cameras in North Wales are *not* set exactly on 
>> the speed limit. If they were then the only way that North Wales 
>> motorists could definitely avoid triggering a camera would be by driving 
>> consistently below the limit.  North Wales police are indeed strict over 
>> speeders - but they do not set their cameras precisely on the limit. they 
>> also offer 'speed awareness' courses as an alternative to court for minor 
>> speeders.
>
> Further to this: (From "The Speed Trap Bible")
>
> Vehicle construction and use regulations require a vehicle speedometer 
> accuracy to be in the range of -0->+10%.

In that case the speed trap bible is wrong.

The limits of accuracy for UK speedometers is -0 and +(10% +6.25 mph).

The leeway offered by the ACPO guidelines has nothing to do with the 
accuracy of speedometers as a speedo cannot legally under-read, which is 
what they claim the ACPO allowance is for.  The ACPO guideline is to allow 
for motorists occasionally wandering a little over the speed limit.

Speed limits are far more rigourously enforced on the railways, but even 
train drivers are allowed a leeway (10%) which is not a guideline but 
mandatory.

"M.I.5¾"  wrote in message 
news:48e32b25$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Ret."  wrote in message 
> news:cqednZcYmN6ko3_VnZ2dnUVZ8tLinZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>> "Ret."  wrote in message 
>> news:M4udnQzFVMR3vH_VnZ2dnUVZ8jqdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>
>>> "M.I.5¾"  wrote in message 
>>> news:48e1cf79$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Ret."  wrote in message 
>>>> news:zaydnemsK7M5XH3VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "M.I.5?"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:48e09e85$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Blah"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:6k9hl5F6p7ptU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Colin Wilson" 
>>>>>>>>  wrote in 
>>>>>>>> message news:MPG.23497883bc3000399899c4@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To paraphrase the article...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>>>>>>>>> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>>>>>>>>> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>>>>>>>>> judgment or careless driving.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, 
>>>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>>> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before 
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) 
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And bearing in mind that car speedos all over-read by between 8-10% 
>>>>>>>> that means that a driver has to be showing serious speedo readings 
>>>>>>>> before he will be banned on this totting up process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ret.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All speedos do NOT over read by 8-10%, where did you get this idea?
>>>>>>> The fact that they might be ALLOWED to is another matter, the 
>>>>>>> manufacturer of the guages win order by being MORE accurate, not 
>>>>>>> less.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've tried my 2 sat-nav in 8 or 10 cars and every one of them has 
>>>>>>> been within 1-2 mph of the sat nav figure at 70 which is more like 
>>>>>>> 2%
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The last 3 cars that I have had are nowhere near.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At 30 mph, my car speedo actually reads 36.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At 70 mph, my car speedo actually reads 74.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That means that I could drive at an indicated 40 in a 30 area and an 
>>>>>> indicated 80 in a 70 area and be within the ACPO guidelines in both 
>>>>>> cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> This accords with my own experiences.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never have the slightest qualms about driving past a 30mph speed 
>>>>> camera at an indicated 35 mph - because I know that my true speed at 
>>>>> an indicated 35mph is around 31 mph - and that is never going to 
>>>>> trigger a speed camera. Similarly with 40 mph cameras.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It will in North Wales where the speed cameras are set exactly on the 
>>>> speed limit.  The ACPO guidelines are ignored by that police force.
>>>
>>> You're wrong. The speed cameras in North Wales are *not* set exactly on 
>>> the speed limit. If they were then the only way that North Wales 
>>> motorists could definitely avoid triggering a camera would be by driving 
>>> consistently below the limit.  North Wales police are indeed strict over 
>>> speeders - but they do not set their cameras precisely on the limit. 
>>> they also offer 'speed awareness' courses as an alternative to court for 
>>> minor speeders.
>>
>> Further to this: (From "The Speed Trap Bible")
>>
>> Vehicle construction and use regulations require a vehicle speedometer 
>> accuracy to be in the range of -0->+10%.
>
> In that case the speed trap bible is wrong.
>
> The limits of accuracy for UK speedometers is -0 and +(10% +6.25 mph).
>
> The leeway offered by the ACPO guidelines has nothing to do with the 
> accuracy of speedometers as a speedo cannot legally under-read, which is 
> what they claim the ACPO allowance is for.  The ACPO guideline is to allow 
> for motorists occasionally wandering a little over the speed limit.
>
> Speed limits are far more rigourously enforced on the railways, but even 
> train drivers are allowed a leeway (10%) which is not a guideline but 
> mandatory.

None of that nit-picking alters the fact that the North Wales police do 
*not* have their speed cameras set precisely to the speed limit, which is 
what I was responding to.

Ret.

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:05:59 +0100, "M.I.5¾"
 wrote:

>The leeway offered by the ACPO guidelines has nothing to do with the 
>accuracy of speedometers as a speedo cannot legally under-read, which is 
>what they claim the ACPO allowance is for.  The ACPO guideline is to allow 
>for motorists occasionally wandering a little over the speed limit.

ITYF that the leeway is more to do with evidential requirements.  Any
speed measuing device must itself be subject to errors.  If the
evidential reading is only a small amount over the speed limit, it
would be possible for the accused motorist to argue that the speed
measurement device was over-reading by the amount over the speed
limit.  The larger the measured speed is above the speed limit, the
more difficult it becomes to convince a court that the measurement
device had such a large error.

-- 
Cynic

"M.I.5¾"  wrote in message 
news:48e32b25$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> Speed limits are far more rigourously enforced on the railways, but even 
> train drivers are allowed a leeway (10%) which is not a guideline but 
> mandatory.
>
Train speedos, especially on older trains, are not very good at all.  I was 
talking to a train driver about this a while back.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:32:16 -0700 (PDT), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>I didn't realise that it was actually ILLEGAL to display useful signs
>like additional speed limit repeaters. Apart from maximising the
>possibility of extracting fines from poor unsuspecting motorists, at
>first sight this is really weird logic. One wonders what the reasoning
>behind it is. All I can really think of is that
>(a) it standardises the sinage (ie there isn't any) by preventing
>local authorities from placing such signs all over the place simply
>because some local councillor has a bee in their bonnet about road
>safety, and
>(b) it stops local authorities from wasting money (for the same
>reason).
>
>Otherwise, weird.

It probably goes back to the 1930s when speed limits were originally
introduced.  There were two speed limits, 30 and infinity.  There was
no need for repeaters since the presence of lamp posts meant 30.

-- 
Alasdair.

"Cynic"  wrote in message 
news:enl6e49s0ps5r61a93jm1tbseooqmcan6h@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:05:59 +0100, "M.I.5¾"
>  wrote:
>
>>The leeway offered by the ACPO guidelines has nothing to do with the
>>accuracy of speedometers as a speedo cannot legally under-read, which is
>>what they claim the ACPO allowance is for.  The ACPO guideline is to allow
>>for motorists occasionally wandering a little over the speed limit.
>
> ITYF that the leeway is more to do with evidential requirements.  Any
> speed measuing device must itself be subject to errors.  If the
> evidential reading is only a small amount over the speed limit, it
> would be possible for the accused motorist to argue that the speed
> measurement device was over-reading by the amount over the speed
> limit.  The larger the measured speed is above the speed limit, the
> more difficult it becomes to convince a court that the measurement
> device had such a large error.
>

I was under the impression that, like breath testing devices, the probable 
error had to be subtracted from the indicated reading.  This is 
automatically done in the firmware these days.

"Ret."  wrote in message 
news:_oSdnYKqjtX92H7VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "M.I.5¾"  wrote in message 
> news:48e32b25$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>
>> "Ret."  wrote in message 
>> news:cqednZcYmN6ko3_VnZ2dnUVZ8tLinZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>
>>> "Ret."  wrote in message 
>>> news:M4udnQzFVMR3vH_VnZ2dnUVZ8jqdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>>
>>>> "M.I.5¾"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:48e1cf79$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ret."  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:zaydnemsK7M5XH3VnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "M.I.5?"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:48e09e85$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Blah"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>> news:6k9hl5F6p7ptU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>> Ret. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Colin Wilson" 
>>>>>>>>>  wrote in 
>>>>>>>>> message news:MPG.23497883bc3000399899c4@news.motzarella.org...
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4837799.ece
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To paraphrase the article...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Government figures released last week show that 87% of fatal
>>>>>>>>>> accidents and 92% of serious crashes are NOT caused by speeding
>>>>>>>>>> drivers. The main causes are failing to look properly, errors of
>>>>>>>>>> judgment or careless driving.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> While I agree that the signage can be bloody awful in places, 
>>>>>>>>>> there's
>>>>>>>>>> a fair amount of latitude given in the figures they give before 
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> ban kicks in (15mph over on a 30mph road, 25mph on a motorway) 
>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>> seems remarkably sensible for a nu-liebour government.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And bearing in mind that car speedos all over-read by between 
>>>>>>>>> 8-10% that means that a driver has to be showing serious speedo 
>>>>>>>>> readings before he will be banned on this totting up process.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ret.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All speedos do NOT over read by 8-10%, where did you get this idea?
>>>>>>>> The fact that they might be ALLOWED to is another matter, the 
>>>>>>>> manufacturer of the guages win order by being MORE accurate, not 
>>>>>>>> less.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've tried my 2 sat-nav in 8 or 10 cars and every one of them has 
>>>>>>>&g