caught speeding 63mph in 40 :(

[KathyWoolfe]

Not all substances that are opaque to visible light are opaque to infra-red.

A tip, if you ever want to check if your TV remote is working, look at the IR emitter with a digital camera...

You will then see what I mean...

Thanks, I'll try it

[Shimano105]

Hang on - he was agreeing with me wasn't he?

Ok, ok - not aimed at you NotAllThere - aimed at Brillo or whoever else made the dumb comparison.

[KathyWoolfe]

On a different topic (but related to cars) apparently you can unlock your car using your mobile phone.

If you lock your keys insisde your car, apparently all you have to do is phone home to your partner who has a spare set and get them to press the unlock button down the phone. If you hold your own phone to the receiver inside the car, appaarently the unlock signal travels down the phone line and your car registers it and will unlock itself.

When I was told this by someone in my office I thought that this was just a joke. However, he apparently tried this when he got home and it worked!

Still not sure whether to trust this or not (i'm certainly not going to try it!).

[Churchill]

On a different topic (but related to cars) apparently you can unlock your car using your mobile phone.

If you lock your keys insisde your car, apparently all you have to do is phone home to your partner who has a spare set and get them to press the unlock button down the phone. If you hold your own phone to the receiver inside the car, appaarently the unlock signal travels down the phone line and your car registers it and will unlock itself.

When I was told this by someone in my office I thought that this was just a joke. However, he apparently tried this when he got home and it worked!

Still not sure whether to trust this or not (i'm certainly not going to try it!).

Can't see it myself.

How is a mobile phone supposed to carry the 2.4ghz signal to unlock the car?

You could always try it without locking your keys in the car...

Are you blonde?

[BrilloPad]

NO yours is the ridiculous argument, mine is rational and backed up by fact - you are just being stupid. Man being called Dave is not relevant, doing 40 in a 30 zone is relevant.

30mph zones are where children (and people) are likely to be. Hit someone at 40mph and the likelyhood is that they will be killed, whereas at 30 they have a good chance of survival (no figures to back that up but they are out there).

Speed is always a factor in collisions with pedestrians. You cannot decide otherwise after the event. This is why they have 30mph speed limits - has that ever occured to you?

So, I repeat, if someone doing 40 in a 30 zone killed your child, would you be saying speed may not have contributed to their death or would you have a lawyer on the case trying to get them sent down for eternity?

I would try to get anyone who harmed my kids sent down - but I would also try to bring down the government for not doing more to stop speeding in urban areas. At the moment government focus is on raising money.

I live on a street that leads to A20 - I am trying to get it closed at the A20 end. All residents in favour as is council. But no money - who would the government earn from it? It should be a 20 (or even 10) mph zone at minimum(currently 30) and it should be enforced by draconian punishments. But does the government do anything?

So why dont you focus the blame on where it is due?

[NotAllThere]

I must confess that I'm not entirely innocent of not speeding. I was caught in 2001 by a speed camera - I think I was doing 63mph in a 50mph limit (and I was overtaking another car at the time) though this was not on a road in a built-up area.

Hey, I did say I try... but I've had three tickets. Fortunately, there's no points system here for minor infractions.

I don't bother speeding. I used to do a weekly commute of 100 miles each way. Driving flat out, I'd do the journey ten minutes quicker than if I kept to the limits, if I was lucky.

btw Shimano105, your argument was poor, not because speed isn't a factor in pedestrian death, but because you suggest that any of us would shrug our shoulders. Even if the driver was doing 20mph in a 30mph limit, no one would shrug their shoulders and say - oh just one of those things.

[NotAllThere]

Can't see it myself.

How is a mobile phone supposed to carry the 2.4ghz signal to unlock the car?

You could always try it without locking your keys in the car...

Are you blonde?

Snopes.

[BlasterBates]

Oh dear it looks like they spotted Dodgy's loophole.

[expat]

I don't bother speeding. I used to do a weekly commute of 100 miles each way. Driving flat out, I'd do the journey ten minutes quicker than if I kept to the limits, if I was lucky.

Depends on the drive. If your Monday morning commute is a 5 hour drive, then driving 10% faster will save you half an hour. You might well feel that half an hour earlier on Monday morning is non-negligible, but 10% faster is not dangerous.

[Shimano105]

Oh you were arguing with me - can't keep up with all the double negatives.

Well all I can say is that if you are pro speeding on one hand but would willingly blame someone if they harmed you (or yours) then you are a hyopcrite.

Speed is always a factor in these cases. I have speeded in the past (often appallingly - so I was a hypocrite as well). I try not to now, however it can creep up on you as I'm sure you will agree. I tend to stick the cruise control on for this - not a solution for everyone but for me it is.

But the issue is should we willingly go above the speed limit in a built up area because we think we can get away with it? I would say no - it only takes one child to run out in front of you to change everything. After that, any argument you have about your driving judgement becomes meaningless.