Speed Penalties to Rise -Deaths Down

[st4]

Yes there will always be some risk associated with cars. But we also need to accept that the risk goes up with speed. To take an extreme example to make the point, if we all did 2 mph very few people would be killed by cars. Driving faster increases the risk of collision (less time to avoid) and hugely increases the force of the impact. Hit a child at 30 it has an 80% chance of living. Hit a child at 40 and it has an 80% chance of dying. Speeding kills.

Fair enough, but so do many other things increase the chances of collision. Modern cars have many more distractions like onboard computers, sat navs, mobile phones etc that can divert the attention of the driver which can cause collisions too. My point is that you need to look elsewhere as well to increase safety rather than just speed.

 

[stevesey]

One of the issues with stepped graduated penalties and automatic trigger points for those steps is that fractional differences in speed have vastly different consequences regarding punishment while those same speed differences have little or no consequence on the risk.

Why not start with 3 points and then add a point for every additional 10% (or 8, 9% whatever)

e.g using 10% to make the maths easy (and in reall life you'd round)

35 in a 30 = 3 points
38.5 = 4 points.
42.35 = 5 points.
46.585 = 6 points.
etc

 

[stevesey]

Yes there will always be some risk associated with cars. But we also need to accept that the risk goes up with speed. To take an extreme example to make the point, if we all did 2 mph very few people would be killed by cars. Driving faster increases the risk of collision (less time to avoid) and hugely increases the force of the impact. Hit a child at 30 it has an 80% chance of living. Hit a child at 40 and it has an 80% chance of dying. Speeding kills.

Yes and the point is at which risk threshold do we draw the line? To some people a 40mph limit on a certain strech of road produces and acceptable level of risk, whilst for others even 30mph is too risky (and of course the level of risk varies with lots factors, time of day, weather etc).

Here's an interesting tangent - after Dumblaine the government ignored the recommendations of the Cullen report and introduced draconian legistration regarding the legitimate ownership of guns for sporting purposes etc (n.b I've never owned a gun so have no axe to grind). And we all know how sucessful this has been in reducing gun crime don't we.

So do we want draconian laws for the motorist, or more meausured laws and a emphisis on driver training and responsibility?

 

[st13phil]

Why not start with 3 points and then add a point for every additional 10% (or 8, 9% whatever)

Spain uses a similar system to determine the fine to be levied for speeding infractions. Much "fairer" than the large step approach, but again the issue becomes one of accuracy of the equipment used to detect the offence.

after Dumblaine [sic] the government ignored the recommendations of the Cullen report and introduced draconian legistration regarding the legitimate ownership of guns for sporting purposes etc (n.b I've never owned a gun so have no axe to grind). And we all know how sucessful this has been in reducing gun crime don't we.

The UK gun laws were introduced as a direct result of a vocal pressure group making unsubstantiated but highly emotional claims about how much safer we would be if the right to hold and use legitimately licenced firearms were withdrawn. A bit like Brake and Roadpeace and the like and their claims about speeding, really.

 

[andy_k]

Why not start with 3 points and then add a point for every additional 10% (or 8, 9% whatever)

e.g using 10% to make the maths easy (and in reall life you'd round)

35 in a 30 = 3 points
38.5 = 4 points.
42.35 = 5 points.
46.585 = 6 points.
etc

a good idea but why should "enforcement" start at the law plus 5 mph

It's a fact that all car speedos read over the vehicles actual speed so to get caught doing 35 mph then it's probably indicating nearer 40 mph than 30 - that's not a momentary lapse.



I think 30 zones should be zero tolerance. If you can't keep a car below 30 mph in a built up area then quite frankly you shouldn't be driving!

Most accidents seem to be in built up areas as there are far more hazards. Around here they have 20 mph zones near some schools and as inconvenient as they are they have cut accidents (not deaths) and it's a lot safer for kids to cross the road.

As for other speed limits, well sadly, they are there for a reason and we are governed by the lowest common denominator. You may think that you are a perfectly safe driver capable of cruising all day at 100mph but you cannot always avoid the Micra driving granny who thinks that 50 mph is more than fast enough for anybody and who is more concerned about getting to the bingo on time than the safety of other road users

 

[stevesey]

Spain uses a similar system to determine the fine to be levied for speeding infractions. Much "fairer" than the large step approach, but again the issue becomes one of accuracy of the equipment used to detect the offence.

Although if the steps are smaller the impact of any inaccuracy is reduced, so it becomes less of an issue.

The UK gun laws were introduced as a direct result of a vocal pressure group making unsubstantiated but highly emotional claims about how much safer we would be if the right to hold and use legitimately licenced firearms were withdrawn. A bit like Brake and Roadpeace and the like and their claims about speeding, really.

And the government (still opposition at the time) chose to listen to them, rather that Lord Cullen - and nothing has changed is the past 11 years.

I'm getting political, so I'd better shut up now.

 

[st4]

Yes and the point is at which risk threshold do we draw the line? To some people a 40mph limit on a certain strech of road produces and acceptable level of risk, whilst for others even 30mph is too risky (and of course the level of risk varies with lots factors, time of day, weather etc).

True, this is where the wonders of a policeman and his discrecion come into play. A camera never gives this, but a policeman can. Also a fine through the post is a money raiser but £60 is hardly an inconvience. Sitting in the back of a police car explaining yourself when you need to be at your desk is.

Here's an interesting tangent - after Dumblaine the government ignored the recommendations of the Cullen report and introduced draconian legistration regarding the legitimate ownership of guns for sporting purposes etc (n.b I've never owned a gun so have no axe to grind). And we all know how sucessful this has been in reducing gun crime don't we.

Interesting analogy. Over regulation will never tackle crime IMHO.

So do we want draconian laws for the motorist, or more meausured laws and a emphisis on driver training and responsibility?

The later everytime, and this comes back to your first point. With better driver training and responsibility comes real awareness of when to use speed and when to slow down to a speed below the speed limit. I may not be the best person to write this given the fact that I drove in an excessive manner last weekend but I did on a quiet motorway, not in a built up area where there are more risks.

 

[Birdman]

I think 30 zones should be zero tolerance. If you can't keep a car below 30 mph in a built up area then quite frankly you shouldn't be driving!

Then clearly no-one is safe to drive as by that definition anyone who has ever drifted above the 30mph limit should be kept off the road.

There's research around to demonstrate even police driving instructors inadvertently break the Highway Code several times on every journey they make. We are not perfect machines. And occasionally drifting over the posted speed limit is inevitable (unless you have fitted, and always engage, a speed limiter device).

Do you?

 

[andy_k]

Staying below 30 mph is easy and I don't see why so many people have a problem with it after all, we all managed it perfectly well on our driving test

If you can't manage to hold your car's speed at 30 then aim for 25, if that's too difficult then try 20

The speed limit isn't a mandatory speed you have to travel at it is the maximum speed allowed on that stretch of road.

I'd far rather stray 5 mph under the limit than 5 mph over in areas where I may have to stop suddenly or need to react to circumstances I have no control over.

 

[Birdman]

If you can't manage to hold your car's speed at 30 then aim for 25, if that's too difficult then try 20.

Driving too slowly - and going everywhere at 20 within a 30 zone would qualify - would be cause to be stopped by the police and warned for obstructive driving. Yes, it happens.

It leads to hazardous queue-jumping by the seriously inconvenienced drivers behind.

Not really the answer.

But I was actually commenting upon the "zero tolerance" school who appear to believe if you stray a whisker over 30 you're a danger to civilisation.

Ah well, it takes all sorts...

 

[andy_k]

sorry, whilst you are busy deliberately twisting what I said.......

At no point did I say drive at 20 mph. I said if you were incapable of sticking to 30 mph then aim a bit lower.

Obviously, using your own argument you would be unable to stick to that speed either so you would be unlikely to get stopped for obstructive driving would you?

Or are you blessed with some magical powers that mean you can't drive at 30 but you can stick to 20?

Why not have zero tolerance for 30 mph in built up areas, just what does the extra couple of mph actually gain you?

As far as I know, those signs at the sign of the road indicate a speed limit, not a rough idea of what's expected of you.

Again, you managed to stick to the 30 mph speed limit on your driving test why can't you do it now?

 

[Birdman]

Well, let's stay calm about this.

My central theme is that logically the zero tolerance school disqualify themselves from driving on the public roads as humans are incapable of observing any rigid but artificial task to perfection. Not just me, not just you, but him; and her; and them as well....

The police understand this.

 

[st4]

sorry, whilst you are busy deliberately twisting what I said.......

At no point did I say drive at 20 mph. I said if you were incapable of sticking to 30 mph then aim a bit lower.

Obviously, using your own argument you would be unable to stick to that speed either so you would be unlikely to get stopped for obstructive driving would you?

Or are you blessed with some magical powers that mean you can't drive at 30 but you can stick to 20?

Why not have zero tolerance for 30 mph in built up areas, just what does the extra couple of mph actually gain you?

As far as I know, those signs at the sign of the road indicate a speed limit, not a rough idea of what's expected of you.

Again, you managed to stick to the 30 mph speed limit on your driving test why can't you do it now?

Unless you're super human and you're driving exactly as you would on your test peoples driving changes pretty soon after the L test.

Have you never crossed your hands over, lent an arm on the arm rest, etc. I bet you have, whats worse, compromising your control of the steering, or doing 31mph?

To adhere to the limit I agree with you and I aim for 25 in town, IMHO its a safer speed to travel at and it ties in the 40kmph speed limits in Spain, a countries road network I enjoyed using.

However I did do a feral 32mph in my driving test. I passed it but I was given a minor fault for it. I didn't cross my hands however, but when reversing into my parking space at work I did. Naughty me

 

[andy_k]

Unless you're super human and you're driving exactly as you would on your test peoples driving changes pretty soon after the L test.

yep, I agree but most of the things like crossing arms, reversing around corners slightly and running wide or not putting the handbrake on at junctions don't actually break any laws do they?

as soon as we get into our cars we accept all the laws that apply to us - we may not like them but we either choose to accept them, take the penalty if we choose to ignore them or walk.

If we want the laws changing then we should campaign for it not just go around ignoring them

 

[andy_k]

Well, let's stay calm about this.

My central theme is that logically the zero tolerance school disqualify themselves from driving on the public roads as humans are incapable of observing any rigid but artificial task to perfection. Not just me, not just you, but him; and her; and them as well....

The police understand this.

who said anything about perfection?

you did, again, you are twisting the argument to suit yourself.

30 mph does not mean you have to drive at 30 mph, exactly, with no variation, not one mph less or one mph more - I agree, no human could do this.

30 mph means that is the maximum speed permissable so you can actually drive (within reason) below that speed. That's not performing to perfection it's performing within a pretty huge margin of error (25-30 mph is approx 15%) and if you are incapable of sticking to that then why should you be on the road?

As well as sticking to the speed limit on your test I'm also willing to bet you manage to drive past cameras or roadside speed checks performing the "artificial task to perfection"

 

[Birdman]

The task in this case, if you choose to accept it, is: banish yourself from the road permanently and forever if you ever transgress the stated speed limit.

This is where I depart from the 'zero tolerance' school of thought on "speeding".

So, I challenge you to spend the rest of your driving career NEVER trangressing any speed limit. Ever.

Not a fraction of a mph and not for a micro second!

It isn't possible!

Unless you are a machine, of course. I could be wrong about you...

 

[andy_k]

again, you are (somewhat desperately it appears) twisting the points I made. You've moved it from 30 mph to all speed limits - sorry but I'm not sure where that came from but it's ridiculous.

again, you've avoided answering the questions. If you can stay below the speed limit when you are being observed why can't you do it all the time?

Let's remember that this started off by me suggesting that there is no need for any leeway whatsoever ABOVE the 30 mph limit. No other limits were mentioned. Just the one which happens to cover the area where most accidents happen

 

[Birdman]

Sure. Granted. I raised you.

But no-one, not even a policeman can achieve that goal for at any given speed limit (30 in your case) throughout a lifetime's driving. Which is what you're proposing as your test of 'you shouldn't be on the road if you can't achieve this' competence.

Unless you're a machine.

That's why your type of 'zero tolerance' is not considered as a sane & sensible option by the police. Or me.


And as for me, right now I'm off to bed.


ZZZZZzzzzzzz

 

[Uberwagon]

I find the general consensus that 30mph limits are there because of the incredible danger cars are in that area.

There are areas where 60 in a 30 is perfectly safe, there are areas where 40 in a 60 is the correct speed and there are areas where 10mph in a 30 is no more than you should be doing.

30mph on the road near my house is far too much, cars parked on one side of the road, a large slightly raised drain people swerve around and a blind corner heading towards you where people deem 30mph to be safe but I see it as far too high a speed.

A sensible Policeman will see the practicalities of your speed and then use reason to come up with a suitable punishment.

Blanket limits and especially zero tolerance ones (ever seen the brake lights in average speed limits, it's like a giant moving christmas tree) are ridiculous and uncalled for, they do nothing but frighten those spending more time observing the speedo than the road.

Dave!

 

[Dieter]

Hi,

Lets be sensible about this you only need to travel within the speed limit when there is a chance of you being caught for not so doing ...or, more importantly, if there's the remotest chance of an accident .

For example I will happily drive at less than 30 mph outside a school during the day but may well stray a little at midnight (as long as it is safe to do so and their are no cameras etc.).

Speed limits are arbitrary to some extent else they would'nt keep changing (some of) them (except to raise money ).

However I stick to my original point that I agree that excessive speeding (45 mph in 30 limit etc.) should be punished more....if you get caught (as if one can't spot a camera could one spot a child etc.?)

However it is easy for most of us (Merc drivers) to stick to speed limits (which I most often do nowadays) by use of c/control or speed limiter (i.e. machine ) although some will say this means you are not in control of your car....balderdash and my new sat nav (Navman S 100) puts up speed limits should I exceed them by 1 mph.....so I have no excuse should I ever be caught speeding .

Cheers,