More on parking tickets....

[elipie]

Variable speed limits as on the M25 are a fairly new thing and I would imagine pretty expensive to implement over short stretches of road.

Speed limit changes can be for loads of reasons, although I'm not sure catching out motorists is one of them. If the area's been identified as an accident blackspot then the change in speed limit could be a temporary measure until improvements are carried out, or maybe there are constraints which mean it can't be improved so a speed limit change is the next best thing. Also, highway design standards change over the years meaning that what was once acceptable as a 70mph road may not be under the new regulations.

ooh I feel like a right geek now, no more roads chat for me.

[Ratpack]

I wasn't going to reply as I didn't want more abuse sent my way when I'm already feeling quite fragile.

I still don't know what my ticket is for. It's not for parking. Someone suggested it's for going in a bus lane but when I requested the information off the council, they said they didn't have any bus lane cameras. The council will not give me any more details about it other than the road where the contravention took place and a picture of my car on the road. It says Heaton Road/ Rye Lane but they say they have no bus lane cameras there so who knows????

If I was such a bad driver I wouldn't be on here moaning about it. I'm moaning because I have been driving for eleven years all across the country and I have never ever had anything like this before. I don't get parking tickets. I'm moaning as I feel that their policies and procedures are wrong. I've been fined ?650 because they have outsourced their PCN collections to bailiff's firms who hike up the fees and use questionable methods. I have made a mistake not changing my address immediately - I admit that - but when you are in the process of moving house, sometimes you forget things. I do however think this amount of money is unjustifiable and unaffordable. If I have done something wrong on the road - I'd firstly like to know what before I pay up. Secondly I don't like being extorted to pay huge sums of money (which I can't actually afford) by heavy men that come round your house and threaten to take your car away if you don't.

And before I get loads of abuse because I drive a car and it's now socially unacceptable to drive, some of us have no choice. We have bills to pay and work necessitates it.

[Carrie]

Sounds like you got caught out by this http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,127870,127880#msg-127880

[zephyr]

There may not be a 'bus lane' camera but there may be a hig level camera in the vicinity. These are the cameras on high poles or attached to buildings that are often used to monitor traffic generally. They are fairly high resolution. I got done by one in Lewisham when I turned right at a 'no right turn'. They are not in the 'usual' line of view when driving.

[Huguenot]

If the speed limit changes from 30 mph to 40 mph four times in an eight mile journey then your total time benefit by zig zagging between the top speeds (as opposed to doing 30mph all the way) is around 100 seconds. (For the pedants mathematically it's 120secs, but you can only speed up after leaving the 30 zone, and have to slow down before you renter a 30 zone.)

Since I think we'd all agree that it's hardly worth the bother for 100 secs, why don't you just drive at 30mph all the way?

100 secs... c'mon... think about it ;-)

Did anybody ever watch that time trial between three different motorway drivers over the same distance at the same time? If I recall well, one drove with gritted teeth swerving from lane to lane to get highest speed, one drove middle lane all the way, and one followed the highway code. The difference over 100 miles between the best and worst solution was something like 4 mins.

The answer is just relax, think of your fellow man and if you don't know then drive at 30mph. You'll be safe in the knowledge that at 30mph half of pedestrians survive being hit by a car, at 40mph 90% die. 100 secs to double the chance of death. 100 secs.

[Huguenot]

In fact, fantastic facts on speeding here.

Including the fact that the cost of preventing the accidents that took place in 2000 would have cost this country 5bn quid less than the actual cost of picking up the pieces afterwards.

And some people on other threads wonder why the government is interested in traffic management ;-) The reason is that we know naff all about it!

This one I really like :"it can be shown that an annual saving of 23,000 injury crashes (200 deaths, 3,500 serious injuries) could be expected, resulting from a reduction in average speeds (across the whole network) of just 2 mph."

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Interesting Hugenot. I wouldn't have a problem with a blanket 20mph speed limit in all urban places*. When it is broken (as invariably it would be), hopefully it wouldn't be by too much, thus saving lives.

*and get rid of the blessed speed bumps.