It isn't rubbish, and has absolutely nothing to do with safety, why would there be 30 mph limit on a straight country road with no turnings and no houses, but every two weeks there is a speed trap there. there is a similar one in Thetford, then there is the camera van on the A11 looking up the hill, why are so many speed cameras sited on hills, pointing down hill?Originally Posted by Rod
I have only had one speeding fine in my life, apparently I was doing 79mph on the A14 dual carriageway near Thrapston, it arrived in the post and meant nothing to me other than three points and a fine,
The flashing road sign showing the speed I am doing is far more effective in getting me to drive slower, the car I drive now has a head up display, funnily enough I drive more within the speed limits because I don't have to look down, the display also shows the limit for the road I am on, at the weekend I was on the A13, on the stretch I went on there were loads of average speed cameras, but not one speed limit sign.
Adrian
When you see a flashing road sign, you slow down and start to revert to form the next day or whatever. If you get a £60 fine and 3 points on your licence, you are going to be a lot more careful.
Getting caught speeding is the act of someone who is either taking a chance or just a bit dim. Either way it is a good thing to get them off the road which means less conjestion for the rest of us.
The simple answer is don't break the limit and you won't get done.
But it's ok to break loads of other laws that are the real contributory factors in most accidents, why not leave speed enforcement and concentrate on those. Answer because they don't generate cash.
Speed is a contributory factor in many crashes, and in terms or impact on pedestrians is a key factor. The faster you hit someone the more likely it is they will die.
Now this does clearly mean you can kill someone by not speeding in a 60mph zone, and not kill someone by speeding at 22mph in a 20 mph zone, but my point is there is a link between speed, accidents and the impact of those accidents.
Yes there are lots of other contributory causes, but they are harder to prove (reckless driving, dangerous driving, both quite difficult to prove, need lots more time and effort to prosecute, need resources to see this happen). Clearly catching speeding drivers is easier, and whilst it might very well be a revenue raiser in some instances, one way to avoid getting a ticket would be not to speed (rather than blame the Police for entrapment or something similar).
The alternative is a lack of motion altogether! Seldom does any stationary object cause a crash.....
An IAM study found that speeding accounted for 14% of fatal accidents. Human error or reaction accounted for 65%. One cause is addressed with cameras, radar traps, fines, bans, public awareness programs and social pressure. The other is almost entirely ignored. It's not about safety, it's about the perception of doing something about safety. And money.
Speeding= going over the speed limit.
The contention is that excessive speed is responsible for 99% of traffic accidents (I kept 1% out for freak accidents, like a piano falling on a parked car)
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Not according to the IAM. 13.9% illegal speeding, 15.9 per cent going too fast for the conditions, so 29.8% total. Still dwarfed by human error.Speeding= going over the speed limit.
The contention is that excessive speed is responsible for 99% of traffic accidents (I kept 1% out for freak accidents, like a piano falling on a parked car
https://www.iamroadsmart.com/media-a...river-coaching
Last edited by Groundrush; 21st August 2017 at 17:59.
I understand what you're saying but human error probably falls under excessive speed, not because of the road conditions but because of the level of attention/ alcohol of the driver. But whilst I accept I am being pedantic, it is probably easier to fight speeding.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Read the report. They specifically differentiate between human error and excessive speed.
Don't you think that things like 'loss of control' fall into the excessive speed category, for example.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
They differentiated for that. Read the report.
The bottom line is that while speed can be a contributory factor, it is not the most prolific by a wide margin yet it is one of the most vilified. Mobile phone use accounts for only 0.8% of fatal accidents yet it is probably the most hated crime of all. The response to road safety in this country is way out of line with reality, as is public perception.
That is this country's biggest behavioural weakness in my view. Condemnation by media and collective holier-than-thouness. Not new: it's been going on since lace curtains were invented so people could twitch them and _disapprove_. Brits do disapproving better than any other nation. I hate it. In fact I disapprove.
The laughingly called ' safety cam' lowlife van like to hide behind a gateway entrance I know of. It is at the bottom of a short hill, in a 40 limit area. Just at the bottom it swops to 30. There are no houses or turn offs for a long way. Nice idea 'money cam' really saving lives there! Not..
The two times I got caught were when they were parked in pull-ins just around corners so nicely hidden by trees/bushes until it's too late to do anything. And before anyone pipes-up I wasn't going too fast that I couldn't react to someone coming out of the pull-in.
Speeding might be the direct cause of a minority of accidents, but the more speed you're carrying into a crash caused by anything, the worse the likely outcomes for those involved.
Therefore, I think it's quite easy to make a case for targeting speeding, as it not only tries to tackle those who 'press on' a bit too much everywhere, but lower overall speeds equate to less deaths and serious injuries.
I'm not saying that's it, but there is some logic to it, and therefore it might not be just about persecuting the poor old motorist who wants to drive how they like everywhere.
I agree that overall driving standards seem to be in decline, but we're not going back any time soon to traffic police departments so we'd best get used to it.
Let's give an example of human error causing a fatal accident - someone pulls out of turning into the path of a motorcyclist and kills them outright. The motorcyclist was obeying the speed limit, was riding at an appropriate speed for the conditions, was wearing hi-vis, headlamp on etc etc i.e. doing everything reasonably possible in order to prevent being involved in such an accident. The car driver didn't pay enough attention to the road despite having a clean valid license, insurance, not being under the influence of drugs/alcohol and so on, and also despite being aware of the Think Bike! campaign that's aimed specifically at road users other than motorcyclists. The junction itself was designed to be as safe as possible with clear sightways, maintained asphalt, unobstructed lighting and signage and so on.
It's an unfortunate fact of life that despite taking all reasonable precautions accidents will still happen, and I'm unsure as to how additional policing could have prevented an accident as per the example above. Most accidents are caused by a casual slip of the mind - how do we improve that?** Speeding - as in exceeding the speed limit - is a black and white easily defined state that has clearly been identified as the cause of fatalities regardless as to the percentage, it's easy to police and can be done so through automated means, and there's nothing wrong in tackling such an issue - in fact not to do so would be beyond foolish. Same goes with driving under the influence or using a mobile device whilst being behind the wheel - you physically cannot stop someone from doing so therefore the threat of fines, points, jail terms and so on is used instead. Who cares if it stops only a small percentage of fatalities? Surely preventing some is better than preventing none at all? You also have to remember that when people drive under the influence, use a mobile device and speed they are choosing to do so despite being aware of the risks, no-one chooses to make an unfortunate mistake.
**Fully autonomous transport may ultimately mean that human error becomes a thing of the past, though that's another discussion all together. Improving both passive and active safety devices eg ABS, crumple zones and active braking will also help lower accident and fatality rates.
Last edited by CardShark; 22nd August 2017 at 13:57.
Using the same logic, weight is a significant contributory factor, should we ban all vehicles above a certain weight?
One of my cars weighs 1000kg and can do over 207mph, and one weighs 1790kg and can do 155mph, which one will do more damage in a 30mph crash?
HGVs have speed limits for that very reason, that and they're generally more difficult to control at higher speeds, particularly if they're articulated. Can't see it being practical to define other weight categories and have individual speed limits for those vehicles though - yes the current limits are "catch-all" however would, for example, 3-4 other limits dependent on weight help or just confuse matters? Is it practicable and reasonable to enforce multiple limits? Not really.
Weight is indeed a factor, although it pales as it is a direct factor whereas the speed is a factor squared.
But that weight is partly used to create crumple zones which reduce the impact to the occupants so your logic is a bit too simplistic.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I have to confess that I was stopped and reported over a month ago and am now facing between 4 and 6 points and a substantial fine. The road was empty, I was the only passenger and conditions were clear and good. No excuse for what I did but some mitigation along with a clean licence. The officer who stopped me was incredibly polite and professional as was I was I was being recorded on his camera on his body armour.
This weekend the same police force stood by idly watching whilst "non card/carrying members of the caravan club" forced a seaside town to close early following large scale disorder.
Is it fair of me to now question priorities?
As my friend (a CPS prosecutor in a Road team in a different part of the country) said, there is established case law that says excess speed is not dangerous driving. If it's not dangerous then it's hard to justify enforcement.
Training.
When people learn to drive they only do so in the sense of learn to operate, to make it move. That is where their learning virtually stops. When a pilot learns to fly a plane they intentionally stall it just to see what it does so they can learn how to get out of it. The vast majority of car drivers never do anything remotely like that. Instead they defer learning any skill that might save their life until the moment when their adrenalin is spiking and their fight, flight or freeze mechanism is kicking in, and death is staring them in the face; only then do they learn how their car reacts on the limit.
When the shit hits the fan, people do whatever it is they have been trained to do and in the case of driving they are trained to do nothing at all. When was the last time you did an intentional aggressive (emergency) stop from 70mph just so you'd know how your car reacts? For the majority of people I'd bet the answer to that is never. Some would be terrified of even trying. And another irony is that if you did try it and a copper saw you, even on a clear road, he'd probably want to feel your collar for reckless driving. Not only is learning to actually drive publicly discouraged, it's often illegal too.
So how do you fix that? First off, I would scrap speed awareness courses which are nothing more than "speeding is bad, m'kay". I'd replace them with actual time behind the wheel lessons with an actual advanced driving instructor. Anyone who gets done for any driving offence whatsoever has to go on an advanced driving course with someone like the IAM. You either pass it, or you're on the bus.
You would learn car control, observational skills, anticipation skills, an a whole lot more. It won't fix everything but it is better than what we do now, which is absolutely nothing.
Fair points - increased training will improve the awareness of an individual and lower the chance of either causing or being involved in an accident. I can see the logic in that, and I like the idea of a session with an IAM member as well. Could it be that the speed awareness courses are potentially more cost effective though? Being able to influence a class full of people a little bit (or possibly more, dependent on the individual) may be better than changing the attitude/improving the skills of one person in a one-to-one on road session with an instructor.
I went through a camera in a 30mph zone a couple of weeks ago, I received notice yesterday that I was driving at 37mph and I have the option of 3 points or a course. I'm going for the course because the way I see it is that I may well learn something I didn't previously know and this will benefit me more than having the 3 points.
Essex police at it again, a police woman hiding in the bushes between the post office and the bend in Sheering, it is a long straight road, if it is about safety why isn't she outside the village school about 400 metres down the road?
Colleague of mine just got done in Chester with a hand held. She was being observant of her surroundings, lots going on,busy area, and missed that she was doing a blatantly reckless 32 mph!
Money collection scheme. Gives the police a very,very, bad name imo...
I know there's a first time for everything, but enforcement starts at +10% + 2 mph (35 mph), so she's either mistaken or the speed has recorded higher.......
The guidelines state those tolerance for enforcement, but they are only guidelines and individual forces can do what they like. ( As Im sure you know )
If that ticket is genuinely for 32mph, I'll stick £20 in the fundraiser. All the colleague has to do is produce it, with details suitably obliterated.
I'm pretty confident that I'll not have to cough up, but if I do it's for a good cause.
I agree, its unlikely, but can happen.
Only if he wants to contravene UNECE Regulation 39, 110% of speed is the accepted error
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/...rule-explained
"A National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) spokesperson said in relation to the allowance: “The 10 per cent rule is allowed in guidance but it is not part of legislation."
'n the ACPO Speed Enforcement Policy Guideline 2011-2015, Section 9.7 it underlines how, despite there being a tolerance, that does not override the final decision of a police officer. "
In practical terms Im sure most forces follow the 10% guideline, they certainly don't have to though.
I had a head on collision with a tractor/trailer coming the wrong way on a one way road. It was on a slight bend, so the chap in the tractor told the police that I was driving too fast for the bend ( I wasn't), or I would have been able to stop in time. Luckily, the policeman was on the top of his game and measured up the scene. As I was not expecting a vehicle to be coming in the opposite direction, I did not have enough time or space to do that because of the combination of reaction time and braking time, which doubles when a vehicle is coming towards you (ie two drivers and vehicles). As the vehicle was approaching, by the time that I had seen it, reacted to it, then braked, it was too late as he was going through the same process. It's amazing just how far you travel, even at 30 mph, when an emergency stop is needed. A limit is set and we have to abide by it or accept the consequences. I have lost good friends to car related accidents where excessive speed was involved.
Last edited by tixntox; 11th October 2017 at 13:35.
I only met her for the first time on an ILS study day, not sure when I will see her again as I only work there one day a week. I cant say I have ever genuinely had reason to disbelieve one the cons anaesthetists though....they are not usually liars..
This from the greenFlag website states anywhere between 31-40 will get you three points + fine
http://blog.greenflag.com/2017/speeding-drivers/
Last edited by sestrel; 11th October 2017 at 13:43.
I deleted that post because others had also posted similarly - as has been pointed out though, it's only a guideline.
(Of course 10% is the error not 110%.)
This thread isn't condoning speeding it is about hidden speed traps, they do not contribute to road safety, afaik the police don't even bother to publish how many people they catch at specific mobile locations, its a cash machine.
The regulation says:-
The speed indicated shall not be less than the true speed of the vehicle. At the test speeds specified in paragraph 5.2.5 above, there shall be the following relationship between the speed displayed (V 1 ) and the true speed (V 2 ).
0 ≤ (V 1 – V 2 ) ≤ 0,1 V 2 + 4 km/h
If the police are actually prosecuting at less than 10% over, I am surprised it hasn't been challenged in the courts.
Why worry about it if you're not speeding?
Generating useful cash and catching law-breakers.
So, you have never, ever, gone over exactly 30 mph in a 30 area. Amazing..
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that very much sounds like regulation stating that the speedo must display a higher speed than the actual speed and nothing to do with the 10% +2mph issue.
...or, never driven in an area where the limits change several times in a matter of minutes, with hidden signage?
I've recently been 'done' for 36 mph and attended a SA course (which wasn't too bad tbh) and the guy running it categorically stated the threshold was speed limit +10%.
If you haven't attended a speeding course the last couple of years and you were marginally (didn't expand on 'marginal' mind you) over the limit you get the offer of a course.
Exactly..
Because they selectively catch lawbreakers, they don't respond to vehicle thefts or burglary's where I live, saying that they have not got the resources, yet finding personnel to do this doesn't seem to be an issue.
Well, look at the hoo haa this caused!
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...-ban-fast-cars
So the majority agree with speed restrictions but don't want fast cars banned
If directed at me, yes I have and if caught (and I have been) I wouldn't complain.
There, your a 'law breaker' then. Doubt there are many drivers who aren't then.
Pushing drivers to be paranoid about going fractions over the limits and paying too much attention to the speedo can hardly be safe imo
Last edited by sestrel; 11th October 2017 at 17:24.
So? Didn't claim I wasn't.
I never realised people found driving so challenging. It really isn't that difficult to stay within the speedlimit.
'Cos we know what we're doing and don't need nobody to tell us what speed to do?
Surely you can pay attention enough not to speed, if you start at a speed say 30mph you must know if you're accelerating. Or is driving too complicated for some?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
