# 81 yr old fined £200 for doing 35 in a 30



## kingswood (Jun 23, 2016)

saw this in the local press:

Christopher Monk, 81, of Swaledale Mews, Bridlington, was fined £72 and had three points added to his licence for driving on the A165 at Beeford at 35mph. He must also pay £85 costs and a £30 victim surcharge.

for those who dont know Bridlington is no affluent area and the A165 is a 60mph road with Beeford been a village it runs through, theres no schools next to the road etc.

how can fining a pensioner a total of almost £200 be fair for going 5mph over the speed limit?

due to his age i wonder if any further investigation was conducted, like how is his eye sight? 

but i bet they just took his money as its an easy cop


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Should it matter what age they are? Same rules for everyone surely? 

At a guess as I've not seen the story, like everyone else they'd likely have been offered a fixed penalty for 35mph in a 30mph zone. If they've ended up in court they haven't accepted this and the punishment is often worse.


----------



## danwel (Feb 18, 2007)

Kerr said:


> Should it matter what age they are? Same rules for everyone surely?
> 
> At a guess as I've not seen the story, like everyone else they'd likely have been offered a fixed penalty for 35mph in a 30mph zone. If they've ended up in court they haven't accepted this and the punishment is often worse.


agree, same rules for all !!


----------



## 182_Blue (Oct 25, 2005)

5 MPH over the 30MPH limit may not seem a lot but it can be the difference between life and death, the government are as concerned with these little increments as they are the larger ones.

Try 30 here, then 35

http://www.stoppingdistances.org.uk


----------



## Mugwump (Feb 17, 2008)

For years, police forces have used a general rule of thumb of the speed limit plus 10% plus 2mph for deciding whether to pursue a prosecution/fine. 35mph is the point at which a fine would be issued on that basis in a 30mph zone. This rule of thumb was designed to make the justification for the prosecution/fine clear cut and take arguments about the actual exact speed, and arguments about potential for small inaccuracies in the car speedo or speed camera sensor out of the process. 

I don't really see that any aspect of the drivers age, gender, ethnic background should have any influence. Also, we don't know the circumstances at the time the offence was committed, and neither do we know if/when/how many times in the past the same vehicle/driver has been clocked exceeding the speed limit by an amount less than the trigger speed and a fine was not issued. 

In the end, if the speed limit is 30mph, and somebody exceeds that, even by a small margin, they have to accept that they have broken the law and must accept the consequences if caught. 

It does sometimes seem nowadays that a lot of people don't understand the concept of a legal maximum speed limit, and appear to regard them as optional (and then get hot under the collar when they recieve an NIP!).


----------



## Keir (Aug 31, 2010)

Yeah regardless of his age. The car he was in control of was going 35.


----------



## Vossman (Aug 5, 2010)

It's not really relevant to this case but as an ex driver I used to work in Europe maybe 80% of the time, I had a Belgian friend who was done for doing 31KPH in a 30KPH zone, these are KPH and it equates to just 0.6 mph. The fine as I remember was around the €50 mark. 

The law is the law but is rarely applied across the board, not long ago in our local rag a young man (mid 20's) was caught at 74mph in a 30, he went to court and pleaded that his job would be lost if he got banned, he had a mortgage and family, the court didn't ban him but gave him a £250 fine and 8 points. 

Motoring law is a joke in the country.


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

Motoring law is a joke, but the roads, traffic light systems, speed restrictions are all a joke aswell


----------



## Rayaan (Jun 1, 2014)

182_Blue said:


> 5 MPH over the 30MPH limit may not seem a lot but it can be the difference between life and death, the government are as concerned with these little increments as they are the larger ones.
> 
> Try 30 here, then 35
> 
> http://www.stoppingdistances.org.uk


All well and good but I've been going at 35mph and stopped in time for the traffic lights which were much much less than 29m away

Problem with UK roads now is everyone keeps looking down at the speedo every 2 seconds and braking to stay on/under the speed limit. Actually makes it more annoying, frustrating and unsafe for everyone on the roads.

Its like going at 55mph on country roads. You could easily do 65mph on them. Would it be safer to go at 55mph? Im not really sure. It just causes others to get frustrated, overtake and then go head first into a tractor/truck.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Rayaan said:


> All well and good but I've been going at 35mph and stopped in time for the traffic lights which were much much less than 29m away
> 
> Problem with UK roads now is everyone keeps looking down at the speedo every 2 seconds and braking to stay on/under the speed limit. Actually makes it more annoying, frustrating and unsafe for everyone on the roads.
> 
> Its like going at 55mph on country roads. You could easily do 65mph on them. Would it be safer to go at 55mph? Im not really sure. It just causes others to get frustrated, overtake and then go head first into a tractor/truck.


I just can't understand people with this point of view.

It really shouldn't be difficult to judge speed. It's not hard to have a quick glance at the speedometer. It's a simple task any competent driver should manage with no issues.

If driving behind someone at 55mph causes a driver to become that frustrated that they get involved in accidents then they simply shouldn't be on the road.

What you've highlighted is bad drivers, not bad circumstances.


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

I haven't got any sympathy. If you break the speed limit , you have no-one to blame but yourself.


----------



## Naddy37 (Oct 27, 2005)

Trouble with most motorists is they see a speed limit as a target. Just because a road has a 30, 50, 60 or whatvever, doesn't mean it's safe to drive at that speed. It's a limit, not a target.

If you break the speed limit and get caught, don't groan and moan about it. Trouble these days, everyone is in too much of a rush, people are constantly tailgating, they see the limit as, say 60, you're driving at 55 and that iriitates them, regardless of the fact of road conditions etc. Most people don't look beyond the end of their bonnet, they don't plan ahead. They see a gap in front of the car in front, but they are oblivious to what's in front of that vehicle!!

Oh, and I'm on a speed awareness course at the end of October


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

35 actual measured is 40mph indicated on any car speedo.

Age or not, he would/should have known he was driving some way over the limit.


----------



## LeeH (Jan 29, 2006)

What's the issue, he was speeding. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## AndyN01 (Feb 16, 2016)

I wonder when he took his test - if indeed he ever has?

And the point about eyesight is very astute.

Andy.


----------



## Mugwump (Feb 17, 2008)

As he would only have been around 10 years old in November 1946 (when testing resumed after WW2) he will certainly have had to take a test when he was old enough to get behind the wheel on the public highway.

The post war amnesty applied to those who had already been driving on a provisional licence, and those people could be granted a full licence provided they applied for it before the date the amnesty ended. My Mother never took at test, and drove regularly up until a couple of years ago when her eyesight deteriorated and she had to give up - 75 years without a single accident or motoring offence on her record. Just because someone has never had to take a driving test, don't assume you must be better driver then they are . My Father didn't apply for his full licence in time, so had to take a test, but again, he had 64 years of accident/offence free driving.

At 81, the subject of this thread will have to re-apply for a driving licence every three years, and will have to prove that his eyesight has been checked and deemed acceptably good to drive safely. As someone else mentioned, the biggest issue is with drivers who don't look, rather than with the ones who can't see very well (and from the number of car owners who seem to think that 55watt halogen headlights are insufficiently bright for them to see to drive, my impression is that the eyesight of a high proportion of drivers (who are mostly not elderly) is probably borderline inadequate!.


----------



## Fentum (May 1, 2017)

182_Blue said:


> 5 MPH over the 30MPH limit may not seem a lot but it can be the difference between life and death, the government are as concerned with these little increments as they are the larger ones.
> 
> Try 30 here, then 35
> 
> http://www.stoppingdistances.org.uk


Yes, the general point is obviously correct but it would help if the stopping distances quoted were based on modern cars with disc brakes rather than 1950s cars with drum brakes.

The relevant Highway Code section has not been updated since the sixties and is plain wrong and DfT refuses to acknowledge the fact or publish any data to show that its figures still apply.

Fact: I can do 60-0 in 109 feet in one of my cars.

In other words, a key plank of the safer driving strategy is based on a lie. Which just adds to the feeling that the Government and Police are not to be trusted on matters motoring and are out to fleece us.

On strict law, clearly exceeding the limit is wrong and this gent is bang to rights.

What worries me is when magistrates and judges use false information as a basis for judging that people are driving dangerously (as opposed to exceeding the limit). Speed limits do little to indicate that - 30 on a stretch of road might be too fast in some circumstances and just right in others...Equally, if I can stop my car from 60 in 109 ft, I may be breaking the law but am I driving dangerously?

Peter


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

Rayaan said:


> All well and good but I've been going at 35mph and stopped in time for the traffic lights which were much much less than 29m away
> 
> Problem with UK roads now is everyone keeps looking down at the speedo every 2 seconds and braking to stay on/under the speed limit. Actually makes it more annoying, frustrating and unsafe for everyone on the roads.
> 
> Its like going at 55mph on country roads. You could easily do 65mph on them. Would it be safer to go at 55mph? Im not really sure. It just causes others to get frustrated, overtake and then go head first into a tractor/truck.


This is a terrible argument. If someone chooses to overtake dangerously, it is solely their fault. Attempting to blame your bad driving on someone else's driving (be it simply slower than you might like or even dangerous) is nonsensical. Overtaking is fine, but when it is safe to do so.

When you are in control of your vehicle, you are responsible for your actions. If you go head first into a tractor (or probably more tragically, a car or motorbike) because you got frustrated with a slower moving car and overtook dangerously, you deserve the harshest punishment there is.


----------



## MrRJ (Jul 15, 2017)

Fentum said:


> Yes, the general point is obviously correct but it would help if the stopping distances quoted were based on modern cars with disc brakes rather than 1950s cars with drum brakes.
> 
> The relevant Highway Code section has not been updated since the sixties and is plain wrong and DfT refuses to acknowledge the fact or publish any data to show that its figures still apply.
> 
> ...


Good on your brakes! Have you managed to improve your thinking distance too though? At 60 your car may react quicker than others, but I suspect your brain works similarly to others. The thinking distance is almost double that at 60 than it is at 30.

Regardless, the rules of the road regarding speed limits are unlikely to change and why should they? Is the time you might save on a trip to work or the supermarket more valuable than someone's well being? Of course not and governments and police will presumably continue to er on the side of caution.


----------



## Fentum (May 1, 2017)

MrRJ said:


> Good on your brakes! Have you managed to improve your thinking distance too though? At 60 your car may react quicker than others, but I suspect your brain works similarly to others. The thinking distance is almost double that at 60 than it is at 30.
> 
> Regardless, the rules of the road regarding speed limits are unlikely to change and why should they? Is the time you might save on a trip to work or the supermarket more valuable than someone's well being? Of course not and governments and police will presumably continue to er on the side of caution.


Even if the thinking distance hasn't changed, the braking distance has - so it is quite possible that a third to a half of the the stopping distance is in play.

Of course, speed matters but if we end up not believing a word politicians and civil servants tell us, we won't be inclined to obey the law at all because it is not based on fact or logic.

P


----------



## kingswood (Jun 23, 2016)

Fentum said:


> Of course, speed matters but if we end up not believing a word politicians and civil servants tell us, we won't be inclined to obey the law at all because it is not based on fact or logic.
> 
> P


well put in both your posts, thanks.

i attended a speed awareness course and said to the ex-traffic officer (on the gravy train) i will follow every speed limit in the country if he can explain why i have to do 20mph past a school at midnight? at school hours i'll crawl by as theres kids all over but at midnight isnt the usual built up 30mph perfectly safe?

it seems speed limits are there for idiots who cant judge road conditions.


----------



## Disco Smudge (Aug 27, 2013)

Some valid points in this thread. With regards to the car stopping in 109ft from 60 what about the guy behind you? Aston Martin can brake from 100mph before most hatchbacks doesn't help at 70mph on a motorway when the car is an inch of your bumper


----------



## kingswood (Jun 23, 2016)

thanks for all the replies. 

for those who say age doesn't matter in prosecution then im afraid they must have little knowledge on the country's justice system. i regularly sit in court and age and circumstance have bearing on the sentence given in the guidelines the magistrates/judge.

the british justice system polices by consent, not fear. and if theres an 81 yr old whos never broken the law in his life wldnt a friendly chat by an officer in his home, with a squad car parked outside, improve relations, motivate, and educate him not to break the limit again?

consider this, how many people have flashed, been flashed, or seen others do it to let cars coming the opposite way theres a speed van ahead? a large majority i bet.

now if you witness a bank robbery and the perps running away would you tell the responding officers they ran the other way to help the cons out? 

im sure no one would. but both the bank robbers and speeders are 'breaking' the law?


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

kingswood said:


> well put in both your posts, thanks.
> 
> i attended a speed awareness course and said to the ex-traffic officer (on the gravy train) i will follow every speed limit in the country if he can explain why i have to do 20mph past a school at midnight? at school hours i'll crawl by as theres kids all over but at midnight isnt the usual built up 30mph perfectly safe?
> 
> it seems speed limits are there for idiots who cant judge road conditions.


Why do you take such offence to speed limits and people being convicted for speeding?

I do like my driving, but I agree with speed limits being in place.

The thought of removing speed limits and letting millions of drivers run loose scares me. It would end up a right mess.

I'm often left with the option that the people who aggressively argue for higher speed limits are the ones with the least roadsense and the most likely to be involved in accidents.

Like your posts in this thread they use strange reasons to force home a point. I'm still trying to understand why you think an 81 year old getting done for speeding is wrong especially when you don't know the context of it.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

kingswood said:


> thanks for all the replies.
> 
> for those who say age doesn't matter in prosecution then im afraid they must have little knowledge on the country's justice system. i regularly sit in court and age and circumstance have bearing on the sentence given in the guidelines the magistrates/judge.
> 
> ...


How do you educate a driver not to break the speed limit again?

You were caught for speeding and it doesn't sound like you've been educated to change your ways. You even speak about the ex police officer there to educate you in a patronising way.

I think speed awareness courses are a waste of time as most people only do them to avoid getting points on their licence. Insurance companies load a policy if you've done a speed awareness course as they say you're more likely to speed.


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

As far as stopping distances go, modern cars DO have much better brakes and tyres, but they can only pull you up sooner on flat, dry surfaces, so this argument of "my car can stop in xxx yards" is, frankly, both ignorant and dangerous. 

It counts for nothing when you crash anyway because your super-duper brakes and tyres were affected in an emergency by that patch of wet tarmac / spilt diesel / pothole / wobbly iron grid / lumpy road marking paint etc,etc.

You would still hit that other car or that pedestrian.

If you thought it through a little, you would realise that The Highway Code is intended to offer general advice about stopping distances which is relevant to the average driver in an average car, on average roads. However outdated it appears, it keeps everyone safer.

As ever, if you want to hoon about, go on a track day and enjoy yourself safely.

Otherwise, just get to where you need to go within the posted speed limits without adding risk to yourself or anybody else.


----------



## kingswood (Jun 23, 2016)

Kerr said:


> Why do you take such offence to speed limits and people being convicted for speeding?
> 
> I do like my driving, but I agree with speed limits being in place.
> 
> The thought of removing speed limits and letting millions of drivers run loose scares me. It would end up a right mess.


thanks for the reply, for your points in order:

take offence as they're out of date for modern vehicles - as mentioned above- and people put to much emphasis on them and not the road conditions. the blanket cash cow of speed cameras doesn't help bad driving, what we need is more traffic officers in cars. yes i said that!

never disagreed with speed limits, just they arent the most important thing in driving, road conditions are.

as removal of speed limits, what about the German autobahn? not as safe as uk motorways granted, but alot more efficient at moving people and goods around and certainly not 'a right mess'

your next post:

how do u educate not to speed? - in a positive manner, hence education in person to build bridges in the community. thats what the speed camera awareness courses are for.

problem is doesnt work, and the reason i use patronising language is because its used to raise revenue as taxed, insured and legal drivers are easy to chase and prosecute. and law abiding people know this and its frustrating.

have no job drive uninsured, untaxed and no mot and you'll get 6 points and a £200 fine. work all your life and do 35 in a 30 and they'll take as much as they can.


----------



## Disco Smudge (Aug 27, 2013)

Not quite sure I agree with the autobahn being a bit more unsafe.

I lived there for 6yrs and barely saw any accidents. Generally used to sit at about 130mph. With the limits it's not unlimited in all areas, when your approaching a built up area the limit drops to 100kph and it vehemently enforced. Recommended limit is 130kph (80mph)

I think the proposed changes to driving tests which include motorway would be beneficial as a lot of people lane hog, which as you stated leads to frustrations. A higher limit on the motorway would be great, only problem is you would have plonkers in the middle lane at 85 instead of 70 lol


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

kingswood said:


> thanks for the reply, for your points in order:
> 
> take offence as they're out of date for modern vehicles - as mentioned above- and people put to much emphasis on them and not the road conditions. the blanket cash cow of speed cameras doesn't help bad driving, what we need is more traffic officers in cars. yes i said that!
> 
> ...


The Germans are taking about getting rid of Autobahns as they are much more dangerous. Have a read of the liabilities of having an accident on an Autobahns and they also have restrictions on goods vehicles. If you are involved in an accident on the Autobahn you're automatically deemed at fault if you're going fast.

Modern vehicles do stop much quicker. However you've got far less space to stop as there is far more vehicles on the road and people are spending more time on the roads.

I agree some of the cameras, especially the mobile cameras, are sometimes placed in the wrong areas. Many of the cameras that are going up here are on roads with bad accident rates and hard to argue against. People still do though.

People keeping arguing that they are being unfairly targeted. There is a very easy solution to not be liable for paying a speeding fine.......... They don't take as much as they can for 35mph in a 30mph area either. Most people get fixed penalty fines for offences like that. England also has speed awareness courses for many committing speeding offences for the first time too.

How often are you getting caught speeding if they are targeting you so hard?


----------



## Fentum (May 1, 2017)

This may be hubris but in 35 years of driving, I have never been done for speeding. 

I think speed limits are a good thing generally but in the UK I think they are too low on motorways and too high in built up areas.

In response to the point about braking and tailgating, I'd have adjusted my speed to take account of the tw*t up my *rse well before that was necessary.

I don't agree about braking in the wet - modern cars have decent stability control systems which help massively in that regard so long as you keep your tyres in good nick. I know this because of near misses I've had in recent years (including a 70 mph blowout in an old E class). 

In any case, the Highway Code differentiates between wet braking and dry braking and anyone with a grain of sense moderates their driving in the wet.

I'm not advocating breaking the speed limit at any time - it is the law - but I agree that the enforcement the case of the 81 year old seems a bit harsh.

Peter


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2017)

GleemSpray said:


> As far as stopping distances go, modern cars DO have much better brakes and tyres, but they can only pull you up sooner on flat, dry surfaces, so this argument of "my car can stop in xxx yards" is, frankly, both ignorant and dangerous.


Agreed. Just to add that the one thing that is often forgotten is that the ability of the average driver has not changed over all this time. Before a car begins to slow down a driver has to recognise and react to a hazard. Lower speed limits in more hazardous areas give all road users more time to spot hazards and take appropriate action.


----------



## possul (Nov 14, 2008)

kingswood said:


> why i have to do 20mph past a school at midnight? at school hours i'll crawl by as theres kids all over but at midnight isnt the usual built up 30mph perfectly safe!


I'd say the same about traffic lights tbh. Middle of the night but stop anyway!
All the road restrictions could ignored at times but sadly so many people lack in basic common sense when it comes to driving nowadays


----------



## MagpieRH (May 27, 2014)

He's been fined £200 for taking it to court. That means he chose to take it to court, rather than take 3 points or a speed awareness course, which he'd have been offered unless he's completed one within 3 years.

It may be that he wanted to try and argue the fine and points would put him in difficulty but the judge clearly disagreed.

Apparently if travelling at 35, by the time you'd have stopped from 30, you'd still be travelling approx 15-20mph. That's quite startling.

If he'd hit someone having been going 35 in the 30 area, would you be so sympathetic about his age?


----------



## Mugwump (Feb 17, 2008)

kingswood said:


> ....the blanket cash cow of speed cameras ....


They are only a 'cash cow' because so many drivers don't seem able to grasp the concept of a legal maximum speed limit. Whether they generate large amounts of money in fines is entirely down to drivers - if drivers choose to ignore legal maximum speed limits, they will bring in a lot of fines. If they don't want them to be a nice little earner for the authorities, don't exceed the speed limit. It really is that simple.

And, it's all very well arguing about the more efficient braking/traction systems on modern vehicles making the Highway Code stopping distances out of date, but I suggest you look beyond the end of your own bonnet and note just how many cars there are on the roads which getting on for 20 years old or older (there are lots) - I doubt if most of them have the stopping power of a nearly new car. I dare bet that many newer cars out there have brakes and or tyres which due to poor maintenance, lack of checking of pressures, low tread depth etc, won't be capable of stopping as quickly as their drivers think they will in an emergency too.

The general rules and guidelines on braking are they way they are because they need to allow for the slowest thinkers and worst brakes and tyres out there, not the best brakes and people with the reactions of an F1 driver


----------



## Fentum (May 1, 2017)

Mugwump said:


> They are only a 'cash cow' because so many drivers don't seem able to grasp the concept of a legal maximum speed limit. Whether they generate large amounts of money in fines is entirely down to drivers - if drivers choose to ignore legal maximum speed limits, they will bring in a lot of fines. If they don't want them to be a nice little earner for the authorities, don't exceed the speed limit. It really is that simple.
> 
> And, it's all very well arguing about the more efficient braking/traction systems on modern vehicles making the Highway Code stopping distances out of date, but I suggest you look beyond the end of your own bonnet and note just how many cars there are on the roads which getting on for 20 years old or older (there are lots) - I doubt if most of them have the stopping power of a nearly new car. I dare bet that many newer cars out there have brakes and or tyres which due to poor maintenance, lack of checking of pressures, low tread depth etc, won't be capable of stopping as quickly as their drivers think they will in an emergency too.
> 
> The general rules and guidelines on braking are they way they are because they need to allow for the slowest thinkers and worst brakes and tyres out there, not the best brakes and people with the reactions of an F1 driver


This thread is in danger of turning into the usual argument between two POVs with neither side persuading the other.

Both sides (I think) are in favour of following the law. My main point was simply that law based on lies is less well respected than law based on proper and demonstrable data. It is therefore less likely to be followed.

There are valid arguments, if road safety and not revenue harvesting is the objective, that cameras introduce danger because drivers spend more time checking their speedos or sit back semi-engaged on cruise control.

The point about 20 year old cars may be correct but it was correct in the mid-60s when the HC numbers were laid down and they have not moved on since then. So the argument really is that stopping distances need to take account of 70 year old cars.

The other obvious point to make is that the MOT has been introduced since then (and is rigorously enforced) which should have reduced the risk of encountering cars with poor brakes or otherwise poorly maintained significantly.

If the HC code were designed to remove all risk from the road, cars would be banned totally. If we are going to take risk, it should be set somewhere sensible, taking account of the economic impact on the nation, both positive (time saved/productivity) and negative (premature death and injury). The DfT's economic analysis actually does this for road infrastructure investments.


----------



## Mugwump (Feb 17, 2008)

Fentum said:


> The other obvious point to make is that the MOT has been introduced since then (and is rigorously enforced) which should have reduced the risk of encountering cars with poor brakes or otherwise poorly maintained significantly.


The huge number of cars that fail an MOT test for brakes failing to meet the requirements and advisories for brakes only just achieving the minimum suggests that it is quite likely that a lot of car brakes (particularly on cars a few years old which may not be getting much in the way of maintenance) are going to be incapable of stopping the car as quickly as the driver might expect, long before the annual MOT test. 12 months is a long time (particularly for a car covering a high annual mileage


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Mugwump said:


> The huge number of cars that fail an MOT test for brakes failing to meet the requirements and advisories for brakes only just achieving the minimum suggests that it is quite likely that a lot of car brakes (particularly on cars a few years old which may not be getting much in the way of maintenance) are going to be incapable of stopping the car as quickly as the driver might expect, long before the annual MOT test. 12 months is a long time (particularly for a car covering a high annual mileage


There was a complete breakdown of every MOT published a couple of years ago.

Bald tyres and bad brakes were hugely common failures. People just don't care enough. Cars are also expensive to run and people do everything to avoid bills.

There is a lot of unsafe cars on the road.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

On the subject of what 20mph roads are still 20mph at night. 

We've for plenty of bus lanes in Aberdeen. Some are 24 hour and some have certain restricted hours. This just causes massive confusion to people. 

People get caught out and then justify their mistake as other streets allow driving on the bus lane at that time. 

Then when I drive down the bus lane at permitted times other drivers go crazy. I've lost count of dirty looks, flashing lights and people squeezing me out. That's when I'm in the right.

The differing rules at different times of the day causes far too much confusion.


----------



## GleemSpray (Jan 26, 2014)

Kerr said:


> On the subject of what 20mph roads are still 20mph at night.
> 
> We've for plenty of bus lanes in Aberdeen. Some are 24 hour and some have certain restricted hours. This just causes massive confusion to people.
> 
> ...


If you can see at a distance that the blue bus lane sign has any writing underneath the bit that says "Bus Lane", then that will be its hours of operation and so you can tell at a distance that it is not 24 hour.

The two periods of operation are usually the two rush hours, morning and early evening.

Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk


----------



## insanejim69 (Nov 13, 2011)

Try telling that to the many moronic drivers in Aberdeen, as Kerr says, I use the bus lanes on the lang stracht in Aberdeen all the time (outside their operating hours obviously) yet as above Kerr says, I get tooted at and lights flashed and people shouting "its a [email protected]£&&ng bus lane" etc yet I haven't done anything wrong. Some people just lack the common sense to read the road signs and diagnose what they actually mean, which for an average human isn't difficult at all. 

James.


----------



## RandomlySet (Jul 10, 2007)

First reply is bang on. Age is irrelevant. Also, affluent area or not is irrelevant.


----------

