James wrote:

But I wasn't peeed off with the advice, which was sound, just the
tone you always get around here of hypocritical finger wagging every
time someone brings up a small misdemeanour.

That's the fun of Usenet ;-).In many cases, it's not hypocritical.

I was tired, it was midnight

finger wagging
So? If you're too tired to drive properly you should stop and take a rest.
Tiredness causes more collisions than drink driving.
/finger wagging

and I crossed a deserted Tower Bridge at the outrageous and
indeed _criminal_ excess speed of 12mph.

AIUI the limit is there to keep damage to the bridge to a minimum. There was
a suggestion at one time that it should be closed completely (except
possibly for buses and emergency vehicles) to vehicular traffic.

Get out the birch twigs.

They're too good for the likes of you!! :-)

James ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Some of you "we hate speed" people on this group are such *******. I
bet when you finish lecturing people on here you go to the shops in
your BMW and speed round the supermarket car parks like half the other
****s do.

You're about as funny as you are close to the truth.

James ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Do any of you know it all ****s ever drive a ****ing car on a real
****ing road?

Yes, I do have a driving licence.
Yes, I do drive regularly.
Yes, I am currently on zero points...

.... since two SP30s fell off it within the last month and a half.

The difference, m'dear, is that I admit they were a fair cop and didn't
whinge about trying to fight 'em.

Martin Underwood wrote:
Paul Terry wrote in
ine:

In message , James
writes

Since the Tower Bridge limit has apparently been there for half a century,
I think it unlikely:

I too thought that until recently (maybe about five years ago) the lowest
*enforceable* speed limit was 30, which was why councils splattered roads
with speed humps and chicanes to try to impose a physical as opposed to
legal restriction.

But I know that 20 limits are now enforceable. The main road from
Beaconsfield to Slough is mainly 30 but has 20 limits for about 50 yards
either side of every traffic light junction over a half-mile stretch - I
think there are four of them. It's tedious driving along a road which is
wide and straight, and has service roads either side so through traffic and
stopping traffic is kept separate, so even 30 is a bit slow and 20 is
painfully slow. I cannot help thinking that traffic which has priority is
being penalised for the sins of pedestrians and othe drivers who fail to
observe the traffic lights - but this seems to be morally acceptible in this
Brave New World.


20mph speed limits have always been enforceable but were very rare
until the "20mph zones" started to appear in residential areas in the
early 1990s (until that time speed-limits lower than 30mph needed
special authorisation by the Secretary of State for Transport). The
government guidance (Department for Transport) is that 20mph zones
should be largely self-enforcing through traffic-calming measures or,
in the case of new roads, designing a low-speed carriageway layout.

However, Tower Bridge is not a 20mph zone. This 20mph speed-limit is
there for structural reasons - the bridge may be damaged, or worn out
much faster, by constantly higher speeds. Road-humps presumably can't
be used because lorries going over them would vibrate the bridge and
cause the same damage. Rotherhithe Tunnel is another example of a
20mph speed limit without traffic-calming.

I do not believe there are any speed limits of less than 20mph on
public highways in the UK. I doubt the police can specifically enforce
the lower limits that are often signed on private roads and in car
parks, although they might well be able to arrest you for something
else if they saw your fast driving as dangerous.

Martin Underwood wrote:
Paul Terry wrote in
ine:

In message , James
writes

Since the Tower Bridge limit has apparently been there for half a century,
I think it unlikely:

I too thought that until recently (maybe about five years ago) the lowest
*enforceable* speed limit was 30, which was why councils splattered roads
with speed humps and chicanes to try to impose a physical as opposed to
legal restriction.

But I know that 20 limits are now enforceable. The main road from
Beaconsfield to Slough is mainly 30 but has 20 limits for about 50 yards
either side of every traffic light junction over a half-mile stretch - I
think there are four of them. It's tedious driving along a road which is
wide and straight, and has service roads either side so through traffic and
stopping traffic is kept separate, so even 30 is a bit slow and 20 is
painfully slow. I cannot help thinking that traffic which has priority is
being penalised for the sins of pedestrians and othe drivers who fail to
observe the traffic lights - but this seems to be morally acceptible in this
Brave New World.

I'd like to see much more use of repeater signs where slow speed limits
apply: on every single lamp-post and painted on the road - and maybe even as
flashing number-in-a-red-circle signs which light up if you're over the
limit. Hopefully if you're observant you'll see the first sign at the start
of the restriction, but I find I need it drummed into my head constantly to
avoid me speeding up subconsciously to a speed that feels appropriate.

20mph speed limits have always been enforceable but were very rare
until the "20mph zones" started to appear in residential areas in the
early 1990s (until that time speed-limits lower than 30mph needed
special authorisation by the Secretary of State for Transport). The
government guidance (Department for Transport) is that 20mph zones
should be largely self-enforcing through traffic-calming measures or,
in the case of new roads, designing a low-speed carriageway layout.

However, Tower Bridge is not a 20mph zone. This 20mph speed-limit is
there for structural reasons - the bridge may be damaged, or worn out
much faster, by constantly higher speeds. Road-humps presumably can't
be used because lorries going over them would vibrate the bridge and
cause the same damage. Rotherhithe Tunnel is another example of a
20mph speed limit without traffic-calming.


I do not believe there are any speed limits of less than 20mph on
public highways in the UK. I doubt the police can specifically enforce

the lower limits that are often signed on private roads and in car
parks, although they might well be able to arrest you for something
else if they saw your fast driving as dangerous.

On Sun, 27 Nov 2005 18:54:18 +0000 (UTC), James wrote:

I read some previous threads on the speed cams at Tower Bridge, but they
didn't quite answer a query I have, I wondered if any of the experts on
these groups might no. I received a NIP (notice of intended prosecution)
not long ago for doing 32mph and it defines the speed limit there as 20. I
did to be fair see these signs, but always understood that 30 was the legal
minimum speed limit in the UK, and that therefore signs indicating 20 were
advisory. Is this still true? Does anyone think I can challenge the NIP or
the automatic penalty offer of a delightful 3 points that will inevitably
follow on this type of ground? Anyone know of cases where people have
challenged the Tower Bridge cameras?

Near us the village of Edburton has a 20 mph limit, but the adjacent
village of Poynings, with equally narrow roads, has no speed limit
posted.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

umpston wrote:

I do not believe there are any speed limits of less than 20mph on
public highways in the UK. I doubt the police can specifically enforce
the lower limits that are often signed on private roads and in car
parks, although they might well be able to arrest you for something
else if they saw your fast driving as dangerous.

There is a posted 15mph speed limit on a public road I visit regularly.
As to whether it is legally enforceable, I couldn't say. What are the
criteria for enforceabililty?

I have been told that the boundary of the speed limit needs to be
signed on both sides of the road for it to be correct, valid and
enforceable, and this particular sign is on the left-hand side only.
Does the lack of a sign on the right hand side make it unenforceable?
Come to that, should the opposite face of the sign show the speed limit
in the opposite direction? This one currently doesn't.

Regards,

Sid.

Brimstone wrote:
James wrote:
I read some previous threads on the speed cams at Tower Bridge, but
they didn't quite answer a query I have, I wondered if any of the
experts on these groups might no. I received a NIP (notice of
intended prosecution) not long ago for doing 32mph and it defines the
speed limit there as 20. I did to be fair see these signs, but always
understood that 30 was the legal minimum speed limit in the UK, and
that therefore signs indicating 20 were advisory. Is this still true?
Does anyone think I can challenge the NIP or the automatic penalty
offer of a delightful 3 points that will inevitably follow on this
type of ground? Anyone know of cases where people have challenged the
Tower Bridge cameras?

Not advisory, mandatory. It's only 30 unless otherwise notified. Pay up and
take advantage of the generous cash discount. Try and challenge it and
you'll lose. The restriction is there for a reason.



*LMFAO*

Yeah, the reason is to RIP YOU OFF for being a car driver and not
wanting to ride next to exploding pakistanis on public transport

Stealth taxes, CLASS WAR, Social engineering

There's no justification for a 20mph limit here at all

**** the *******s off

It's high time the car driving public, like 20,000,000 voters, showed
these nutty communist ****ers that we wont be spanked for their pimp
money any more

James wrote:
"Ian F." wrote in
:

"James" wrote in message
...

Some of you "we hate speed" people on this group are such *******. I
bet when you finish lecturing people on here you go to the shops in
your BMW and speed round the supermarket car parks like half the
other ****s do.

That's hardly a very fair response to people who have just given you
sensible, swift advice. Where did they say they hated speed? They just
told you how the law stands, that's all. Just because you didn't like
what you were told, doesn't mean you have to slag off the people who
told you.

And supermarket car parks are private property - I would imagine you
can go around them as fast as you like.

Tee hee. Shows how "expert" you are. The old laws about doing what you like
on private property in a car no longer apply, as you will see on any TV
traffic cops show, where they for example routinely follow criminals into
supermarket car parks and arrest them, hassle them for invalid tax disks,
etc. A recent example of Road Wars (Sky One) showed them doing a driver on
a country private estate road for being a disqualified driver.

But I wasn't peeed off with the advice, which was sound, just the tone you
always get around here of hypocritical finger wagging every time someone
brings up a small misdemeanour.

That's because the transport groups are populated totally by anti-car
millitant bus-driving *******s who OWN THE FACKIN ROADS so there

Adrian wrote:
James ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Do any of you know it all ****s ever drive a ****ing car on a real
****ing road?

Yes, I do have a driving licence.
Yes, I do drive regularly.
Yes, I am currently on zero points...

... since two SP30s fell off it within the last month and a half.

The difference, m'dear, is that I admit they were a fair cop and didn't
whinge about trying to fight 'em.


So you think that crossing tower bridge late at night at 32mph is a
heinous crime too do you ?

Get fackin real, MOPED BOY !