Real life

My speed awareness course might push me over the limit again

It was so informative and entertaining I might have to break the speed limit so that I can go on another one

6 February 2016

9:00 AM

6 February 2016

9:00 AM

If these speed awareness courses get much more entertaining and informative they might become a dangerous incentive to break the limit just to get on to them.

I qualified for my second one by doing 35 in a 30 at night in a strange place. Being lost and mercilessly tailgated as I crawled along a pitch dark country lane, I turned right to find a place to pull over and before I realised I was in a residential street, a camera flashed me.

Two months later, I was one of 23 people sitting in a faceless office suite inside a multistorey car park in Guildford with Janice, let’s call her, in majestic command of a laser pointer and a PowerPoint display.

I looked around me and observed that my cohorts were the most boring, nerdy, garden edge-trimming, Jamie Oliver cookbook devotees I think I have ever seen. You couldn’t have assembled a more diligent-looking bunch of tooth flossers if you had commissioned YouGov to find the 23 people least likely to do anything in any way threatening to the fabric of society.

‘Here we all are,’ I thought, as I surveyed this sorry bunch of nose-hair trimmers. ‘The upstanding citizens of Middle Britain, happy to be caught on camera and done up like a kipper.’

When our great-great-grandchildren ask how the second dark age came about, their teachers will have to explain that their ancestors couldn’t do much about civilisation unravelling because they were all detained in a National Speed Awareness Course at the time, sitting there with their vending-machine coffee cups, which they would later dispose of in the correct bin selected from a triumvirate of bins marked ‘mixed recycling’, ‘plastics’ and ‘used cups’.

Anyway, Janice got cracking by putting a teaser on the PowerPoint. How many casualties were there and how many people did we think were killed on the roads each year?

We conferred in groups of four. ‘It’s much lower than you think,’ I told my team mates, but they didn’t believe me. ‘Let’s say two million injured and 25,000 killed,’ suggested the wide-eyed chap on my left. The other teams came up with even higher guesses. The true figures then appeared on the board: 194,477 casualties, 1,775 dead.

‘What do you think of that?’ said Janice, pacing in front of the PowerPoint.

A man in overalls bearing the name of a boiler repair firm piped up: ‘Not bad!’

Janice balked. ‘What do you mean?’

‘Well, when you think of the millions on our roads, a thousand dead ain’t bad.’

‘It’s bad for the families of those killed,’ corrected Janice, her smartly bobbed hair bouncing indignantly. ‘We want that figure to be?’ ‘Zero,’ we all chirruped obediently.

And so off we went learning how to scour the roads for children about to jump out from hidden playgrounds, old ladies about to fall from parked cars and sparsely planted speed-limit signs — prompting the obvious question, ‘Why are they so hard to spot?’ The speed signs, I mean, not the old ladies.

Janice reckoned they can’t just put repeater signs on lampposts to tell you it’s a 30 limit. You get one sign, usually at a junction, then it’s up to you to keep clocking the clues: street lights, houses, crossings, ‘lollipop persons’.

I wanted to ask why they can’t just put up lots of 30 signs, perhaps lighting them, so when I’m lost in a strange place at night I might see them.

But I couldn’t be bothered. There would be an answer. There was an answer for everything. And the more Janice gave the answers the less clear things were.

‘This is a 20 zone. And this is a 20 limit. And this is a 20 guideline. If you’re not doing 20 it’s not illegal but if you do knock someone over and kill them doing more than 20 then you will get done for dangerous driving. Clear?’ Oh yes, we nodded.

There were several rounds of ‘spot the hazard’ in which we were shown a picture of a street and had to shout out what could go wrong.

‘Children playing …parked cars …heavy foliage…,’ we each called out diligently, like the morons we were.

Then the man in overalls could bear it no longer: ‘Cats and dogs! Men falling off ladders from roofs on to the top of your car as you drive past!’

I wanted to join in by shouting, ‘Yes and the door of that parked van might burst open and jihadists leap out and spray the street with bullets!’

But of course neither Janice nor the powers that be were remotely interested in whether jihadists were going to leap out of a van.

Not unless they could get them to sign up to a National Jihad Awareness Course costing £100 a few months later.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Mr B J Mann

    Why isn’t it “Twenty’s Plenty!” for TRAIN drivers wherever there is a danger to pedestrians?!

    How come “Speed Kills!” only on the roads?!

    Why do you never hear “Won’t Somebody Think Of The CHILDREN?!” never mind “If It Saves JUST ONE Life!” on the RAIL roads?!

    After all they manage to kill 300 pedestrians a year on a mere 11,000 miles of track compared to 500 pedestrians on the entire ordinary road system!!!

    • Mr B J Mann

      Wouldn’t be anything to do with the fact that the road “safety” lobby is funded by the public sector in general and the rail industry and rail unions in particular?!

    • Stephen Griffiths

      There are no pedestrians on a railway.
      There are trespassers and suicide attempters. They make up your 300.

      • Mr B J Mann

        And there are no accident victims on the roads.

        As a quickly buried railway report admitted, less than half of suicides and trespassers deaths are suicides.

        And even if they all were trespassers AND suicides, why does it make 300 deaths acceptable?!

        What happened to “Think Of The Children” and “If It Saves Just ONE Life!”?

        And on the roads 85% of pedestrians died because of their own suicidal actions.

        And in almost all cases the pedestrians were in breach of at least one of the Highway Code (did you know there was a Pedestrians section?), local Bye-Laws, highways and traffic Acts, and/or Obstructing the Queen’s Highway?

        So what is your point?!

        That pedestrian lives only matter when it gives the rail industry a commercial advantage?!?!

        • Stephen Griffiths

          My point is that your attempt to make a comparison between road speeding and rail speeding is flawed.
          The railways have trackside and on-board equipment that stops trains from speeding. If a driver goes over the limit for that portion of line the train is automatically brought to a stand. No train driver would “speed” as a matter of choice,whereas a small percentage of road drivers do exactly that.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Sorry, but you are, at best, talking bollards.

            At worst propagating propaganda.

            So you’re saying that if roads and cars had roadside and on-board equipment that stops cars and lorries from speeding so that if a road driver goes over the limit for that portion of road their vehicle is automatically brought to a stand-still and so no road driver could “speed” as a matter of choice, whereas a small percentage of road drivers do exactly that now:

            The rail industry funded road “safety” lobby would be shut down?

            There would be no more talk of “Speed Kills! – It’s Simple Physics! – Kill Your Speed! – Not That Child! – You Know It Makes Sense! – If It Save Just ONE!!! Life! – Won’t Somebody Think Of The Little CHILDREN!!!?!

            There would be no more insistence on “Twenty’s Plenty!”?!?!

            You’re saying if I was driving along a road with a 40mph limit, approaching a zebra, and there were some kids playing near it, or I was passing a bus stop, with a load of unruly schoolkids messing about at it, I could carry on at 40mph, because if I crept over the automatic systems would bring my car to a stand-still?!?!?

            Absolute BALDERDASH!

            They are now making just about whole towns 20 zones, with even main roads limited to 20mph (I think Bristol led the way a decade ago!).

            And expect drivers to go even slower ANYWHERE where there is ANY risk of a vulnerable pedestrian getting on the road!

            So why doesn’t the same rule apply to the rail road drivers?

            Especially as they take miles to stop from speed and can’t steer round hazards!?!

            It’s no use wittering on about not being able to exceed the speed limit.

            What was the speed limit where the two girls going Christmas shopping were marmalised? 100mph?!?!?

            Wow, so the driver wasn’t speeding? So did the girls survive?!?!

            If thirty million road drivers on a third of a million miles of road carrying probably 90+% of powered land passenger and goods traffic have to constantly slow down for pedestrians in case they get onto the road (despite the pedestrians supposedly having to stop and wait for traffic to pass):

            Then why can’t a few thousand (few 100?) rail road drivers on around 11,000 miles of track, who only carry a few percent of passengers and goods traffic be held to the same standards and speeds where there is a risk of them encountering pedestrians?!?!

            Especially as they have maps showing all such locations (including unofficial crossings).

            And even more especially as it is the rail industry that promotes “Speed Kills!”, etc through the road “safety” lobby it funds!!!

          • Stephen Griffiths

            The only thing missing from your hysterical diatribe is green ink.
            “Rail Union funded road safety lobby”?
            “Commercial advantage?
            This topic is clearly your favourite one to rant on about.It always become embarrassing to get into a shouting match with some oddball like you, so I’ll leave you to pace up and down with your scrap of paper in your hand.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Clearly you’re not yourself a paid member of the rail industry funded road “safety” lobby or you wouldn’t have let a little thing like perceived “shouting” deflect you from trying to undermine someone publicising the facts about this glaring discrepancy in national policy on transport safety.

            It’s a simple fact that bodies like Transport 2000/Campaign For Better Transport were set up and funded by organisations like the railway(s), rail and public transport unions, councils and council bus companies, their vision for the future of/better transport seems to consist entirely of more and faster trains (and trams, buses and bicycles) and fewer and slower roads and road vehicles (and planes).

            Note, their “support” is wider now because organisations like road transport companies are forced to show they support such things for the good of their public image and win Corporate Social Responsibility Environmental Responsibility and Sustainability Brownie points. Probable Diversity and Inclusivity points too!

            As for commercial advantage: so why don’t they simply comply with the safety rules they work so hard to impose on road traffic, think of the children, and kill their speed, not that child, after all, if it saves just one life!

            And, yes, trying to make the world a better and safer place, especially for children, is one of my “favourite” things, so apologies if I get a bit shouty about a mere life and death issue, especially one that affects children so much.

            But perhaps you are a paid propagandist after all.

            Most rail safety apologists aren’t too embarrassed to get into a ranting shouting match that makes them look like some oddball as they repeatedly regurgitate rubbish I’d already proved wrong and refuse to look at the facts and figures from the same reports they’ve quoted misleadingly presented and cherrypicked headline figures from.

            You obviously realise you’d lose a proper debate, and have gone for subtly and not so subtly undermining the messenger.

            Pro rata rail drivers kill a thousand times the pedestrians that die in collisions with road drivers.

            Meanwhile the NHS admits (the suspected real figure is ten to twenty times higher again) twice as many patients die in hospital accidents than in road accidents.

            And yet the roads are the most dangerous environment most people experience, and they are exposed to them every day of their lives.

            While hospitals should be one of the safest environments they experience, and most people don’t go into one most years of their life!

            But you make sure facts like that never get put into the public domain, never mind put into perspective.

          • #toryscum

            TL DR… strike 3

          • Mr B J Mann

            For the third time, I’m not on your TL DR app, I don’t want to hook up for scummy g-y s-x, and I wouldn’t dream of whipping you if it turns you on.

            You’ll have to make do with my constantly humiliating you over the interweb!

          • Mr B J Mann

            PS the only shouty, ranty, green-ink hysterical diatribe bits of my post are where I’m quotiing your shouty, ranty, green-ink hysterical rail industry funded road “safety” lobby infomercial advertorials.

            As seen everywhere from TV screens to the backs of buses.

            Funny how you seem to have missed it!

          • Mary Ann

            Travelling by train is twenty two times safer than travelling in a car.


          • Mr B J Mann

            SO WHAT?!

            Racing main battle tanks across a crowded school yard in the middle of playtime is twenty two times safer than travelling in a tank across a battlefield!

            In fact, NO passengers have EVER been killed racing main battle tanks across a crowded school yard in the middle of playtime!!!!

            SO WHAT?!?!?!!!!!

            Passengers are never killed when speeding cars mow down pedestrians!

            Are you.saying you support speeding cars mowing down pedestrians?!?!?!!!!!

            Please explain to me why you support hundreds of tons of cast iron and solid steel being driven at speeds sometimes exceeding the ton past overcrowded platforms, across busy crossings, and along sections of rail road that divide communities and where the rail industry not only knows the public try to reclaim the rail road and reconnect their community, but have mapped the locations’ along with locations where the know people commit suicide,…..

            And support them being driven at speed into vulnerable, in every sense of the word, pedestrians.

            While you are at it, could you also explain why the fact that the passengers who are enjoying the benefits of being chauffeured around the country at speed never suffer in the collision is something to crow about?!

          • Conway

            Well you don’t get too many pedestrians at 35,000 feet, do you?

          • Mary Ann

            You do of course get incidents like Lockerbie.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Which seems to have been ignored in your linked article!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Actually, that article is about airline safety, and tries to give the impression it’s ultra safe.

            But the journo makes the mistake of giving too much information:

            “I have used his data to derive how far you must travel to incur risk equivalent to one mile of motorcycling – which is by far the most dangerous everyday form of transport.

            On light aircraft, it is two miles; by bicycle four miles; and by car 47 miles. Trains and jet planes are dramatically safer.

            Yes, JET AIRLINERS (and I bet he hasn’t included military aircraft) which travel for thousans of miles without coming within thousands of feet of anything else, rarely crash and kill their passengers.

            And trains, which not only travel on highly segregated rail roads, but are hundreds of tons of solid steel and cast iron, rarely kill their passengers.

            Yet, despite only running along around 11,000 miles of highly segregated track, they still manage to kill nearly as many pedestrians as die in collisions with around 40 million vehicles on around a third of a million miles of mostly shared roads, doing hundreds of BILLIONS of miles a year!!!!

            Oh, and on a slightly more like for like basis, the passenger safety rates for inter city flights and inter city freeway drives in the US are apparenyly comparable!

          • #toryscum

            TL DR… again. you have too much time on your hands mate.

          • Mr B J Mann

            As I’ve said, I’m I’m neither on this TL DR app, nor into g-y c0ttaging.

            You’ll have to look elsewhere for a mate with with time on their hands and scum on their mind!

          • Mr B J Mann

            However, if I was on your g-y s-x TL DR app I wouldn’t be interested in someone who can’t even compose a constructive response to five short lines!

            I could excuse your other two pointless posts as you are probably incapable of perusing what they purport to respond to, never mind the reading entire article.

            You’re obviously only cyber-c0ttaging for a bit of posh male t0tty that wants a bit of scummy rough tory trade.

            Sorry, but you’ve struck out even after three attempts!

          • Mr B J Mann

            PS You’ve obviously never heard of multitasking.

            It’s a bit like when you are salivating over what’s on your screen.

            While you are being busy doing something else with your hands!

        • Mary Ann

 95% either suicides or trespassers

          I could only find this,

          • Mr B J Mann


            Had you bothered to read my posts?!?!?!!

            The only thing your link adds is proof that pedestrian deaths are more than the round 300 I normally say!!!!!!

            Oh, and that the news the Beeb was broadcasting below the article was about North Korea.

            How very apt!!!!!!!!

            To summarise, regardless of the soundbites, the headlines, even the tabular headings or sub headings in the “statistics”, around half the pedestrian deaths are non suicide.

            One hastily withdrawn rail report even admitted that less than half of trespassers and suicides were actually suspected /suicides.

            But even if they were all suicides why would that make 300+ acceptable?

            Especially as 85% or pedestrian deaths on the roads are down to the suicidal actions of the pedestrian!

            And the rail industry funded road “safety” lobby mantra is “If It Saves Just ONE</b Life!"?!

            And even if all pedestrian deaths were "trespassers": in almost all pedestrian deaths on the roads the pedestrians where where they shouldn't have been at the time, being in breach of the Rules for Pedestrians in the Highway Code, various Traffic Acts, the law on Obstructing the Highway, or just local Bye-Laws like the railway "trespassers" are!

            And even if all the pedestrian deaths were were trespassers, even if they were also suicidal, why does that make 300+ deaths acceptable?

            Especially as one of the rail industry funded road "safety" lobby mantras is "Roads Divide Communities – Reclaim The Roads!"!

            Why doesn't that apply to the Railroads too?!

            Especially when another is:

            "If It Saves Just ONE</b Life!"?!

            So why isn't it "Speed Kills – It's Simple Physics!" on the RAIL roads?

            Why, on the RAIL roads don't we apply THEIR mantra of "Kill Your Speed – Not That Child – You Know It Makes Sense – If It Saves Just ONE</b Life!"?!

          • Hamburger

            I think you ought to read the article. 315 deaths were suicides or as a result of trespassing. 10 were accidents at level crossings. The other 7 are not described.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I really don’t know why I continuously engage with illiterates.

            I read the article.

            And I’ve just REread it.

            And it STILL says:

            “Among the 332 deaths were 293 suspected suicides and 22 fatal injuries caused by trespassing….”

            If you’d bothered to read my posts you would have seen my comment about only around half of the deaths being suicides, and that an official rail industry report had admitted it was less than half.

            And as I’ve also said, even if all the deaths were suicides, why would that make it OK?

            Perhaps you would like to answer that question.

            Or perhaps this one:

            As 85% of the pedestrian deaths on the ordinary roads are down to the suicidal actions of the pedestrians themselves, and as in nearly all cases the pedestrian should not have been where they were on the road, are you arguing that it should be OK for road vehicles to hurtle through crossings and past bus stops at speeds over the ton?!

            Over to you!

          • Hamburger

            I’m not sure one can prevent anyone from committing suicide.
            it would appear that you are one of the many road users who does not realise that a car or lorry is a lethal weapon.

          • Mr B J Mann

            No, as I’ve repeatedly demonstrated (try actually reading what I”ve actually written) I’m fully aware of the lethal potential of cars and lorries (which in not the point I’m trying to discuss – as you’d know if you’d done me the courtesy of reading my posts before launching into a personal attack).

            What I’m trying to discuss is the far greater lethality of trains, the vastly greater number of fatalities they cause, pro rata, and the oddly anomalous treatment of rail safety vs road safety.

            Especially oddly anomalous treatment given that the safety policies enforced on road transport seem to emanate from the rail lobby (again, read what I’ve written before playing the Mann because you can’t play the ball!)!

          • Hamburger

            You are simply wrong. Road travel, is much more dangerously than trains pro rata.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You are simply blind because throughout this page (and linked article comments), not only have I been discussing:

            P E D E S T R I A N S

            But I’ve also demonstrated that pro rata vastly more die on the rail roads than on the tarmac ones.

            In fact rail road drivers kill a THOUSAND times as many * P E D E S T R I A N S * per head as die in collisions involving tarmac road drivers!

            If you think you can prove otherwise, please do so.

            Again, in relation to * * P E D E S T R I A N S * * ! ! !

            Otherwise please stop wasting my time and insulting my intelligence.

          • Mr B J Mann

            PS If you think you’re so clever, while you are trying to prove things, try proving that train passengers would be as safe as car passengers if cars could be built as solidly as trains and were given almost completely segregated access to the roads while trains had to be built as light as cars and had to share the rail roads with all comers!

          • Hamburger

            If if if……

          • Mr B J Mann

            If you had a counter argument…

            if you even had an argument to start with…..

            … if……!!!

          • Hamburger

            Good night.

          • Mr B J Mann

            6:00 pm!

            Has mummy made you pack up the train set then?!

            Or have you just thrown Tommy the Tanky Engy out of your cot?!?!?!?!

          • Hamburger

            Not everyone lives in your neighbourhood.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Where I live we don’t throw out train set out of the pram if we get destroyed in an argument, especially if we’ve retired hurt through shooting ourselves repeatedly in both feet.

            And mummy’s going to be very cwoss if she finds you were still pwaying wiv youw kiddy tabwet at 7:30pm CET!

          • Hamburger

            Oh do grow up.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Says the silly burgher who, after i’d posted innumerable contributions explaining and demonstrating that the railways are vastly more dangerous to P E D E S T R I A N S than roads, pro rata, and that the rail industry massages the figures and hides them with propaganda about suicides and trespassers, joins in the “debate” back at the beginning with:

            “I think you ought to read the article. 315 deaths were suicides or as a result of trespassing.”

            And when I point out the propaganda piece actually said:

            “Among the 332 deaths were 293 suspected suicides and 22 fatal injuries caused by trespassing….”

            And re summarised my arguments for him came back with the adhominem:

            “it would appear that you are one of the many road users who does not realise that a car or lorry is a lethal weapon.”

            And when I refuted the slur went on to confirm he didn’t actually have a clue what I was arguing.

            And when I RE RE summarised for his benefit came back with:

            “If if if……”

            And then went off in a strop.

            And came back in a huff.

            And then reverted from juvenile debating tricks to childish insults.

            So, yes, I should “grow up”.

            And stop wasting my time in the immature beleif that you can win arguments with idiots using reason!

          • Hamburger

            “Beleif” ? And you regard yourself as grown up?

          • Mr B J Mann


          • Hamburger

            Obviously one who cannot spell.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Here’s one I prepared earlier:

            Although, unfortunately, the link is already dead, the last google cache of it is a week after I publicised it!

            Try this:


            But note that, for 2015, for example, it gives at the top:

            Total public accidental FWI (which is “Fatalities and weighted injuries”):

            Fatalities 33.0

            Which section appears to give the Total “public accidental” fatalities as 33 and then injuries, shock and trauma, as fatality equivalents.

            Then in the next section immediately below that it gives:

            Suicide FWI Total suicide FWI 296.784
            Which is probably mainly fatalities.

            Then well down the list it gives:

            Suicide or suspected suicide Fatalities 293

            Note the “suspected” that’s crept in there!

            A few years back an official ORR report was published on the internet that admitted that less than 50% of the “trespasser” and “suicide” figure was suicides……

            And almost immediately disappeared!

            But even if it were 100% suicides, why would that make it OK?

            No one says that 100% of deaths from certain pills are suicides, so we shouldn’t make them safer for the public to use!

            So why would 300 (assuming it is 300, which it’s nowhere near) pedestrian suicides on just 11,000 miles of the railways be acceptable, never mind 150 suicides and 150 trying to reconnect communities divided by rail roads rather than tarmac ones (hardly any of which actually divide communities anyway):

            When not only are 500 pedestrian deaths on the ordinary roads totally unacceptable, despite 85% of them being the pedestrians fault, but the motorist is expected to take responsibility for them?!

            And it’s not surprising that you are really struggling to see what point I’m trying to make if you think I think car drivers should be allowed to drive faster.

            I would have thought it was bleedin obvious to the meanest intelligence that I’m not serious when I talk about HGVs doing the ton over pedestrian crossings and the MOT being restricted to Headlight flashers, Hazards and Horns?!?!

            I’m trying to put things into perspective:

            People believe that the rail roads are incredibly safe, pedestrians have no right to be anywhere near them, and any deaths are the pedestrians responsibility.

            Meanwhile the rail industry funds propaganda (check out the history of Trainspot 2000/Campaign for Better Roads for example) to speed up rail transport and keep passengers safe, while offloading everyone else’s safety on the public, while insisting that the rules are reversed for road transport which is actually incredibly safe considering half a million miles (or is it km) of roads and hundreds of BILLIONS of miles driven a year (or, again, is it km?!).

            People have enough problem keeping risk in perspective without people blatantly lying about it.

            For example the fatality risk of drinking more than the new recommended alcohol limits is equivalent to doing 1000 parachute jumps (oooohhhhh, quite risky then), or eating a couple of bacon sarnies a week (ohh, still a bit dodgy, but Ed Milliband should be OK), or watching 2 hours of TV a night (you what?!?!?! I need a stiff drink!).

            And even supposedly “right wing” papers like the Mail won’t print the truth, and if you try to post a comment on it online below the line it won’t get through moderation?!

            Funny that!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Here’s another from this thread which I wasted far too much of my life on trying to talk sense to the great brainwashed:


            “Lets look at some other measures,”

            Yes, let’s!

            “in 2014 there were no passenger fatalities due to train accidents on the rails – zero – for another year…..bit different to cars for obvious reasons….. “

            Yes, thanks to the rail industry/”liberal” left “green” lobby, cars have to get flimsier and flimsier.

            Yet trains that are hundreds of tons of tons of solid steel and cast iron seem to get heavier and heavier.

            I could have sworn I’d already brought up the analogy of the tanks being raced through a kindergarten playground:

            How many tank drivers or passengers would be killed in that scenario and how many kiddie-winkies?!?!

            What would the figure be if all cars were built like main battle tanks and trains were built out of cardboard and paper?!?!

            Of COURSE no PASSENGERS were killed!

            As I’ve already pointed out, NO PASSENGERS ARE KILLED as hundreds of tons of solid steel and cast iron trains doing the ton plough through a lorry, or a van, never mind a car or a mother and pushchair!!!!!

            In fact, the PASSENGERS probably wouldn’t even “suffer” having their cup of BR tea spilled as their train killed some MORE PEDESTRIANS!

            The first they’d know of the FATALITIES would be when the train finally stopped:

            A mile too late!

            Would it be OK to race main battle tanks across a kindergarten yard in the middle of playtime if no drivers or passengers were killed?

            Is it anything to boast about if a railway suffers no PASSENGER deaths:

            But a navvy had to lay down for their eternal sleep for every sleeper laid.

            It’s the PASSENGERS that enjoy the benefits:

            It’s no argument to claim that no passengers die to enable them to enjoy those benefits, “only” pedestrians, or some other third party!

            That’s one step away from fuelling trains with natural organic baby oil:

            Made from 100% pure babies!!!

            “ ”

            “….there were 314 suicides which on a wide, open network, fenced off or not, are about impossible to prevent leaving around 8 deaths to pedestrians at level crossings.”


            You don’t need to keep proving you are a shill for the rail lobby.
            As I’ve said, and you’re trying to distract from, less than half of the “suicides and trespassers” are suicides.

            You haven’t even got the decency to sneak in the “trespassers”.

            And as I keep pointing out, almost all pedestrians who get themselves killed on the the roads are in breach of one or more of the Highway Code Rules for Pedestrians, Traffic Laws, Common Law on Obstructing the Highway, and local Bye Laws,

            So even calling the railway pedestrian deaths “trespassers” won’t wash on a legal basis, never mind humanitarian one!

            And even if EVERY pedestrian death were a suicide (and as you’ve corrected me 88%, and not 85% as I’d claimed, of road pedestrian deaths are down to the suicidal actions of the pedestrians – but that isn’t used as an excuse to ignore them, never mind not blame the driver, as you’ve tried, and failed, to do in the first part of your post) that doesn’t make the relatively massively higher number or rail pedestrian deaths acceptable!

            And even YOUR link, if you actually wade through it, admits in the detail that the headline “SUICIDES” figure is actually “suicides and SUSPECTED suicides”!

            But you don’t find that out until halfway through the report!

            And nowhere does it actually admit that half are “trespassers” probably just taking a shortcut through an age old gap and across a well worn path rather than walking miles to the nearest official level crossing.

            Compare that with the way councils stick refuges everywhere to create unofficial crossings c u m roadblocks and build out pavements to minimise the (supposedly beneficial healthy) distance pedestrians have to walk?!

            “I agree that were the network is at fault, it ought to be fined etc.”

            No you don’t!

            “and the incident at Elsenham is a case in point.”

            Yes, it is:

            “Two teenage girls being able to open a gate blocking access was something that was a terrible risk and reported as such – where NR got it utterly wrong was that it assigned far too low a priority to getting the crossing right – but NR has around 6,600 to assess and make decisions over.”

            See, you’re making excuses for them killing two innocent girls in practically the very same breath!!!!!

            Wow, 6,600?

            Over HOW many CENTURIES?!?!

            The solution is simple, in the same way as when they can’t get the track right for PASSENGER safety they CUT train SPEEDS:

            If they can’t get the crossing (or platform, or whatever) right for PEDESTRIAN safety:

            They should CUT TRAIN SPEEDS!

            It’s hardly rocket science!

            If “Twenty’s Plenty!”, or even less, for every car and other road vehicle in the country, on the roads that carry almost all the nation’s passenger and goods traffic, when “necessary”, for some entire towns even, then why isn’t it plenty on the RAIL roads while they assess and make decisions over the crossing?

            It might even spur them on to increasing the low a priority to getting the crossing right!!!!

            So you ARE:

            “suggesting that blame shouldn’t lie with NR”

            And it’s YOU that:

            “are not comparing like for like – you’re demanding that the” drivers of road vehicles “take impossible measures
            throughout it’s network.”

            While giving the rail industry carte blanche to carry on killing!

            As for:

            “Another case springs to mind – a pedestrian killed by a train using a foot crossing even as NR were planning to put a bridge in to engineer out the risk and even then whilst the plan was being put in place, locals objected to the closure of the crossing…. “

            Amazing how much you know about rail “safety” for someone who had to ask for links to rail fatality data not so long ago!

            Fast learner?

            The rail industry funded road safety lobby is always trying to close segregated road crossings and allow pedestrians to “reclaim the roads”.

            In Nottingham they’ve got most of the pedestrian subways, even on a dual carriageway, closed and replaced with pedestrian crossings.

            In Bristol they even tried to get the urban sections of their Motorways turned into ordinary roads so that they could replace the overhead crossings with pedestrian crossings?!?!?!

            If the locals were trying to keep the level crossing open that would have either have been in addition to the bridge, for those who struggle with bridge crossings, or they are just following standard rail industry funded programming that at-grade crossings good, separated grade crossings bad, two feet good and should have the right of way, wheels bad and MUST stop if there is a pedestrian.

            So your point is?!

        • Stephen Griffiths

          Yes,it’s true, trains can travel at 140mph( and a lot faster abroad)
          quite safely,whereas cars are much less safe at those speeds.
          You rave on about so many things that I’m not sure what your point really is,but you seem to be suggesting that trains run about at a speed where they can stop fairly quickly.
          If those trains were doing half the speed they usually do it would make very little,if any, difference to the number of people/cars struck on the rail network.
          I Googled your name and found a forum where you having a slanging match about this very subject and it was 4 years ago.
          Enough said.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Does anything in your post make the slightest bit of sense or say anything of relevance?

            “Yes,it’s true, trains can travel at 140mph”

            So What?

            “( and a lot faster abroad)”

            So WHAT?!

            “quite safely,”

            So if “it’s true trains can travel at 140mph” “quite safely”

            How come those two girls going Christmas Shopping were killed by a train doing “only” the ton?!

            “whereas cars are much less safe at those speeds.”

            Do you have children? Which would you prefer, that your child ran in front of a Porsche doing 140, or a train doing 140?!

            Or did you mean YOU would feel safer IN A train doing 140, rather than a car doing 140?!?!

            Which bit of P_E_D_E_S_T_R_I_A_N_S were you struggling with?!?!?!?!

            “You rave on about so many things”

            Wot, so many subjects? Very few actually, mainly ones I know a bit about.

            Or did you mean to imply I’m rambling because:

            “I’m not sure what your point really is,”

            No, I’ve been making one, simple point, clearly, with various examples, and numerous supporting arguments.

            “but you seem to be suggesting that trains run about at a speed where
            they can stop fairly quickly.”

            Wow, you suddenly realised!

            “If those trains were doing half the speed they usually do it would make very little,if any, difference to the number of people/cars struck on the rail network.”

            Does that mean something?

            Did you mean to say the safety of people/cars?!?!?!

            So what.

            People 70 on the motorway. Are you arguing there is no point in even 35mph speed limits, because it would make no difference to safety.

            Guess what, people argue that not just 35, but 30 is too fast for light, manoeuvrable, fast stopping vehicles on the roads where there is any chance of pedestrians getting on the roads, and that where that is the situation then “Twenty’s Plenty!”.

            If 70 would make very little, if any, difference to the safety of people/cars struck on the rail network, surprise, surprise, then what do you think should be done?

            Here’s a clue:

            If there is a problem with the tracks on a line where the trains normally do 140 that would derail the trains, and If those trains were doing half the speed they usually do it would make very little, if any, difference to the number of passengers that would be killed, what would the rail network do?

            If you’re struggling, here’s three options, you can pick two:

            a) Carry on doing 140mph.

            b) Close the track and make it safe.

            c) Cut the speed to whatever would keep the passengers alive.

            So why should they treat pedestrians any differently?!

            Especially as it is rail industry funded lobby groups that came up slogans and mantras such as “Speed Kills! – It’s Simple Physics!! – Kill Your Speed!!! – Not That Child!!!! – If It Saves Just ONE Life!!!! – You KNOW It Makes SENSE!!!!!

            So how come it doesn’t make SENSE!!!!! to the rail industry?

            How come it doesn’t make make SENSE!!!!! to it’s supporters?!?!

            I Googled your name and found a forum where you having a slanging match about this very subject and it was 4 years ago.

            Wot? Has the rail industry sense sense, and I missed it?!

            Errrmmmmm, no it hasn’t!

            And neither have you!!!!

            But you want me to shut up and go away?

            Now I wonder why that is?

            Apart from the fact you haven’t got a leg to stand on!

          • Stephen Griffiths

            Your ramblings are getting more and more bizarre.
            Let’s keep it simple. First of all, post your link to the evidence of your assertion that the road safety lobby is fund

          • Mr B J Mann

            Have you ever answered any of my questions?!

            As you are incapable of even using Google or Wiki (if you had ever seen their website in the early days you would have seen Transport 2000 was set up by rail and bus companies, unions and related organisations such as councils, and its campaigns were basically aimed at driving motorists out of their cars, typically by slowing them down).


            The Campaign for Better Transport (also CBT, formerly Transport 2000) is a UK advocacy group that promotes better bus and rail services and for supportive policies and for less expenditure on road building.[1] It draws together the views of a wide range of organisations including conservation and environmental groups, community groups and trade unions……..

            Transport 2000 was formed in 1972 by various railway workers’ unions and……

            The National Union of Railwaymen instigated a meeting with other concerned parties where they agreed to form Transport 2000 with 14 affiliated organisations,…….

            In 1998 Transport 2000 was part of a coalition of organisations which jointly launched the Slower Speeds Initiative which campaigns in favour of traffic calming, lower speeds and better enforcement of existing speed limits……

            Lush was a long-time roads campaigner and founder of Road Block…….

            Other former members of staff include Richard George, previously Campaigns Coordinator at CTC, the national cyclists’ organisation and co-founder of Plane Stupid.

            The organisation in a member of the ‘Freight on Rail’ partnership.[16]

            Campaign for Better Transport is affiliated to the following organisations:….

            Amicus, Association of Community Rail Partnerships, Bus Users UK….. Community Transport Association…….. Cycle Campaign Network, Cyclists Touring Club….. GMB, Light Rail Transit Association, Living Streets…… Railfuture….. Sustrans……

            Its income was £900,000 in 2006-2007, coming from charitable trusts, transport operators, transport authorities, trade unions and individual donors.[17]

            Sponsors of the limited company in 2006-2007 Edit
            Campaign for Better Transport acknowledges the following organisations as sponsors of its limited company:[17] ACIS, Arriva Passenger Services, ASLEF, Chiltern Railways, Ecology Building Society, EWS, Eurostar, FirstGroup, Freightliner, Gloucestershire County Council, Go Ahead Group, Hertfordshire County Council, Lush Ltd, National Express Group, NedRailways, Network Rail, Nottinghamshire County Council, Passenger Transport Executive Group, Rail Freight Group, Railway Industry Association, Railway Forum, Reading Borough Council, RMT, Serco Integrated Transport, Stagecoach, Telford and Wrekin Borough Council, Transport for London, Transdev plc, TSSA and Unison and Unite-Amicus.

            Sponsors of the charitable trust in 2006-2007 Edit
            Campaign for Better Transport acknowledges the following organisations as sponsors of its charitable trust:[17] Department for Transport, Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, Freshfield Foundation, George W Cadbury Charitable Trust, Gumby Corporation, Hillcote Trust, KeyMed Ltd, London Councils, Merseytravel, Polden Puckham Charitable Foundation, Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts and Steel Charitable Trust.

          • Stephen Griffiths

            Right. So there are a number of parties involved in CBT.Got that.
            CBTisn’t a road safety group though. It’s role is to promote rail and bus travel.

          • Mr B J Mann

            I realise not everyone knows that many of parties campaign to slow down or remove road traffic, like Living Streets and the Cycling groups, including many I’d edited to shorten the posts, such as walkers and environment related bodies.

            I also understand that not everyone has the intellectual capacity to grasp the subtle link between my claims that what you automatically rebranded not just to Campaign for Better Transport”, but instinctively shortened to “CBT”(! funny that?!?!?!!!!), uses slowing road traffic to achieve its aim to drive motorists out of their cars and onto buses and trains and “It’s role is to promote rail and bus travel”. Got that.

            But I hadn’t realised you are so thick and blind you’d struggle with this entire paragraph:

            ‘In 1998 Transport 2000 was part of a coalition of organisations which jointly launched the Slower Speeds Initiative which campaigns in favour of traffic calming, lower speeds and better enforcement of existing speed limits……”

          • Stephen Griffiths

            Have you ever been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia?
            It’s a genuine question.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Why? Do you want to compare notes?

            Have you ever answered any of MY questions?


            “Have you ever answered any of my questions?!”

            And is there any reason why you think an interest in life and death issues, especially where they involve children, is a mental illness?

            Perhaps you would like to compare notes with Transport 2000 director Stephen Joseph whose Assistant director Lynn Sloman said government research showed someone hit by a car at 35mph was more than twice as likely to be killed as someone hit at 30mph.

            And find out why if that’s true of a car, it’s not true of a train weighing hundreds of tons.

            Or perhaps you could tell us yourself.

            Especially if you two Stephens are one and the same?!

            Which would explain a lot!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Here’s another link:


            And as you struggle with such things (thanks for the opportunity t publicise these things, here’s the fiver) this is the article:

            Transport 2000 asks us to point out that it is not funded mainly by the bus and rail industries, as stated in our article “Pressure off Palin” (Telegraph Motoring, What’s New, Jan 21). ”

            Around a fifth of our funding comes from bus and train companies,” says a spokesman. “The rest comes from a very wide range of charitable trusts, public bodies, unions, environmental organisations and individuals…….”

            We are happy to set the record straight. Indeed, we would like to go further, but Transport 2000 refuses to specify the amounts it receives from each organisation.

            From its website we learn there are 65 “main funders” of Transport 2000 Ltd, and almost half of those listed are either bus, coach or train companies, unions with members in those industries, companies that sell technology to those industries, or charities or administrative bodies that are immediately concerned with bus, coach and rail transport.

            The 19 main funders of the Transport 2000 Trust are mostly charitable trusts, but also include the Railway Industry Association and Merseytravel.

            The last accounts filed with the Charities Commission and Companies House merely state…….. By Transport 2000’s own admission, this means that bus and train companies (as strictly defined) contributed about one fifth of this income, about £51,000.

            Why did they do that, we wonder?

          • Mr B J Mann

            And when you’ve finished reading those two posts, have a browse through some of the links here;


          • Stephen Griffiths

            So, we’ve at least established that the road safety lobby ISN’T supported by rail organisations. You tried to imply that CBT is a road safety lobby. Nice try.

          • Mr B J Mann

            For the THIRD time:

            ‘In 1998 Transport 2000 was part of a coalition of organisations which jointly launched the Slower Speeds Initiative which campaigns in favour of traffic calming, lower speeds and better enforcement of existing speed limits……”

          • Mr B J Mann

            So, what we’ve actually established is that you must be an activist for what you instinctively relabelled “CBT”

          • Mr B J Mann

            And for the SECOND time:

            From its website we learn there are 65 “main funders” of Transport 2000 Ltd, and almost half of those listed are either bus, coach or train companies, unions with members in those industries, companies that sell technology to those industries, or charities or administrative bodies that are immediately concerned with bus, coach and rail transport.


            Transport 2000 refuses to specify the amounts it receives from each organisation

            Because by Transport 2000’s own admission, this means that JUST bus and train companies (as strictly defined) contributed “only” about one fifth of this income.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So, we’ve at least established that the road safety lobby IS
            supported by rail organisations because CBT IS a road
            safety lobby. Nice try.

          • Mr B J Mann

            As you obviously struggled with the link (or wanted to bury the truth), here’s the first half dozen hits (there’s loads more if you follow the link!):

            BBC News | UK | Police speeding policy challenged
   May 2000 – The High Court has given pressure group Transport 2000 leave to challenge a national speed enforcement policy which allows the 5mph “buffer”.
            The group says the policy is illegal and wants the 30mph limit to be strictly enforced.
            “This would send a signal to drivers that speeding kills and is a crime,” said Transport 2000 director Stephen Joseph……
            Transport 2000 assistant director Lynn Sloman said…..
            “We believe this edging up of the speed limit set by parliament will
            mean more people killed and seriously hurt on the roads,” she said.
            “We are particularly concerned about child safety – nearly 100 children are killed or badly injured every week.”……

            BBC News | UK | Police speeding policy challenged
   May 2000 – Pressure group Transport 2000 has been given leave to take court action to try to get the UK’s chief police officers to enforce speed limits more …

            Challenge to speeding buffer zone | UK news | The Guardian
   › World › UK News › Transport
            25 May 2000 – Transport 2000 is also arguing for tougher penalties for speeding in 30mph areas. At present guilty drivers face a fixed £60 fine and three …

            [PDF]how cameras can help reduce speeding – RoadPeace
            Speeding is the leading factor in fatal crashes and reported in 28-30% of fatal …… 45 Transport 2000 (2003), Polls show public want speed cameras press …

            Memorandum by Transport 2000 (RTS 08) – United …
            5 Jul 2002 – Transport 2000 is an environmental group which campaigns for … Second, we believe the dominance of speeding traffic deters people from …

            House of Commons – Transport, Local Government and the …
  …/55708.htm19 Jun 2002 – traditional road traffic policing; and … Cameras have been successfully used to enforce speed limits in the UK since …. Transport 2000 stated:.

          • Mr B J Mann


            So quite clearly, and plainly obviously, it IS a road “safety” lobby group!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Here’s the rest of the first page if anyone’s interested:

            19 Jun 2002 – traditional road traffic policing; and … Cameras have been successfully used to enforce speed limits in the UK since …. Transport 2000 stated:.

            [PDF]Stop, look and listen: children talk about traffic – Barnardo’s
            Barnardo’s and Transport 2000 are calling on governments across the UK to … Increasing funding for traffic calming in the most deprived residential areas.

            [PDF]LTN 1/07 Traffic calming – Gov.UK
            7 Mar 2007 – Example of priority factors for traffic calming schemes on 30 mph roads …….119 …… of the Feet First initiative, set up by Transport 2000.

            [PDF]Less Traffic Where People Live – Transport for Quality of Life
            by L Sloman – ‎Cited by 18 – ‎Related articles
            Much advice and information was contributed by Transport 2000 Trust: … schemes now in place, that it is possible to cut traffic in towns through intensive.

            So nothing there about Trainspot1000 cutting road traffic or speeds?!?!?!?

      • Conway

        So nobody ever crosses (or gets killed at) level crossings?

        • Stephen Griffiths

          Yes.Not many though.
          Nothing to do with “speeding” either.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Here we go again.

            So if we scrapped speed limits you would agree that if I drove through a busy zebra crossing or past a crowded bus stop at over the ton:

            You’d argue I wasn’t “speeding”.

            Especially if I was driving a HGV with dodgy steering and no brakes?!?!?!?!!!

          • Stephen Griffiths

            An average of 5 people per year are struck by trains on level crossings.
            I can’t find a single case where the cause of the incident was that the driver of the train was “speeding”.
            There are dozens of incidents where vehicles are struck by trains on level crossings every year.
            Again, not a single one caused by a driver “speeding”.
            Now,Mr BJ, you might not agree with the speed limits s

          • Mr B J Mann

            And I REPEAT:

            Here we go again.

            So if we scrapped speed limits you would agree that if I drove through a busy zebra crossing or past a crowded bus stop at over the ton:

            You’d argue I wasn’t “speeding”.

            Especially if I was driving a HGV with dodgy steering and no brakes?!?!?!?!!!

            And as no train driver is ever “speeding” along, can you confirm that all the 5 people per year struck by trains on level crossings survive?

            In fact, can you explain why there are not only dozens of incidents where vehicles are struck by trains on level crossings every year, but 5 people killed on level crossings and 300 “suicides” and “trespassers” not just hit, but killed, by trains if they are all trundling slowly along.

            I never said anything about limits.

            When someone says a car driver was “speeding” it doesn’t necessarily mean they were breaking the speed limit, they can mean that they were driving too fast for the conditions, or faster than was safe.

            It’s just that road limits are always set low.

            And then road drivers are expected to go much slower still where there is ANY danger of a pedestrian appearing.

            Whereas on the rail roads the train pass pedestrians on a regular basis at speeds that would be considered maniacally homicidal for a road driver, even of a road vehicle that could turn and stop on a sixpence.

            Despite the trains needing miles to stop from speed and being totally unable to manoeuvre round hazards at any speed!

            As I REPEATEDLY say:

            If “Twenty’s Plenty!” on the tarmac roads, why is it far too slow on the rail roads?!

  • steve taylor

    C’mon Melissa, “clocking lamp posts” especially during the hours of darkness, isn’t that hard.

    • Mr B J Mann

      So explain what you have to do then?

      And then how you do it!

      • steve taylor

        What, “clocking a lamp post”? You look at it, they are quite to identify. They are tall, pole like structures at the side of the road, easily distinguished during the hours of darkness as they have a light on top.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Oh, sorry, when you posted a Tourette’s like expletive of the bleedin obvious I hadn’t realised it had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

          I naturally assumed you’d left unsaid some greater truth you assumed didn’t need expanding on, never mind putting into words.

          I didn’t realise your “contribution” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with explaining how “clocking the clues: street lights” helped you tell when you were in a 30!

          You merely thought it was easy to spot the clue’s of lamp posts.

          And thought you’d share your great insight with the wider. World!

          Of course I should have realised you didn’t have a clue and were pronouncing platitudes from your posterior from the fact you were drivelling on about “lamp posts”.

          When neither the article, nor the law, mentions any such thing.

          Which proves all my points:

          If you thought there being no lamp posts to clock meant you couldn’t be clocked for speeding under the relevant law you’d be wrong.

          Try doing a little research into the subject.


          And then analyse what you’ve learned.

          With a little critical thought.

          • steve taylor

            Well BJ, aren’t we the angry one. You asked a simple question, I gave a simple answer. I won’t go into detail. But if you are unable to understand or appreciate that you are driving in a 30mph zone and adjust your driving accordingly, then perhaps you shouldn’t be behind the wheel of a motorised vehicle. In your case though, I suspect your general rage at everything is perhaps a good indicator that you should give up driving until you have got your emotions under control.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

            So much projection you could run a multi screen multiplex cinema solo!

            What rage, what anger, from yourself, at a simple academic enquiry.

            I asked a simple question.

            I hadn’t realised I’d aimed it at a raw nerve on an angry simpleton.

            The simple question was:

            So explain what you have to do then?

            And then how you do it!

            In response to you total misunderstanding, and misquotation, totally out of context of the writer’s point.

            You still don’t seem to have grasped either the point the writer was trying to get across, not my attempt to coax you towards the light!

            But you do seem to realise you’ve been caught out making a massive mistake, hence the pained reaction and wild, flailing attack in response.

            I’ll give you a third chance, and make it really simple for you.

            As you are appearing to claim that you are able to understand and appreciate when you are driving in a 30mph zone and so adjust your driving accordingly, then perhaps you could share the secret of your success.

            I’ll even give you some clues as to what you need to cover:

            Firstly, there are different rules for England and Wales from Northern Ireland, and from Scotland.

            Secondly, the law doesn’t mention lamp posts, it refers to street lights.

            However, case law tells us that that street lights doesn’t mean street lights, it means streets lights and or any council provided lights in or near the streets.

            But as far as I’m aware, it doesn’t give any guidance on what they include.

            For example, as the law states three or more, would three uplighters illuminating the war memorial count? Or three downlighters on a public building or placed by the council on a privately owned local landmark? How about three illuminated signs?

            Thirdly, the law gives a maximum spacing of 200 yards. There’s probably some case law on that, but I’m not aware of it, so I’d appreciate our resident expert explaining it to me.

            Does it have to be pairs of street lights at 200 yard spacing? Can it be a row of street lights along one side at 200 yard spacing? If, say, the street lights alternate from one side of the street to the other, does the 200 yards apply to the spacing one one side, so if they are 300 yards apart, it’s not a 30? Or does it apply to the spacing between the lights on alternate sides of the road so in the former case they are 150 yards apart. Of course, you could argue that obviously it’s the second scenario. But then we still need to know if the 200 yards is the distance along the road, eg draw a line from the first light perpendicular to the kerb to the centre line, then measure along the centre line until you hit a line drawn perpendicular to the kerb at the next light on the opposite side of the road. Or is it 200 yards as the crow flies from light to light diagonally across the road?!

            Of course there is the further complication that directions and guidance refer not just to roads on which there is carriageway
            lighting, but to where there are three or more lamps throwing light on the carriageway. So what is the law where the road is split into two (or more) carriageways?! How many rows of lights at max 200 yard spacing do you need?

            And, fourthly, of course, all that only applies to urban roads, or, rather roads in built up areas. So what is a built up area? Perversely roads in a built up are are defined by the street lighting, but obviously that only applies in built up areas. Clearly it doesn’t apply to motorways, or rural dual carriageways, regardless of how close the lights are. So you have to know whether it’s actually a built up area or just an area that’s built up. Or, more importantly, you really need to know if an area that isn’t built up is actually a built up area!

            Oh, and fifthly, and finally, I don’t want to give you to much to do, while you’re explaining the NI and Scotland provisions could you clarify what are roads “of a classification or type specified for the purposes of this subsection in regulations made by the Secretary of State” are?!

            Of course, non of this would be important if the safe driving public were allowed to drive safely, councils didn’t spend half their time trying to take over and de-trunk main, fast, safe roads, and the other half of their time arbitrarily lowering limits to artificially low levels, and the police got on with catching real criminals including real dangerous drivers, using, as the official guidelines originally advised them to, the speed limits as a tool to prosecute those driving *MARKEDLY* above the *SAFE* speed for the road.

            Note that’s the *SAFE* *SPEED*, and *NOT* the speed *LIMIT*!!!

            Unfortunately, as the police, and other authorities prefer to spend their time fleecing the public instead of policing real crime, often punishing people for creeping perfectly safely over a ridiculously low limit, or trapping people where the limit isn’t clear, and isn’t reasonable, the public need to sure they stay on the right side of the law.

            So I look forward to seeing your explanation of how you so easily do it.

            Or are you one of those people who insist that all you have to do is driver everywhere at 15mph, to be on the safe side, just in case that motorway standard road has a 20mph limit, and your speed has drifted up a few mph since you last checked your speedo a few seconds ago?!

          • #toryscum

            TL DR

          • Mr B J Mann

            Is that one of those g-y c0ttaging apps?

            Sorry, mate, not that way inclined!

    • Conway

      Not where I live – they turn them off late at night!

  • polidorisghost

    Never been done, but then I’m a smug g!t.
    Booked once for overtaking a tractor.