There is still somewhere there. The driver. Hitting a solid object
at high speed often kills occupants of cars. Apart from on motorways
people can appear unexpectedly. If you are travelling at high speed
you have less time to react (and so do they).
Rubbish. Going too fast for the road conditions is more dangerous.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
I'm sure you remember that advert in which a test dummy crashes a
car into a wall, whereupon the wife immediately nags: "Why don't you
watch where you're going?", and he shrugs and says "It just came out
Well, in real life walls and trees and other solid objects *don't*
just come out of nowhere, you can always see them coming, and the
only way you're going to hit them (other than deliberately) is if
you lose control of the car. Provided your speed is such that in the
conditions prevailing at the time it isn't going to make loss of
control likely, there is no reason not to treat the speed limit with
the pinch of salt it deserves.
Indeed, but that means you should use your judgement to determine not
just your speed but what things to concentrate on. If there is a
parked lorry or stopped bus ahead, you should be prepared for someone
to come running out from behind it. And when there are no such
objects, there is no reason, apart from the law, to curb your speed
when it's safe not to.
More than what? I think that statement would sound better without
the word "more". I completely agree that if road conditions are poor
you should drive more carefully and probably more slowly than when
conditions are fine. But I pointed out that if you drive at 40 in
a 40 zone, i.e. are not speeding, and assuming conditions are good, then
someone could still appear out of nowhere and if hit would likely die
*despite* no speeding being involved. That the limit there is 40 and
not 30 is completely arbitrary. That the limit somewhere else is 30
and not 40 is also completely arbitrary.
That's why almost everyone treats the limit only as a rough guide,
even the police, who ought to be setting a good example to the rest
of us. Not many people generally cruise slower than 35 on a main road
in a 30 zone, and moreover this is officially tolerated by the ACPO
guidelines, which is a great pity because it mocks the law. It would be
far better to make the limit 35 and enforce it strictly than to make the
limit 30 and allow a 5mph tolerance band.
Statistics show that collisions are more likely the faster you travel.
Speed limits are there for a reason and that's not just safety.
Drivers going too fast is also a problem for other motorists as cars
are travelling quicker than expected.
More dangerous that not going too fast.
Driving is dangerous in the sense that it is not without risk. Driving
faster increases this risk. However most of the risk is not for the
driver but for the more vulnarable such as motorbike riders,
pedestrians and cyclists.
I wouldn't like to gamble about whether or not someone would die if
hit at any particular speed.
People exceed the speed limit because they are impatient and selfish
and don't expect to get caught (or don't mind being caught).
I can't explain or defend why procecution only occurs at a speed
higher than the limit. Just because a lot of people regularly break
the limit does not make it acceptable. Cars have speedometers so
there's little excuse for exceeding the limit.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
Statistics probably show that more driving tests are failed by 18-year-olds
than by candidates of any other age. Statistics probably also show that
more driving tests are passed by 18-year-olds than others. This leads to
the absurdity that it tempts us to draw two contradictory conclusions at
the same time, namely that 18-years olds are both the worst and the best
drivers of all age groups. Yet both observations are easily explained by
the simple fact that more 18-year-olds *sit* the test than anyone else
(because they want to get their licences as early as possible).
Statistics probably show that fewer accidents involve drunk drivers than
sober drivers. Does that allow us to conclude that we should all drink
more when we drive? Well, no, not necessarily, it depends on what the
proportion of drunk drivers overall is.
So if statistically more collisions occur at higher speeds this could just
be a reflection of more cars travelling at higher speeds when a collision
just happens to occur, it doesn't necessarily establish that higher speed
makes collisions more likely. Consider also that lower speed collisions
will tend to involve less damage, and are apt to go unreported, skewing
That sounds bizarre. What reasons other than safety are there?
I agree, and likewise cars travelling slower than expected pose
But what is "too fast"? This isn't easy to quantify, and I'm sure you
agree that it depends on road conditions, so that there are times when,
be it due to poor visibility, slippery surfaces, or more people than usual
milling about, driving at the legal limit would be unsafe (too fast).
Equally you must accept that there are times when it is perfectly safe to
exceed the legal limit. Traffic authorities set limits which are arbitrary
and are designed to fit with typical conditions, not with all conditions.
Exactly, so just don't hit them. :-)
Are you happy with the local traffic authority to gamble by making some
roads 30 limits and others 40?
That's true for some, but for most, it's because they have made a judgement
that it is safe, and of course in a situation where the general flow
of traffic is already moving (moderately) in excess of the legal limit,
it undoubtedly *is* safer to fit in than to be the only one not breaking
One possible explanation is that the powers that be are happy for us
to drive at 35, but know that the only way to ensure that most of us
stay below 35 is to make the nominal limit 30. Speedometers have
historically not been easy to calibrate properly, some will over- and
some will under-read a bit, so it's not easy for drivers to know
whether they're just over or just under. Some car manufacturers used
to deliberately skew the tolerance to over-read, to make people think
they were driving faster than in fact they were, thus making it less
likely they'd get caught. Nowadays speedos are more likely to be
digital rather than the old induced-current spinning disc against a
spring, so they ought to be accurate (modulo varying tyre circumference)
but I'm not sure whether they're still designed to over-read. People
who were accustomed from the old speedos to know that indicated 35
meant 30 actual, may still think indicated 35 is OK.
In all of these case the answer is that the wrong statistics are being
generated. In the first case, it should be the proportion of each age
who take the driving test who pass it. In the second it should be a
comparison of the proportion of drunk drivers who have an accident
compared with the proportion of sober drivers who have an accident. In
the last case it should be a comparison of the proportion of cars
travelling at each speed who have a collision. In most cases, the
comparison of the proportion of populations is more meaningful than the
comparison of absolute numbers where the size of the populations are
Driving is hardly ever "very safe". It's a bloody convenient way of getting
about, though. As a society we must learn to balance risk with reward.
How many road deaths and other horrific injuries are there per year? Some
would argue there are too many, and that we should ban private motor cars
altogether. I'm sure it would reduce the accident toll, but society appears
to accept that the price in terms of lost convenience would be too high, in
other words we accept that these deaths etc are a price worth paying for the
I wouldn't condone extreme excesses, but in many cases it is perfectly safe
(within the bounds of acceptable risk) to go faster than the limit, because
often the limit is clearly too low. The recent introduction of part-time
speed limits (e.g. near schools at starting and finishing times) recognises
This has gone quite off-topic now and I suggest we draw this to a close.
Part of the problem is who takes the risk and who gets the reward. If
it were the same person I would take less of an issue. However, with
all the safety measures like seat belts, crash zones and air bags the
driver takes virtually no risk to their health travelling at normal
"town" speeds. The risk is mainly carried by others like peds and two
If only people would take any notice of these advisory speed limits
around schools -- or better still let their kids walk to school. It's
like the dodgems outside the local schools here.
I agree this has gone off topic so I'll try to resist posting again to
this thread. :-)
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
Yes, I've seen that more recently.
But do you remember them saying a few years ago that:
" ... most people hit at 40 don't survive, around half of
people hit at 30 survive, most people hit at 20 survive..." ?
When did it change & why?
It's a start. Do people come to the police with a nice package which
the police only have to present to the court? If the police didn't
start an investigation after that evidence they would be negligent.
I would say that as your CC Co has made a charge to your account, and is
working on a continuing authority basis, THEY (not the fraudsters) need to
provide you with the authorisation. Failure to provide that should
immediately put a hold on any further charges to your account pending their
You may also want to consider at the same time making a complaint to the
credit card company, maybe progressing it to the Financial Ombudsman
You may also want to consider reporting it to the police.
A combination of all three may well get it all resolved.
Don't worry about it. It's the bank's problem - you've notified them
of the fraudulent transaction so they should the amount into dispute,
stop any interest/charges on that amount, and unless they get proof
from the retailer that you authorised the transaction they'll refund
it. May take a while (was about 3 months when it happened to me but
can be quicker). It could be the fraudsters are using random credit
card numbers so the bank may not consider it worthwhile changing your
As the OP, I just want to further clarify. Firstly thanks for the interest
in the issue.
1. I fully understand that the majority of chargeback queries probably
result in the requestor subsequently recognising that it is a forgotten
transaction. This isn't the case here. It is a company that secures credit
card details and places a regular charge on the account until the account
holder notices it and invokes the chargeback process. Probably it makes it's
money on the people that fail to notice.
2. The chargeback process itself is not completely customer-centric. I
cannot simply report the fraud online or over the telephone and then leave
them to get on it with it. They insist on a written form be completed for
each transaction separately. They insist that unless they receive the form
back within 14 days of them sending it then they will "assume I do not wish
to proceed" and drop the chargeback process which must be then started
again. The post has been bad, it's taken 10 days for the forms to arrive
with 4 left for them to receive them. I suspect I must start again going
through the telephone process to get the forms. Trivial I know, but the
customer must even pay for the return postage.
3. The core of my concern is that even though my own credit card company may
be convinced that it is a fraudulent charge that there is no mechanism for
them stopping future charges. They must accept any charge from any other
credit card company.
4. Even if I cancel the card and a new card is issued my credit card
company maintain that further charges on the old card remain my obligation
until they are notified and the chargeback process is completed every time
it occurs. I guess even if I were to unexpectedly die then my estate -
unaware of the fraudulent nature of the card will continue to be depleted
until the fraudster feels he has taken enough. The only hope they hold out
is that the fraudulent company "gets fed up" with the chargebacks, or
recognises that the constant chargebacks brings himself into higher
attention and therefore might compromise his continued fraud - and cancels
5. I am most certainly the victim as I have already paid my credit card
bill and have not yet been refunded and have had to "pay" for the chargeback
process with my time and paid a permanent charge because of the cost of the
stamp and apparently have a permenent forward obligation if I want this
fraudulent debit refunded in the future.
The whole complaint therefore is that it seems that a customer in this
situation isn't afforded the same protection he has with the direct debit
guarantee and the ability of the customer to cancel it.
I hope this more clearly summarises the problem
I get the impression that card users seem to have very little protection.
Once a company has your card details, it seems that they are able to carry
out transactions without your further authorisation.
In 2005 I was with Bulldog Communications when they were taken over by C&W.
The service was so bad that I stopped payments on my credit card (I was
eventually able to do that). But, Bulldog/C&W also had my debit card
details and took 3 payments from my account within one month. When I saw
this on my statement, I emailed them asking an explanation. Without
contacting me, they re-credited two of the payments.
I took this up with my bank, concerned that Bulldog/C&W were able to take
money from my bank account and then put money back into it - all without my
knowledge or authorisation. It seems that they were able to do this and no
fraud had been committed. The only thing I was able to do was then instruct
my bank that no further transactions would be permitted from Bulldog/C&W
without my specific permission.
I just could not believe that this could could be done so freely without my
permission or knowledge. I shortly afterwards left Bulldog anyway.
Yes, that was a concern of mine in a recent thread. I had discovered that
the online purchase of car insurance from Churchill was concealing the
imposition of a CCA on the card I was intending to use.
I once tried to query something similar. I asked my bank exactly what access
to my funds a merchant could obtain just from the possession of my card
details. I found them unreasonably reticent about this.
That also became my view. I have never then agreed to either a DD or a
CCA and think it is worrying that a CCA may now even somehow be agreed
Do you have proof of this? If any company actually did this regularly they'd
have their merchant facilities stopped (for the cynics it'd cost the banks
far more to deal with chargebacks etc than they make out of transaction fees
for those who don't notice incorrect debits). The likelyhood is that the
company accepts cardholder-not-present transactions and is willing to take
the risk that the occasional few will be made fraudulently. Unless the vast
majority were kosher they'd soon have their card facilities terminated.
Way OTT - when it happened to me it was simply a case of reporting it over
the phone and that was that. You could try asking for compensation for your
time and expense once the whole matter is settled.
There probably isn't a mechanism to selectively reject charges from a
particular retailer to a particular card.
You keep going on about the "fraudulent company", what proof do you have
that the company is fraudulent? They are more likely to be victims of the
fraud themselves where a fraudster is using other peoples' card details to
order products/services from them.
You're a victim of your bank's bureaucratic process for reporting
unauthorised transactions. As that's all you know it is, at the moment.
DD is a separate issue, there you have authorised something and want to
cancel your authority. Here someone appears to be claiming you authorised a
transaction when you didn't.
But you don't have a clue as who the fraudster is. If you really think a
company can set up merchant facilities and go round making only fraudulent
transactions then you really haven't got a clue. A few other people
suffering fraud via the same company proves nothing, it probably just
indicates they use CNP transactions and are prepared to take the risk of the
BeanSmart.com is a site by and for consumers of financial services and advice. We are not affiliated with any of the banks, financial services or software manufacturers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
Tax and financial advice you come across on this site is freely given by your peers and professionals on their own time and out of the kindness of their hearts. We can guarantee
neither accuracy of such advice nor its applicability for your situation. Simply put, you are fully responsible for the results of using information from this site in real life situations.