I should be quite grateful for my £90 course offer for 75 in a 60 then, at the archbishop's rate it would have been over £1500.
If it were up to me, you'd be banned for 75 in a 60.
It was on the M25 in a variable speed limit. I must have missed the sign (fair enough) but so did everyone else.
Personally I think 75mph is perfectly safe on some sections of single carriageway but I accept there are plenty where it's dangerous... then again there are plenty of national speed limit roads where 60 is suicidal.
There are definitely sections where single carriageway speeding is relatively safe, but I'd still throw the book at anyone who does it. Those 60 roads have all sorts of things going on that motorways try to engineer out: blind summits, fallen branches, adverse cambers, no central reservation protection, cyclists, walkers, tractors, potholes, oncoming overtakers and much more. People get complacent on A-roads, especially ones they know, and suddenly one day conditions are different and wham you're in a pickle. I've got a lot more sympathy with people going too fast on a motorway: they are spaces designed for speed, and the risks are lower. 85 on a motorway is silly. 75 on a single carriageway is stupid.
The 70 mph speed limit was brought in when people were driving Ford Anglias and Cortinas. Modern cars stop in half the distance. 70mph is absurdly slow which is why virtually no-one adheres to it and why most other European countries have the equivalent of 80
Depends where in the country you are and I think many forget the typical speedometer showing 75mph is far far more likely to be doing 70mph or less than near 75mph. On the M25 in medium traffic, good conditions I'd guess the proportion of traffic actually speeding is less than 10% of vehicles, maybe 20-25% of cars. Very few doing actual 80mph+ rather than 80mph+ on speedo.
I hadn't really clocked till recently (probably cos I only drive shortish distances with a car full of kids or shopping) but the speedo on our mighty lemon yellow Kia defo understates vs them digital signs that tell you what your speed is.
Google maps tends to report my speed at about 5% over what my speedo says. I tend to trust the app, but I'm not clear in my head why I do.
I should be quite grateful for my £90 course offer for 75 in a 60 then, at the archbishop's rate it would have been over £1500.
If it were up to me, you'd be banned for 75 in a 60.
It was on the M25 in a variable speed limit. I must have missed the sign (fair enough) but so did everyone else.
Personally I think 75mph is perfectly safe on some sections of single carriageway but I accept there are plenty where it's dangerous... then again there are plenty of national speed limit roads where 60 is suicidal.
There are definitely sections where single carriageway speeding is relatively safe, but I'd still throw the book at anyone who does it. Those 60 roads have all sorts of things going on that motorways try to engineer out: blind summits, fallen branches, adverse cambers, no central reservation protection, cyclists, walkers, tractors, potholes, oncoming overtakers and much more. People get complacent on A-roads, especially ones they know, and suddenly one day conditions are different and wham you're in a pickle. I've got a lot more sympathy with people going too fast on a motorway: they are spaces designed for speed, and the risks are lower. 85 on a motorway is silly. 75 on a single carriageway is stupid.
The 70 mph speed limit was brought in when people were driving Ford Anglias and Cortinas. Modern cars stop in half the distance. 70mph is absurdly slow which is why virtually no-one adheres to it and why most other European countries have the equivalent of 80
Depends where in the country you are and I think many forget the typical speedometer showing 75mph is far far more likely to be doing 70mph or less than near 75mph. On the M25 in medium traffic, good conditions I'd guess the proportion of traffic actually speeding is less than 10% of vehicles, maybe 20-25% of cars. Very few doing actual 80mph+ rather than 80mph+ on speedo.
I hadn't really clocked till recently (probably cos I only drive shortish distances with a car full of kids or shopping) but the speedo on our mighty lemon yellow Kia defo understates vs them digital signs that tell you what your speed is.
Google maps tends to report my speed at about 5% over what my speedo says. I tend to trust the app, but I'm not clear in my head why I do.
Google maps also tends to understate how long it will take to drive anywhere - though maybe that's just me!
That's funny. I find Google maps usually spot on in terms of time, but under-reads the speedo by 5% or more. I had assumed the GPS was more accurate than the speedo (since by law these can't under-read but can over-read), but I'm not convinced that the GPS recorded speed is completely accurate?
Google Maps on your phone is going to be damn close, if you’re doing a steady speed on a straight road. Much more so than a mechanical spedo.
There are dedicated in-car race GPS boxes, from companies like Racelogic and Dragy, that have a high resolution and will be more accurate still.
That’s reassuring, except that I was done on an average speed camera on the M20 for driving above 40mph, when the car showed me at 45mlh and the GPS at pretty close to 40mph. It wasn’t worth arguing about - I simply did an online speed awareness course - but it did suggest to me either that the margin of error on average speed traps has been almost eliminated or that my Google Maps GPS speed was under-estimated.
If I was done by an average speed camera, I’d always go to court. Ask them for the distance between the cameras, the calibration certificates for every piece of equipment involved, including that which measured the distance, the distance between the car and the camera when it was photographed. The training record of the officer who wrote the ticket, who you expect to appear in court. There’s so much they can get wrong with that setup.
That sounds like that guy who makes a living challenging speeding fines.
Whereas I had to sit with my iPad on zoom half listening to the speed awareness course whilst having PB up on my PC engaging in online chat with you lot. Which was definitely the path of least resistance.
My perception is that the margin of error with speed cameras is slowly being reduced. Thankfully Brexit (lol, as a committed remainer) is getting us off speed cameras in Europe - where the same thing is happening. The Swiss never gave much of a margin of error but I was told by my hotel owner last week that France is going the same way. Certainly, download Waze and France appears covered in police who have nothing better to do than sit at the side of the road trying to catch people who are speeding.
Oh, if you can get away with the course, then always take it.
I have several friends that go from the UK to the Le Mans 24h race each year. To say that every Gendarme in France was assigned to any conceivable route between Calais, St Marlo, and Le Mans, would appear to be something of an understatement. Not there aren’t tens of thousands of Brits heading down there, mostly in very nice sports cars, intending to make the trip considerably faster than the posted speed limits might suggest. The favourite one is the Autoroute exit gate, where they compute an average speed between the toll gates!
Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.
He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.
There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.
Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.
And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.
Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
Is this the old "PB anecdote vs data" phenomenon that people talk about?
I am involved with two companies that employ people in construction. Wages have gone up, probably a bit more than inflation, for the lowest paid. Everyone else in the industry says the same.
I’m happy to accept this. It’s still anecdotal, but at least it comes from a place of experience.
The broader claim, though, that Brexit has delivered a sustainable rise in wages for the lower skilled, is basically copium for the berks that voted to Leave.
It is also true that for a broad range of low end jobs, wages have shifted from minimum wage.
All the supermarkets are advertising higher wages. Lorry drivers. Pub staff…
I voted remain - but denying what I have to actually sign of (wage increases) strikes me as complete Donald Fucking Trump level shit.
The minimum wage hasn’t risen to the same extent as inflation so it’s not a great metric.
The Trump reference is a self own on your part.
Thing is that most of the inflation has very little to do with Brexit, and a lot more to do with a massive energy price shock. Without the energy shock wages would still have gone up a lot for lower earners, and it would feel like a lot to them too.
What's I think has happened is that lower earners (who tend to do actual useful stuff rather than sitting in offices doing the paperwork) are really in demand, and their wages have kept up with or overtaken inflation. Middle class pen pushers and desk jockeys aren't quite so desperately in demand, as companies are finding ways to just live without them rather than bumping their wages, and inflation is really hurting the B-Ark sector of the middle class.
Thus we have endless wailing about it in the media, as guess which category journalists fall into?
Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.
He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.
There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.
Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.
And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.
Have you talked to anyone who employees people? Wage rises and difficulty in getting people are two major topics for all the people I know, who are employing people in the lower end of the job market.
Going for the easy likes? Tut!
Wage rises? Remind me what food inflation is currently running at?
UK: Food inflation 19%, wages up by 6% Germany: Food inflation 22%, wages up by 3%
Why do the Tories let Helen Whately out? She is worth votes to Labour every time she opens her mouth.
So what's your estimate of how long it will take?
If Keir Starmer was saying 25 years you'd be saying how ludicrous that is. And rightfully so.
(Snip)
I've recently mentioned the complexities of sorting this issue out; and it is massively complex and expensive. It's also an area (civ eng / groundworks) I have a little knowledge and a lot of passion for.
So no, I wouldn't claim how ludicrous it is. And from your response, I guess you've got no idea yourself.
Surely the main problem is emergency, storm release procedures are now being operated all year around and with no sanction. It's far cheaper to pump **** into surface waters than it is to process ****. It's a scandal, allowed with tacit agreement from your government.
There are many problems. Non-separation of 'dirty' water with rainwater runoff is a massive one - many new developments (such as mine) separate the two. This, along with SuDS, means the amount of dirty water being released into watercourses is not just minimised, but stopped.
Then you have the new measuring standards, which are almost certainly inflating the figures a lot.
It's not that it's 'cheaper' to pump into surface waters; it's that it's all they can do. They have no choice (or I suppose they could allow the pipes to back up...). Fixing this is highly non-trivial; and one of the best ways is to try to separate rainwater run off from sewage. And it doesn't need a brain of Britain to see how difficult that is on existing developments...
I was working as a consultant to Enterprise plc who were infrastructure contractors for Thames Water at Lea Valley circa 2005/6. They would complain then that Thames Water would only pay for sticking plaster solutions to resolving issues with the Victorian pipe and sewer system.
A significant volume of water was lost to leakage prior to arriving at the tap and nearly twenty years on that is still the case. There has been little investment in treatment stations to cope with increased demands from increased housing and population.
Most companies are owned as profit generating cash cows for foreign owners. Privatisation has been disastrous. Whateley (autocorrected as "Whatever") is probably right about it being a Herculean, Augean stable task, but the longer the status quo continues the worse the problem gets.
Why do the Tories let Helen Whately out? She is worth votes to Labour every time she opens her mouth.
So what's your estimate of how long it will take?
If Keir Starmer was saying 25 years you'd be saying how ludicrous that is. And rightfully so.
(Snip)
I've recently mentioned the complexities of sorting this issue out; and it is massively complex and expensive. It's also an area (civ eng / groundworks) I have a little knowledge and a lot of passion for.
So no, I wouldn't claim how ludicrous it is. And from your response, I guess you've got no idea yourself.
Surely the main problem is emergency, storm release procedures are now being operated all year around and with no sanction. It's far cheaper to pump **** into surface waters than it is to process ****. It's a scandal, allowed with tacit agreement from your government.
There are many problems. Non-separation of 'dirty' water with rainwater runoff is a massive one - many new developments (such as mine) separate the two. This, along with SuDS, means the amount of dirty water being released into watercourses is not just minimised, but stopped.
Then you have the new measuring standards, which are almost certainly inflating the figures a lot.
It's not that it's 'cheaper' to pump into surface waters; it's that it's all they can do. They have no choice (or I suppose they could allow the pipes to back up...). Fixing this is highly non-trivial; and one of the best ways is to try to separate rainwater run off from sewage. And it doesn't need a brain of Britain to see how difficult that is on existing developments...
I was working as a consultant to Enterprise plc who were infrastructure contractors for Thames Water at Lea Valley circa 2005/6. They would complain then that Thames Water would only pay for sticking plaster solutions to resolving issues with the Victorian pipe and sewer system.
A significant volume of water was lost to leakage prior to arriving at the tap and nearly twenty years on that is still the case. There has been little investment in treatment stations to cope with increased demands from increased housing and population.
Most companies are owned as profit generating cash cows for foreign owners. Privatisation has been disastrous. Whateley (autocorrected as "Whatever") is probably right about it being a Herculean, Augean stable task, but the longer the status quo continues the worse the problem gets.
"...resolving issues with the Victorian pipe and sewer system. "
And here we get to an important issue. By the time of water privtisation in 1989, the 'Victorian pipe and sewer system' was, at a minimum, over eighty years old. The water infrastructure was under-financed whilst nationalised as well. As all too frequently happens with UK governments and infrastructure.
As it happens I can't see the point in water privatisation. But I fear concentrating on 'privatisation' as being the cause of the problem is being incredibly blind to the issues.
The telegraph is speculating that net migration for the past year, to be announced in May 25, will be around ONE MILLION
Stupefyingly huge
It's OK because the government is controlling immigration now that we have taken back control.
Immigration is the one Brexit benefit according to the OBR analysis. Loss of investment and suppression of trade worse than it expected, but higher than expected immigration partly compensated, confirming their prediction of an overall 4% damage to the economy caused by Brexit.
I think this means the UK will necessarily be more invested in high immigration outside of the EU than it was as a member. It no longer has the choice.
I may be misunderstanding this, but surely there is no point to (picking numbers out of the air) a 1% increase in GNP if we also have a 1% increase in population? The country gets richer, but those riches have to be shared more widely - so individually, we don't get any richer.
Immigration is a wash, I believe. Each immigrant will add as much to the economy as they increase the population. But overall GDP does matter for certain things including tax receipts and immigration can help productivity (another Brexit loss).
In which case, immigration is going to be largely bad for us - the pressure it causes on housing alone does more damage than the benefits, and we should be targeting net zero migration.
My suggestion would be that we ditch almost all the currently permitted "skilled worker" immigration, requiring you to need a job offer at £75k to come.
I would also tighten up the family reunion rules, in particular blocking family reunion immigration unless one of the persons is a British Citizen (not merely someone with indefinite leave to remain).
The student numbers thing is complicated - in theory students shouldn't add to the net migration numbers (for each one who comes, another should go) - what we need to do is to stop the leakage where people come as students and then don't go - given this is currently something like 26% of those coming on student visas it needs fixing urgently.
Nevertheless I suspect we are in a high immigration post Brexit world. I don't see it changing.
As said about other countries , give time limited visas and no access to public services until you have paid 2 years NI & Taxes plus a 10K deposit up front to cover anything that happens before you have cover. If illegal etc chuck them out pronto.
I would just ask. Can anyone name a tangible Brexit benefit as of right now for anyone under the age of 45? Thanks.
Wage increases for the unskilled. Sir Stuart Rose was right.
Millions of British people, for whom previously the minimum wage was the maximum wage, now find themselves earning £12-£14 an hour, as employers fight to fill vacancies.
Also a change in the balance of the relationship between employer and employee, now that there’s no longer an unlimited supply of minimum-wage labour available.
Things that should attract widespread support from those on the political left, but for some reason don’t.
Unfortunately the cost of living rises due to Brexit mean they are a lot worse off than they were before the pay increases. Also lots also still not getting near that and are much much worse off.
Sandpit constantly claims that Brexit delivered a wage rise for the lower paid, and then cites Stuart Rose’s gaffe during the campaign as a killer quote.
He does this about once a week and usually gets a handful of “likes”.
There’s bugger all evidence of any wage rise, save for spikes in very specific jobs (truck drivers) where Brexit caused a sudden shock to labour supply.
Brexit related inflation (ie the knock on effect of increased distribution costs) pretty quickly dissipated any gains, and Brexit related productivity stagnation has permanently impaired everybody’s ability to command a higher wage.
And we’ve had even higher migration since, much of it quite low skilled.
Comments
I have several friends that go from the UK to the Le Mans 24h race each year. To say that every Gendarme in France was assigned to any conceivable route between Calais, St Marlo, and Le Mans, would appear to be something of an understatement. Not there aren’t tens of thousands of Brits heading down there, mostly in very nice sports cars, intending to make the trip considerably faster than the posted speed limits might suggest. The favourite one is the Autoroute exit gate, where they compute an average speed between the toll gates!
What's I think has happened is that lower earners (who tend to do actual useful stuff rather than sitting in offices doing the paperwork) are really in demand, and their wages have kept up with or overtaken inflation. Middle class pen pushers and desk jockeys aren't quite so desperately in demand, as companies are finding ways to just live without them rather than bumping their wages, and inflation is really hurting the B-Ark sector of the middle class.
Thus we have endless wailing about it in the media, as guess which category journalists fall into?
A significant volume of water was lost to leakage prior to arriving at the tap and nearly twenty years on that is still the case. There has been little investment in treatment stations to cope with increased demands from increased housing and population.
Most companies are owned as profit generating cash cows for foreign owners. Privatisation has been disastrous. Whateley (autocorrected as "Whatever") is probably right about it being a Herculean, Augean stable task, but the longer the status quo continues the worse the problem gets.
And here we get to an important issue. By the time of water privtisation in 1989, the 'Victorian pipe and sewer system' was, at a minimum, over eighty years old. The water infrastructure was under-financed whilst nationalised as well. As all too frequently happens with UK governments and infrastructure.
As it happens I can't see the point in water privatisation. But I fear concentrating on 'privatisation' as being the cause of the problem is being incredibly blind to the issues.