Speed Penalties to Rise -Deaths Down

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The M3 and M27 near me are regularly patrolled by numerous police cars and several unmarked cars as well. It is just not true that the approach is one dimensional.

Given the fuel consumption figures of cars as speed rises, we are very lucky that the motorway limit has not been reduced.
 
Drive on any motorway at 70 and you will be passed by a good proportion of the other cars.


Funny thing is that's not strictly true - certainly not in the South East. drive at 70 mph on a motorway or dual carriageways and you'll be overtaking a good proportion of the other vehicles.

Remember, it's not just cars that use roads and not all cars want to travel at 70+ mph
 
For laws to be obeyed they need to be perceived as fair and reasonable by a majority of the affected population otherwise the laws, and their enforcers, fall into disrepute.
The smartest sentence in the entire topic. I hope both sides of the debate can find common ground here.

RH
 
Funny thing is that's not strictly true - certainly not in the South East. drive at 70 mph on a motorway or dual carriageways and you'll be overtaking a good proportion of the other vehicles.

Remember, it's not just cars that use roads and not all cars want to travel at 70+ mph

Are you agreeing or making another point?

I didn't say vehicles I said cars.

I didn't say all cars wanted to drive at over 70 and I didn't say they had to.
 
Well if you can come up with the technology to catch those who carry out these other offences I am sure the govt will be happy to consider using it.

In the meantime you seem to ignore the major campaigns to catch and prosecute numerous drink drivers and those without tax and insurance.

WRT to insurance, tax etc. I don’t think I’d characterise it as a major campaign.

Seems to me to consist of sitting next to the road with an ANPR system waiting for someone to come past who isn’t taxed etc.

The government knows a car’s registered keeper , they know where the keeper lives, they know if the car is taxed / SORN’d or not, they know if it is insured, they know if it has an MOT.

So their approach is to wait for it to drive past. They could go and knock on the keepers door. Try not paying your TV licence and see what happens. Wouldn’t even need to use expensive fully trained police to do this. Some sort of DVLA ‘enforcement officer’ role could be created.

I recognise that this will not catch all offenders as false addresses etc, are used, but it will catch a significant number and encourage compliance.

Agree drink driving is a focus but with the number of police about the chances of getting caught are, unfortunately, pretty remote.
 
Too simplistic. You really have to question if the speed limit is appropriate. Drive on any motorway at 70 and you will be passed by a good proportion of the other cars. Are all of these drivers going too fast? Or is the limit too low? Do you think that 70 as a limit has been set by any rigorous evaluation, recent or otherwise, of how fast it is safe to drive on a motorway? I believe it is an arbitrary number arrived at in the mid 1960s when cars were inferior to todays vehicles in nearly every respect and needs to be revisisted.

For laws to be obeyed they need to be perceived as fair and reasonable by a majority of the affected population otherwise the laws, and their enforcers, fall into disrepute.

Let's take the second point first...... absolutely agree. But it also works both ways. I've banged on about this before but there is a "perception" that we drive vastly safer machines today - the upshot is that most people believe thay can drive faster and closer, and engage in other activities whilst driving (not that........phones for example) because they are in a safer vehicle. However, most of the safety advances in vehicle design come into play at lower speed so that the chances of being killed or seriously injured are dramatically less at 30/40/50 as an occupant in a vehicle now than years ago. It's not the same at motorway speeds, and the research shows that as we become more relaxed with all the comforts and safety features in our cars the less we concentrate and the slower our reactions are.

Now to the first point - ir should be fairly easy to see why most countries have limits of around 70/80 mph for their motorway networks. The cars have got better, we seem to have got worse because we "think" we are "safer".

Conclusions? Training has had a dramatic impact on me. I have to do regular advanced training through work and I notice the difference every time. But who would pay for this, how would it be enforced, etc, etc? Technology - one OEM is going to start some trials soon, based on GPS, sign recognition, etc, and the car will sound a warning tone when the limit is exceeded by a certain amount. Quiet and intermittent at first, but become louder and more irritating as time and speed increases - bit like a seatbelt warning chime. The authorities in Europe and the US have asked for manufacturers to look at technological approaches, and this is the first that I have seen. What would members think of this?
 
Technology - one OEM is going to start some trials soon, based on GPS, sign recognition, etc, and the car will sound a warning tone when the limit is exceeded by a certain amount. Quiet and intermittent at first, but become louder and more irritating as time and speed increases - bit like a seatbelt warning chime. The authorities in Europe and the US have asked for manufacturers to look at technological approaches, and this is the first that I have seen. What would members think of this?
I virtually have this now with the Garmin which gives an audible gong when you exceed the speed limit where you are. You can switch it off.

I agree with your thoughtful posting. If we crash at lower speeds we have more chance of survival.
 
Conclusions? Training has had a dramatic impact on me. I have to do regular advanced training through work and I notice the difference every time. But who would pay for this, how would it be enforced, etc, etc?
I wholeheartedly agree that regular training & assessment drives have a dramatic effect. On the subject of "who would pay", although I haven't any firm evidence to support my view, I honestly believe that the total cost of using expensive technology to enforce compliance with rules that are often perceived as being nothing more than a nuisance is greater than the cost of regular training and assessment.

The root of the problem seems to me that somone can obtain their licence to drive and can then potentially drive badly for the next 53 years without any corrective action being taken. Even if they start off driving well, best practice changes over time yet those same drivers do not - because they are unaware of the need to change. A good example is ABS brakes. These are most effective in an emergency situation if kept fully applied, yet most drivers who learnt their craft before ABS brakes became commonplace will use cadence braking in a wheel lock-up situation and lose the benefit that ABS can provide.

Well thought out technology can be useful to encourage different behaviour, and can also mitigate the effects of a human getting it wrong. However, not getting it wrong in the first place is always a better way of getting the desired outcome. This can only be achieved through driver improvement programs. Technology can then be used as the "back stop".

Devising the best solution always requires that the problem be properly understood. Mandatory "check drives" every year or two plus formal assessment (say) every five years as a condition of holding a driver's licence would have a much greater impact on road safety than complex and expensive control techology, IMO.
 
Devising the best solution always requires that the problem be properly understood. Mandatory "check drives" every year or two plus formal assessment (say) every five years as a condition of holding a driver's licence would have a much greater impact on road safety than complex and expensive control techology, IMO.

I think I'd agree with you there. I'm sure some countries (US?) have a limited duration on their licence that at least means you get an eye check and such every few years.
 
trials soon, based on GPS, sign recognition, etc, and the car will sound a warning tone when the limit is exceeded by a certain amount. Quiet and intermittent at first, but become louder and more irritating as time and speed increases - bit like a seatbelt warning chime...................What would members think of this?
I'd think of getting some wirecutters. If they're sneaky enough to incorporate a device which would notice then I'd replace the speaker with a suitable resistor.

RH
 
What's the big deal with the level of deaths now?? You will never be able to remove all risk from driving.

I have nothing to say about such a comment.
You did ask the question if anyone though the level of road deaths now was acceptable. Someone was brave enough to stick their head over the parapet.

Thinking about it another way I think the decline in road deaths is acceptable and what is needed is more of the same steady progress, not draconian/oppressive legislation.
 
You did ask the question if anyone though the level of road deaths now was acceptable. Someone was brave enough to stick their head over the parapet.

Thinking about it another way I think the decline in road deaths is acceptable and what is needed is more of the same steady progress, not draconian/oppressive legislation.

"What's the big deal with the level of deaths now??"

I read it that the implication was that the level of road deaths was no big deal. Then I imagined someone who had just lost a loved one in a road tragedy being told it was no big deal.

Draconian = excessively harsh and severe. Hardly applies to any rules in use or proposed.

Oppressive legislation, surely all legislation is oppressive if it prevents one doing something they wish to do. Now if such legislation prevents someone causing a death through using excessive speed then I for one am all for it. Better to be late than to be delayed by having to explain why you ran over that child.

I do notice that nobody has come up with any sensible suggestions on how to reduce the number of road deaths. Plenty of nit picking but no constructive feedback makes me think this forum needs a Nit Nurse Moderator.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I do wonder if government's obssession with cameras is just about saving lives and money. If it were, there are better ways to do it. Here is just one.

In a trial running from 1968-1971 clocks were set to British Summer Time (Greenwich Mean Time + 1 hour) for the entire duration of a three-year trial.

Although studies revealed there were fewer deaths and serious injuries on the roads during the trial, Parliament decided to return to the previous arrangements.

The last study showed that 450 deaths and serious injuries could be prevented each year if the UK again changes the way it keeps time.

Tom Mullarkey, RoSPA Chief Executive, said: “Every day throughout the winter period, a person will die unnecessarily because the Government will not hear this argument.

“If you add up the deaths and serious injuries since the experiment proved the case in 1971, more than 5,000 people have died and nearly 30,000 have been seriously injured because of this unwillingness to apply objective thinking."

http://www.rospa.com/news/releases/2008/pr634_22_10_08_road.htm

Sleep safe, your government knows best :)
 
Good point Birdman, a constructive post which deserves implementing.:)
 
i like the Portugese system in villages where if you are over the limit it triggers a red light. if you are under or on the limit it stays green. there's a camera on the light and points if you jump it. its simple and provides one more incentive between speeding and points.

i also like the german system in some villages where it tells you what speed to hold to get green lights all the way. go faster and you just run into reds. this obviously isn't ideal for built up 30 limit areas but if i was told that 36 mph would get me a 'green wave' on a bit of dual carriageway in an urban setting i'd miraculously develop the ability to hold my speed on the button. !!

there isn't one answer for all settings but theres room for a bit of experimentation isn't there?
 
The following could be considered as approaches that could affect road casualty numbers.

Mandatory fitting of stability control systems to all cars. It’s been available for years and might reduce the number of accidents.

When an accident blackspot is identified don’t just put a camera there think about the road layout at that point and how it could be made safer.

Impact of new developments (industrial /housing) on local roads needs to be more carefully considered. A new housing development might significantly increase traffic at an already dangerous junction. Planning permission needs to be linked to improving local roads if required.

20mph limit in housing estates.

Strongly agree with previous posting on need for training.

Voluntary training needs to be encouraged. Insurance premium reductions? Reduction in VED if attend designated courses?

Mandatory training following specified driving offences. Not just a retest but training focussed on safety.

Driving test needs to be beefed up to focus more strongly on safety dimension and the need to drive defensively. Night driving, motorway experience needs to be included.

Safety focussed campaigns in the media.
 
20mph limit in housing estates.

Defining 'housing estates' is something that could occupy the mind for some time.
To many people, most city centres are one big housing estate - also, if the Police & local Councils were to spend more time in what I see as 'housing estates' (inner-city local authority housing, tower blocks, etc) I should hope they'd be doing something more constructive than handing out blo0dy speeding tickets...
 
Defining 'housing estates' is something that could occupy the mind for some time.
To many people, most city centres are one big housing estate - also, if the Police & local Councils were to spend more time in what I see as 'housing estates' (inner-city local authority housing, tower blocks, etc) I should hope they'd be doing something more constructive than handing out blo0dy speeding tickets...


.....and your constructive suggestions are?
 
When an accident blackspot is identified don’t just put a camera there think about the road layout at that point and how it could be made safer.

Well, this particular point of yours is usually at the forefront of my mind on this matter, and also on the matter of congestion. Instead of piling on the band-aids, it's better to start again and cure the obvious design flaws in so many of our roads.

Mandatory fitting of ANYTHING other than a Tax Disc to all cars is money down the drain. Your idea of all cars having Stability Control is ludicrous, and I think you know it...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom