Speeding! Any Advice?

[andy_k]

I think the assumption is that if you are driving slower you will have more time to react to those unavoidable situations that arise when not everyone is as attentive as you

Andy

 

[Shude]

surely a "careful and attentive driver" would see those signs at the side of the road and think "hey I'm being careful and attentive so I'll abide by them that way I won't get any points on my licence".

I'd say the most observant and attentive drivers are the ones that drive everywhere at 60mph and slam the brakes on just in time for the few metres of road that the speed camera covers then blast off again! They're also immune to tickets due to only speeding in areas that aren't enforced!

 

[anarchy-inc]

I think the assumption is that if you are driving slower you will have more time to react to those unavoidable situations that arise when not everyone is as attentive as you Andy

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound smug. I've had my share of accidents, one of which was my fault. (I was 19, driving a BMW like an idiot, what did I expect)

As for reaction times, from what I've read about advanced driving courses, the key is looking ahead when at speed. Rather than assuming that a slower speed will help you.

 

[glojo]

As for reaction times, from what I've read about advanced driving courses, the key is looking ahead when at speed. Rather than assuming that a slower speed will help you.

Good forward observation and anticipation always helps to keep the figures down. Looking ahead, but also 'clearing hazards'.

It is always interesting looking at accidents and how they might be avoided. No doubt we would all say that a car driver who fails to stop at a red traffic light is breaking the law, but what about the driver he hits?

Okay I am being pedantict and perhaps petty, but the Highway code only says to proceed if it is safe to do so. Look at any traffic light controlled junction and you will very rarely see car drivers looking for traffic approaching from either their left or right!

Sensible motor cyclists should as a course of habit clear these hazards. It is no good going to the Pearly Gates and saying you had 'right of way'.

Most road accidents can be avoided by good driving. Obviously there are unavoidable ones, but it would be nice if we were all more 'situationally aware'

Have a nice day,
John

 

[Swiss Toni]

As for reaction times, from what I've read about advanced driving courses, the key is looking ahead when at speed. Rather than assuming that a slower speed will help you.

I can recommend actually doing an Advanced Driving Course (rather than simply reading about them...!!!).

I really enjoyed mine - and I'd much rather pay for a course than spend the money on a solicitor!!!!

 

[Plodd]

And they are no longer accidents. They are now RTCs not RTAs. Road Traffic COLLISIONS.

And accident is unavoidable most of the smashes on the road are caused by 1 or more of the partys involved.

 

[uumode]

Can you please explain what that has to do with speeding? That IMHO, is the typical kind of "guilt trip" comments that got us SPEED cameras in the first place.

Speed has nothing to do with how attentive you are. You are either a careful attentive driver or not.

My point is if somebody is speeding and unable to save their own licence by not being able to brake in time, (to avoid being photographed by a highly visible fixed speed camera with white lines on the tarmac), - then surely they won't be able to brake in time for a child who runs out.

- A visible speed camera means the driver 'only' needs to brake to 30mph
- A child in the path of the car means the driver has to brake to a more challenging zero mph (or swerve).

Addressing your attentive point, unattentive speeders get snapped by the camera, attentive ones don't (and are more careful as you suggest). Unattentive speeders shouldn't be speeding.

 

[glojo]

Addressing your attentive point, unattentive speeders get snapped by the camera, attentive ones don't (and are more careful as you suggest). Unattentive speeders shouldn't be speeding.

I am not going to defend speeding, nor inattentive driving, but......

Not all speed camera's have to be clearly visible. The yellow revenue collectors are bound by conditions that do help drivers to see them. Other cameras though are not bound by such strict rules.

I am still undecided on whether speed camera's are the best solution, but I do know that you will NEVER please everyone.

I am 100% against speed bumps and I say this solely from a medical stand point. I have a spinal injury that leaves me in constant pain, and I can only travel on a stretcher. Speed bumps are something we try to avoid and if we have to negotiate them then it is quite literally at a crawl of 5mph. Some athorities leave gaps for ambulances but trust me, they are either impracticle or non existant.

We had a fast stretch of road outside a junior school and the local authority has narrowed the road either side of the school allowing only single traffic. Drivers are up in arms about it, but it has slowed vehicular traffic down.

Speed cameras. On the A43 there is a village that has a 30mph speed limit, for many years drivers ignored the signs but now there are speed cameras at either end and traffic now generally complies with the speed limit.

No matter how many courses some drivers might take, it will not improve either their driving or situational awareness. I am all in favour of any course that might improve the standard of driving but usually those that take them are ‘good’ drivers anyway, and those that think they are a waste of time or money are perhaps those drivers that put the rest of us at risk.

Regards,
John

 

[uumode]

Not all speed camera's have to be clearly visible. The yellow revenue collectors are bound by conditions that do help drivers to see them. Other cameras though are not bound by such strict rules.

Regards,
John

Yes, agree, no strict law but guidelines for the authorities.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_025918.hcsp
(cut and pasted)

There are clear guidelines covering where and how safety cameras should be placed, and measures to be taken to ensure drivers are aware of them. It is a responsibility of each safety camera partnership to ensure that the location details of fixed cameras are available to both the public and local media.

In December 2001 additional guidelines were introduced insisting that all safety cameras within the Safety Camera Funding Scheme should be bright yellow to ensure maximum visibility. Full details of the guidelines can be found in Press Notice 517 issued 3 December 2001(see link below)

The following guidelines must be considered for the location of each speed camera:

Prominence of fixed site enforcement cameras (including digital cameras): The camera housings in most circumstances should be yellow. No alternative colours will be accepted. However, if for any reason highway authorities consider that there are special circumstances, for example in areas of outstanding natural beauty, then exceptions can be considered.

Visibility of fixed site enforcement cameras (including digital cameras): Al camera housings (existing and new) should be visible to road users and not obscured behind bridges, signs, trees or bushes. The minimum visibility distance should be 60 metres where the speed limit is 40 mph or less and 100 metres for all other limits.

Visibility of Mobile enforcement sites: Camera operatives at the mobile camera sites should wear fluorescent clothing and abide by all Health and Safety requirements. Vehicles should be clearly marked as camera enforcement vehicles with reflective strips (uniquely identifying them as speed camera enforcement vehicles). Covert operations can in exceptional circumstances be allowed but must be recorded by the partnership.

Signing: Camera warning and speed limit reminder signs must be placed in advance of fixed or mobile speed enforcement taking place. Ideally these should be placed within 1 km of fixed camera housings and at the beginning of a targeted route for mobile enforcement sites. Signs must only be placed in areas where camera housings are present or along routes where mobile enforcement will be targeted.

Communications: The location of both fixed and mobile cameras should be well publicised via local web-sites, public sector announcements on radio stations and in local newspapers.

Sign design: Signs must comply with those specified in Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions or specially authorised by DfT.

Site review: Each site must be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that conditions on prominence, visibility and signing have not changed or do not require alteration.

 

[glojo]

And what a political answer that is! Safety cameras? Try asking them about their figures!

Are fatal accidents down as a result of ‘speed’ cameras or the improvement in the design of modern vehicles? How many Road Traffic Accidents\Collisions were recorded in 2003 compared to 2002.

What do they define as a SERIOUS injury RTA (collision) What do you think a serious injury is?

What does our member PLODD call a serious injury for statistical purposes?

Is it still correct that the majority of fatal road traffic accidents occur at speeds less than 30mph?

So many questions

Regards for now,
John The Inquisitor

 

[Flyer]

...that all safety cameras within the Safety Camera Funding Scheme should be bright yellow

This is important; there are SCPs that are not in the Scheme ("Hypothecation") and so do not have to comply with the visibility requirements. Even this requirement is under review however.

There was a particular camera in North Wales (A55 I think) that was placed just the "other" side of a railway bridge - completely hidden until you were on top of it. Of course, once you knew it was there ... Safety has nothing whatsoever to do with its placement.

If you want an education as to how these SCPs think, head over to Cumbria Safety Cameras Forum and prepare to be horrified at the short-sighted imbeciles that are in charge (I was a member, but had my account cancelled for some reason that was never conveyed to me ).

 

[TerryWilliams]

As someone who has experienced the indignity of a short ban for speeding, I would like to politely suggest that we will all have to spend far more time watching the speedo than we would like.

I see both sides of the story: I live on a country lane with a 30 limit. It is bit of a "rat run". The locals don't walk anywhere because it is far too dangerous. This is due entirely to drivers (us) doing anything from 45 to 85 through the village. I am not exagerating, the traffic department took the measurements before and after installing traffic calming measures. The addition of which just proved more of a challenge to the "nutters" and no reduction in average speed. I am not entirely sure that there are traffic police in North Hampshire any more. They certainly never appear around here. I guess this is what is really required (or dare I say a camera!).

I make a lot of use of the cruise control now because I know that I will drift above the limit if I were to relax or pay too much attention to pedestrians or potential road hazards. I just wish I had one for my motorcycle?

 

[anarchy-inc]

I am not exagerating, the traffic department took the measurements before and after installing traffic calming measures. The addition of a which just proved more of a challenge to the "nutters" and no reduction in speed.

This is exactley what happend near my house. No reduction in speed, just more people taking risks when pulling out to get around the obstruction (oh sorry, traffic calming).

 

[TerryWilliams]

The only answer is for real policemen/police-women making value judgements on whether we are speeding badly enough to warrant punishment.

30 is far too fast, on a dual carriageway, outside a school at playtime but far too low a limit 1am in the morning.

We don't have intelligent cameras and we don't have enough traffic police now. After all, when cameras do the work you can reduce police numbers?

 

[glojo]

The only answer is for real policemen/police-women making value judgements on whether we are speeding badly enough to warrant punishment.

30 is far too fast, on a dual carriageway, outside a school at playtime but far too low a limit 1am in the morning.

We don't have intelligent cameras and we don't have enough traffic police now. After all, when cameras do the work you can reduce police numbers?

Hi Terry,
I agree with both your posts, but I do wish the issuing authority would use something called 'common sense'. The speeding pictures are all time, date stamped why can't they either have some sort of timer mechanism, or failing that not issue the summons?

We have a very large roundabout controlled by traffic lights and I have seen a traffic policeman actully reporting a lorry driver for going through a red light on the roundabout at 3am in the morning, no other traffic was anywhere to be seen. There is perfect visiblity all the way round the roundabout and on all the approaches. The traffic lights were installed to aid the flow of traffic, why not switch them off between midnight and perhaps 6am?

No system is perfect and like me, there will always be critics of any enforcement measures.

Regards,
John

 

[TerryWilliams]

Morning John,

I am fairly sure that most Gatso tickets are processed by computers without any human intervention. The computer systems have not been programmed with any rules e.g. after 1 am raise the tolerance on the "overspeed".

The people that may process speeding tickets (exceptional cases) are normally civilians. They have no powers to "judge" whether the offence is worth a prosecution.

I don't think that these things have come about by accident. There is no real interest in the "justice" element; so, it hasn't been designed into the system. That is why we all have the instinctive notion that it is all about raising revenue.

Now, I wouldn't be too unhappy about losing a few pounds a year because I was daft enough to exceed a speed limit by a few miles per hour. However, as you know, you can lose a whole lot more due to the points system. Many people lose their immediate livelihood when they are disqualified. I am not being overly dramatic here. I realise there are ways round driving (that's why we have public transport) but this is draconian in most cases (I am excluding the sort of nutters that plague my village but then they exceed the speed limit by 30 mph anyway - instant ban).

It would be nice if the "justice" angle was resurrected. I think we got this from our "boys in blue" (traffic division) when we had them in effective numbers. NB there would still be problems when the local bobby goes out to the local bypass with a stop-watch but that is another story.

 

[glojo]

Morning John,

I am fairly sure that most Gatso tickets are processed by computers without any human intervention. The computer systems have not been programmed with any rules e.g. after 1 am raise the tolerance on the "overspeed".

Morning Terry,
I am sure you are correct on this point, but in this modern computer age it must surely not be to difficult to write specific programs for amending the process.

Driving licence and livelihood 'might' be a valid point. Someone that solely uses a car for pleasure currently gets the same punishment as someone caught in their car, but drives a heavy goods vehicle or psv for a living. i.e. If both got caught drink driving one only looses the use of the car, whilst the other looses their whole livelihood.

Perhaps there should be a case of having completely seperate driving licences. (I realise that there are 'seperate') so that in the second example the person receives a ban from driving a car.

Unfortunately there is always problems because where would 'white van man' fit into my suggestion?

It is always easier to criticise rather than legislate, but it is nice to have a 'moan'

Regards,
John

 

[pammy]

I'm sorry - but the fact you drive for a living does not give you the right to have a more leniant approach from the law. The law - like it or not, is the law and there to protect us. Generally, points are accumlated so you know when you have driven outside the law and have the chance to not lose your license by changing your driving style. An event which is severe enough to loose your license in one go - drink driving, dangerous driving for example deserves that penalty - livelihood or not.

In my experience the attitude of many working drivers - those we label the white van drivers who are not always driving white vans leaves much to be desired. They often think they have the right to drive poorly. I don;t think they have that right. We should all drive safely and with consideration for others at all times. No one does or can - but if we all truly believed that and were more considerate overall - wouldn't the roads be a safer and mpre pleasurable place?

 

[glojo]

I'm sorry - but the fact you drive for a living does not give you the right to have a more leniant approach from the law. The law - like it or not, is the law and there to protect us.

Morning Pammy,
Thanks for the response. I certainly do not disagree with your points and I posted my message with the hope of getting contributions like yours and the excellent points it raises.

A number of months ago I wrote to the Home Secretary complaining that prisons were more like holiday camps and offenders were getting a better quality of life than some of our old age pensioners. I stated that prisons should, for repeat offenders be a place of punishment.

The reply I got back was along the following lines...

Prisons are a place of reform. A place where inmates are 'reformed' and returned to society. This is my policy and also the policy of the government.......

Now what is good for the goose should perhaps be good for the gander?

If I drive a car only once a year to the pub to have a celebration for New Year and get caught over the limit, is it right that I get punished exactly the same as the holder of a psv or hgv licence who has a glass of whiskey at the same celebration and as his wife is driving him home she takes ill and collapses. The lorry driver knowing he has only had one large whiskey takes her to hospital. On route to the hospital a car pulls out of a side road and rams his vehicle.

The police arrive and both drivers get breathalysed! He had no intention of driving, he was being driven home by his wife, she took ill out in the wilds. There was no telephone, no other cars, and really no other alternative.

The driver that only drives once a year will get a 12 month ban, and our lorry driver will get a 12 month ban. The car driver has lost nothing. Our lorry driver owns his own lorry which is under a hire purchase agreement, his wife has just had a baby and they have just moved into a new house which he bought because the business was doing so well. The lorry driver looses his truck, his livelihood and his house!

Now is this 'punishment'? or reform. What lesson has the car driver learnt and what 'lesson' has the ex lorry driver learnt?

I am not disagreeing with you and understand your points.

Regards,
John

 

[Shude]

Driving licence and livelihood 'might' be a valid point. Someone that solely uses a car for pleasure currently gets the same punishment as someone caught in their car, but drives a heavy goods vehicle or psv for a living. i.e. If both got caught drink driving one only looses the use of the car, whilst the other looses their whole livelihood.

Perhaps there should be a case of having completely seperate driving licences. (I realise that there are 'seperate') so that in the second example the person receives a ban from driving a car.

Unfortunately there is always problems because where would 'white van man' fit into my suggestion?

IMHO the "professional drivers" should be the best on the road, not the worst! If anything the law should be *more* strict with them than with casual or commuter motorists, someone is *paying* them to drive that vehicle and they should treat it with at least the responsibility of a private driver.