That's the general idea Earl. I am convinced that there will be increased numbers of speed cameras, and that they will continue to reduce speed limits in their quest for revenue. My real worry is how long it will be before the government decides its time to go covert.
Its not illegal to have one fitted on your bike, only illegal to use.
There ia a cast iron way of avoiding speeding convictions when you`re on your bike...now listen carefully..
Get your Triumph painted red (this bit does go against the grain of every right thinking person I admit). Next, take a note of Red Monkeys reg. no. and get a plate made up. Ride like an absolute maniac and when pulled over just shout..."Oi!! Filthy copper, my name`s Wayne Jenkins and you`ll never take me alive Pig"!!! Then roar off setting off as many Gatsos as possible....
Lucky - "My real worry is how long it will be before the government decides its time to go covert." - Twas on news this morning one council has decided not to bother with speed camera warning signs and other councils are following the scheme with interest....
But you could always try sticking to the speed limits, this has a multiple effect.
1 it stops you having to evade capture 2 it creates less revenue for the government 3 it would reduce stress levels 4 it would give the conspiracy theorists one thing less to theorise about
it is not compulsary to break the law, conformation isnt a ticket to instant death
Take your point Flappy - but seems that limits are extending further and further out of villages and towns so lots of them meet up - 20 mph limits are appearing more and more so maybe we just need a 4mph limit nation wide - could remove lots of signs then as well..
SP !! theres a flaw in your cunning plan ? the rozzer's would never believe Wayne jenkins would be doing them sorts of speeds with knee down action & wheelies involved !!!!
if you can't handle the heat !! get outta the kitchen !! anyone who comes on here with a buell or ducati is fair game !! i know i've had 2 years of it !! esp with the tractor !!
And as for DM....he forgets that I've seen him wobble around Mallory, f**king up his tyres because he doesn't know how to set-up his susension or adjust the pressures and thinking that you're only allowed to pass somebody in the pits
what this goverment forget is that this constant degradation of speed limits is its having a real effect on the cost of transport.....and one day they will end up with a country full of people who are not allowed to drive because they are banned and then this present downturn will look like a nice little holiday.
Unforchunatly, each and every government has looked/will look on the motorist (of whatever sort cars/vans/motorcycles/trucks) as a legitimate source of steady income of many kinds rather than the lifeblood of the nation.
There are of course twats out there that need to be taken off the road but not many of them because of speeding; indeed the worst offenders are those who maintain 20 mph regardless of the poste/safe limit and cause huge tailbacks of frustrated drivers who are just trying to go about their business.
It needs a coherent traffic policy policed by the police properly to bring about a change in this countries swift decline into the pit as far as road policy is concerened. The day that Brunstrom and his ilk are seen for what they are will be a bright morning of change.
the cost to transport is greatest in stationery or slow moving traffic.
many of the larger Hauliers are reducing their speed limiters to 50 mph because the economiies gained in fuel consumption far outwheigh the cost in time and labour.
for some peculiar reason in the UK we have this need to get where we need to get as fast as is humanly possible.
the reality is if we took an average 10-15 minutes longer for each journey we would arrive in much better shape because we wouldnt be nearly as stressed, we wouldnt have used as much fuel etc etc etc etc etc
people will get banned, but that wont be the fault of the government.
the law is set and it is being enforced.
no one forces people to break the speed limit, it is always done voluntarily.
it really annoys me that the first reaction to being caught speeding is "how can i get off this", rather than "bollox i got caught, i had better ensure i dont get caught again".
when you look at the accident stats, for A roads (the most dangerous) a large percentage of the vehicles involved were traveling at excessive speed. i wouldnt be so naieve as to suggest that speed was the cause, it rarely is, but it is easily used as an argument by the anti speeding lobby.
and at the end of the day 60-50 will in reality make the best part of no difference to journey times
Flappy, I expect you are talking a load of bollocks because you are commenting to my thread....
if you are restricted to 50 mph then your average speed can never be more than 50; whilst in reality it will probably be nearer 20. If you are restricted to 30 then your reliable average will be nearer 15 and that is not taking into account junctions, traffic lights etc.
Go for a drive in London and your average speed will drop to 8-10 mph even with the small difference congestion charging has bought to the center to the detriment to the bits that are not CC.
You can save a bit by bringing your average down to 50 BUT you have to be able to dop more than 50 to average it.
So stop talking out of your arse will you.
MY average time to London has gone from 3 hours to 4.5 over the last 5 years and it is getting worse even with the so called improvements to the M1. Thats a drop from an average of 50 to an average of 33.....and therefore costs me 1.5 hours of real work time.
I drove from my place in Loughton to Kensington a couple of weeks back, (21.7 miles) took just over 2 hours, and the traffic wasn't all that bad compared to some days.
Bottlenecks will always be bottlenecks, but if we are forced to travel between them in "Indian" fashion at 40, 50 or whatever mph, then the "FUN" would dissapear from biking and we may as well all get 1000cc eurocars.
I speed! I will always speed! If the limit was raised to 100mph on A-Roads I would still be guilty for a big chunk of the time!
I'm not proud of it, but I'm certainly not ashamed of it, its just a fact!
And TBH, if the reason why I want to ride my bike is taken away from me I would welcome the ban with open arms. At least then I can have a beer on a "Skool night" and still get to work the next day
Food for thought: I, theoritically, could have been banned EVERY SUNDAY while I was doing the IAM thingy a few years ago, being assessed, and actively encouraged to go quicker, by a copper!!
Flappytabs: when you look at the accident stats, for A roads (the most dangerous) a large percentage of the vehicles involved were traveling at excessive speed
can you show us these figures or do you still believe the 1/3rd bollocks they keep spouting ?
break off a big chunk of the number plate, enough to lose at least one letter, but keep the edges clean. Keep the broken chunk with you, under the seat. If you get pulled, you just caught the bike against a wall/fence/etc and it twanged the number plate....... hard to prove otherwise.
I was told by a copper that if you had your plates stolen then the coppers cant do you for it.
You cant leave your bike out in the open where the bike will prob get nicked so they will let you off without any fine etc if you are riding it 'home'.
null: can you show us these figures or do you still believe the 1/3rd bollocks they keep spouting ?
According to the govt's own T.R.L.'s recent research the figures (obtained via the freedom of info act, after the govt buried them) were that excess speed was the cause of 2% of accidents, and only a contributory factor in 7%.
"Speed kills" is, and always has been, a convenient lie to justify extra taxation. Speed does not kill, bad driving does.
The most ridiculous "statistic" the brainwashed anti-speed f!$%wit lobby spout is that ridiculous one about every 1mph reduction in speed equating to a 5% reduction in the probability of having an accident. Follow that logically and any vehicle accelerating from a standing start would always crash on reaching 20mph. Conversely, if you're riding at 120mph and slow down to 100mph you then achieve zero ceash possibility and you cannot ever crash, even if you attempt to negotiate a first gear 30mph hairpin at said 100mph.
They're just brainwashed nimby f!$%ing morons, incapable of thinking for themselves. w!$%ers.
Best flip plate I ever came across used a central locking motor from a car door. f!$% two seconds, this was instant, it'd have your finger off, lol. MOT tester was trying to decide whether he should pass it for being cool, or fail it for being better than his own YPVS motor based flip.
i merely stated fact regarding cost a fact i can substantiate because this happens to be the field in which i work and have a modicum of expertise.
i will state again that many of the major operators have placed a Blanket, electronic speed limit of 50mph on their vehicles because it saves them money on diesel.
could you explain to me how this is talking either bollocks, or out of my arse.
Tony: what this goverment forget is that this constant degradation of speed limits is its having a real effect on the cost of transport
not true imho, speed limits have nothing to do with traffic volume and congestion
tony: Go for a drive in London and your average speed will drop to 8-10 mph even with the small difference congestion charging has bought to the center to the detriment to the bits that are not CC.
and i gaurantee that if the speed limits were doubled the journey times wouldnt change
Tony: each and every government has looked/will look on the motorist (of whatever sort cars/vans/motorcycles/trucks) as a legitimate source of steady income of many kinds rather than the lifeblood of the nation.
In fairness, on the M42, where they have variable limits, a lower speed limit does appear to improve traffic flow, when traffic is heavy.
Unfortunately they seem to lower the limit far too readily.
And it's impossible to make progress, on a bike, when all the lanes are doing the same speed. They actually tell folk, not to change lane, which is imho, official support for lane hogs.
4 lanes, all travelling at the same speed, far too close to each other. Not sure what the accident stats for such schemes are, tho I doubt they'd publish any negative ones.
flappy: Tony: what this goverment forget is that this constant degradation of speed limits is its having a real effect on the cost of transport
not true imho, speed limits have nothing to do with traffic volume and congestion
Then you have a very limited understanding of the interaction fo traffic when confronted by inapprpriate speed limits and the known scenario of bunching which has been proved to speed limits.
Actually you are incorrect, double the speed limit will improve traffic flow imensly (doesn't mean you have to go as fast as the posted speed limit, just that you can).
Drive into London and you get stuck in the outskirts, then you get to Maiia Vale and suddenly you have clear roads and then you hit te bottle neck again. I regulary travel at 50 mph down Park Lane just to keep up with the flow of the traffic.
Once again, a blanket 50 mph speed limit will only have an affect where you can travel at greater than that speed for big distances. Drive up the M1 on a friday night and you will be lucky to hit 50mph never mind maintain it. And at many other times of day as well. you didn't comment about my average speeds between here and London; I wonder why? Do you really think that restricting the M1 to 30 mph is any kind of answer?
at no point have i suggested that speed limits should be reduced or raised, and the term you refer to regarding traffic bunching is the bullwhip effect or forristers scenario.
please dont try to tell me what i do and dont know.
the congestion in london is caused by the overuse of an archaic road network which has been expanded bit meal by successive authorities.
if you raise the speed limit you will amplify the bullwhip effect (scientific fact) if the bullwhip effect is amplified there are two likely outcomes, 1 traffic jams through congestion 2 there is a crash.
all i tried to point out in the first post was that as a cost reduction excercise many companies are reducing the speed at which their vehicles can travel.
but hey Tony you drive in London every now and then so you obviously know better than Tesco and Asda
I bow to your greater knowledge, but forgive me if i dont pay attention
Devon and Cornwall police will forgive you a lot of things loud pipes etc bending the speed limit but fit a small plate and they will do you for everything including the plate. So what they would do to you if you had one of these.
On my journey to London it used to take 3 hours (average)
it now takes 4.5 hours (on average)
assuming that by dropping to 50 mph max a truck will make maybe a 6 mph differnce to journey times (in ideal conditions)
however the chances of that truck getting to and maintaing 50 mph are very slim so lets say a truck takes on average 4.5 hours to do the same journey....oh dear that makes the truck as fast as me so maybe my estimate of average speed is a good one (because what I make in the fast bits I lose in the traffic jams when the trucks catch me up again (and this happens on a regular basis).
However given a decent run at it in lighter traffic conditions the truck can do a best time of 3 hours whereas I can do it in maybe 2 so it take s the truck driver an extra hour to do the journey (he is restricted to a max of 50mph) and therefore you have to pay him an extra hour for the same journey so it costs you what £15 per journey in wages and NI and the fact that he isn't going to get as many miles in per day for a saving of what 3 miles per gallon? so instead of 10 mles to the gallon they get 13? Three gallons of deisel per 150 mile journey so about £15? Hmm not much of a saving there then....
For me the reduction is closer to 1.5 hours so the slower journey costs me much more than I could ever save in fuel costs. So in my case yes, Tesco's at al have it very wrong.
But then you are so clever I'm sure you'll prove me wrong.
X-Man: so instead of 10 mles to the gallon they get 13? Three gallons of deisel per 150 mile journey so about £15? Hmm not much of a saving there then....
as an aside, you say that 3mpg is not much of a saving but on a 45 gallon fuel tank its 135 miles extra.... tot that up over a fleet and multiple fill ups and it becomes a considerable saving for not much loss in overall journey times, admittedly it'll not make much difference on town routes but on motorways/A roads there are big savings to be had... not being contentious just using your own figures and some maffs
but if journey times are not that different then it becomes a moot point, the running costs are offset by the fuel savings to a certain degree.... still.... just a thought....
For my own experience I tend to drive gently in the car..... doing 40 mile round trips every day I can't afford to hammer about.... I tend not to exceed 50-60 on dual carriageways anyway, and the lower speed is reflected at the pumps.... I can get about 600 miles on a tankful, by keeping to 2000 rpm it will give me nearly 70 mph and reasonable accelleration, but good fuel comsumption so there is summat to be gained from lowering your speed.... albeit only if you use motorway and A roads
Just realised something - Flappy - apologies for seemingly 'hit-and-run' type post yesterday. That's just one reason I'm not about much - simply as I can't really post with any guarantee of regularity, so tend to read when I can and stay away from posting (everyone breathes a sigh of relief... ;-) )
But, just to clarify for good orders sake - I was pretty much alluding to where Ade went when what I posted.
the speed limit has got nothing to do with your journey time.
the fact your journey takes 50% longer is down to volume.
if the speed limit were 150mph all the way you wouldnt regain the hour and a half because you just cant do the speed.
my point about the cost saving of driving slower with the engine in its comfort zone was merely an observation.
i am not going to (nor would want to) change your mind, you carry on believing that by tear arsing around everywhere you are actually gaining, it is your life mate. i would prefer to leave home an hour and a half earlier, get there in three hours then get a couple of hours kip before delivering.
my experience of driving to London, by car or truck, i have to say that in the past 12 months the traffic volumes seem to have dropped quite dramatically, but i have no basis oher than my experience for the observation
Ash
it was very simplistic, but it annoys me when people dont accept responsibility for their actions.
it is always the police or government or cameras fault i got done for speeding, never i was breaking the law and got caught so now i will take my punishment and belt up
Volume will only have an effect if there is an artificial limit on how fast that volume can proceed and how drivers use that limit. There is of course the limit that the vehicle can travel at. And thst will be the final arbiter. However If I choose to travel at 80 mph and the guy next along chooses 75 then we will only ever meet once in a journey (if ever) but if I join the motorway at 70 and am limited to that as is everybody else then we will all contiue our journey together. If however we then meet a grouip of lorries all travelling at 50 mph then in all probability our combined speeds will drop to 50 because the two lanes of solid lorries (given the other effects of hills etc.) will in all probability make the motroway a single carriage way for all other traffic. and we can never recover that time fully because we are limited to when (if) that restriction is passed.
Lorries should be banned from motorways or at least restricted to the inside lane on any part of the system that has any upward incline. and the traffic would flow much better.Or even better a single lane should be built for them running alongside the motorway for thwm and them only; then they would not be able to claim with annoying regulkaruity that thier reason for causing so many jams is because they have to slow down for car drivers and lose their hard won speed. FFS if they can't keep up with the flow then they didn';t ought to be on the road in the first place. Same goes for going uphill, there should be some form of test for them that when fully laden they should be able to maintain their max speed uphill, not have to slow down to 30 or less. Can't do it, not allowed on the road.
And whilst ever this government or the next one use speed and cameras as a form of money generation I will keep on complaining.
On the A14 between Kettering and the Catthorpe interchange whwere the A14 joins the M6/M1 there is a 3-4 mile section which is hilly and where HGV`s are by law restricted to the inside lane. Being as it is illegal to use use the overtaking lane over this stretch if you are in a vehicle with a GVW of over 7.5 tons then what happens if a lorry comes up behind a Tractor doing 20mph or a JCB trundling along? Can he be done if he tries to get past or would there just be 2 miles of pissed off lorry drivers all trundling along at 20mph? Then doing 20 up a hill all these heavy trucks would have no inertia to get them up to the top... I get held up by lorries all the time in my job but I try not to get worked up about it. They`re restricted by law and other road users just have to live with it I`m afraid. Without trucks the shop shelves would be pretty empty wouldn`t they?...
Oh, and just for your information and for the sake of clarity.
I do not go tear arsing about everywhere, hence my clean licence. I respect 30 in towns and villages and even then will drive to the conditions (i.e. much slower) whatever those conditions dictate.
Unlike many of the very large artics that drive down my street using it as a shortcut accross town and its surprising how much speed they can do downhill ...
SP, there would be 2 miles of pissed off lorry drivers if they actually kept the law, but they often don't....
And to use Flappy's terms of reference...why the f!$% does it matter, thats the law?
and your comment about the lack of inertia is the one I was alluding to about being tested as to their ability to cope with the road system at a reasonable speed so as not to cause congestion.
Yes , without trucks the shelves would be empty but is that any excuse to keep on making them bigger and bigger load carrying whilst at the same time restricting them to speeds that cause congestion by artificially slowing them down to the point where they can't recover without 24 speed gearboxes and huge distances. All for the sake of saving a few quid? And therefore costing YOU money?
most of europe has a lorry ban at weekends, and Germany has many miles of no overtaking on Autobahn incline, . in Germany if you so much as sneak a wheel over the white line in a no overtaking zone there seems to be a policeman with a sharp pencil and a credit card machine, so in the main lorries dont overtake in my experience.
congestion isnt an issue on motorways at weekends in the UK.
and in answer to your point SP if a vehicle over 7.5 tonnes ventures out of the inside lane to overtake in this section of road, he is breaking the law, however the Police in this country are allowed to exercise discretion. If however the section of road was controlled by a jobsworth behind a camera, (like the parking monitors in London), lorries would never overtake. this would ease the congestion. ( it would pee off a lot of lorry drivers but you cant make an omelette without cracking eggs)
If you look at many of the accident blackspots on the motorways they are on inclines, because of the disparity in speed between the slowest (usually trucks or cars with trailers) and fast moving traffic.
it could be argued that by enforcing a lower speed limit in these sections would reduce accident rates, it could also be argued that if slow vehicles were banned from all but the inside lane accident rates would fall. what neither of these "solutions" do is address the root cause, which is plain and simple bad driving.
Congestion on motorways happens around known pinchpoints, and 9 times out of 10 it is caused by people driving too close, which is the main factor in the bullwhip effect. speed is only an issue because it amplifies the affect as speed increases.
Homer: break off a big chunk of the number plate, enough to lose at least one letter, but keep the edges clean. Keep the broken chunk with you, under the seat. If you get pulled, you just caught the bike against a wall/fence/etc and it twanged the number plate....... hard to prove otherwise
Yep, the way to go Snap the plate in half & keep the broken bit in a rucksack or under the seat incase you ever get stopped
Tony we have completely hijacked a thread, and will argue until the cows come home, the net result of which will be zero so i am going to do something more constructive
Congestion happens around pinchpoints on motorways indeed and most of them (99%)are where there are hills where lorrys can't keep up to speed and slow down and bunch and try to overtake at 1mph faster than those being overtaken.....(observed fact)
"the congestion in london is caused by the overuse of an archaic road network which has been expanded bit meal by successive authorities."
I thought the traffic lights had been offset by Ken to make driving slower to encourage you to leave the car at home? Boris plans to reset them, buts its not yet been done...
monkey !! excellent , you'll be able to set it up for me this year at the t595 trackday when we all attend !! 
bit slow today