Zero-tolerance speed limits could put drivers in greater danger.

[Dryce]

I think there is .

I'm going to disagree.

But...

No , he swerved left , and a few seconds later passed me at speed then saw the queue at the last moment and jammed on brakes , barely stopping behind the traffic in lane 1 ! I would class that as a near miss and caused by inattention coupled with excess speed ( I'd estimate he was doing 60 or 70 in the 50 limit with busy traffic ahead ) .

I would say your experiences concur with mine on these roads - but the vast majority of people do just fine - it's a small minority that are visibly causing issues.

The Chief Constable of Scotland doesn't need to alter the speeding enforcement policy to catch any of them as described? Does he?.

With half a brain he would realise that just putting some eyes on the ground and using existing legislation and policy will work perfectly. The miscreants stand out from the crowd.

Instead he's just recalibrated his enforcement mechanisms to go much of the crowd as well.

It's insane that he should get away with this instead of just getting on and doing his job.

 

[219]

I'm not sure that it is the CC , I suspect this directive comes from his political masters .

I also happen to agree that marginal enforcement is impractical and that existing legislation is adequate , but that stricter enforcement is required , by real policemen rather than automated cameras . The cameras do have their place as a deterrent in high risk areas such as through roadworks , since almost all road users understand that there is no escape from their vigilance ; but an experienced officer will have a nose for the look of a vehicle or the manner in which it is driven and be able to deal with much more than mere speed .

Nonetheless , excessive speed reduces the time available to deal with hazards ahead and increases the consequences of a collision should one occur .

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Of all afternoons.

I went down to the road today for a haircut, bearing in mind I had been reading this thread earlier.
It's a seaside village with a relatively large tourism industry and school summer holidays are in full swing. I parked nose-in to the kerb outside a busy ice cream parlour, waiting to cross the road some **** in a Lotus Elise decided that he could not wait any longer for the car dawdling at a zebra crossing and boots it up the wrong side of the road to overtake at about 60mph past the parked cars and the kids and the lovely ice cream.
It brought home to me that speeding is all about context, someone posted earlier that you are either breaking the law or not and there are no degrees of law breaking and I disagree. The Lotus bloke should be spanked sensless whereas the guy doing 80 on the motorway should not.

BTW I love ice cream and did bring some home including chocolate, nuts and red sauce.

 

[219]

In context to this thread and the Op's initial post I'd consider these new speed enforcements or policy as garbage too. I don't recall CB1965 stating road safety full stop was garbage.

I'd interpret the phrase 'road safety and all that garbage' as including road safety within 'that garbage' ; but then I only took the highest score for Higher English in my school

 

[219]

Of all afternoons.

I went down to the road today for a haircut, bearing in mind I had been reading this thread earlier.
It's a seaside village with a relatively large tourism industry and school summer holidays are in full swing. I parked nose-in to the kerb outside a busy ice cream parlour, waiting to cross the road some **** in a Lotus Elise decided that he could not wait any longer for the car dawdling at a zebra crossing and boots it up the wrong side of the road to overtake at about 60mph past the parked cars and the kids and the lovely ice cream.
It brought home to me that speeding is all about context, someone posted earlier that you are either breaking the law or not and there are no degrees of law breaking and I disagree. The Lotus bloke should be spanked sensless whereas the guy doing 80 on the motorway should not.

BTW I love ice cream and did bring some home including chocolate, nuts and red sauce.

It's not clear from your account whether he overtook across the pedestrian crossing , but if he did that's a specific offence in itself ; besides doing something of the order of double the speed limit in a busy street with children about could be construed as dangerous driving .

Indeed , a given speed may well be perfectly safe in one place and set of circumstances , and downright dangerous in others ( or even in the same place with different circumstances ) .

 

[Deleted member 6183]

TBH I wasn't really aware until he was past the crossing but can't see how he could have been in the position I witnessed without doing so.

I thought it was a bike at first because there's a car park further down where bikers collect and they are most likely to drive like ***** through the village.

Perhaps bad tempered drivers should be banned?

 

[Giantvanman]

The point is that there is no one who can categorically prove that the roads would be a much safer place for those extra few mph tolerance of being over the limit being removed yet the standard answer when asked about such things is to trot out the road safety message and accuse people of not wanting safe roads. As I said the only 100% safe road is one on which no one is allowed to drive... limits are nothing more than a risk setting in reality! If we were really interested in safer driving then the driving test would be a lot lot harder to pass and re-tests would be held every few years.... trouble is that doesn't rake in the dosh does it!

IMO we need to stop treating the limits with so much respect in both directions and start questioning the authorities over them. As I said in another thread there is a road near me that is national speed limit but I do not feel it is safe to do faster than 45mph along certain sections due to the proximity of residential housing to the edge of the road.

Just because someone else has decreed that 60mph is safe doesn't mean I should abandon my judgement of it. Yet other drivers will go down that road at 60mph feeling it is safe to do so because someone else on some authoritative committee has decreed it so.

Same goes for roads that are having limits reduced... in many cases one has to ask why? This is where the blanket safety message is applied again and you are basically belittled for questioning it.

At the end of the day the majority of accidents that occur with speed as a factor are because the driver has a complete disregard for the law of the land... not because he is being given an extra few mph or tolerance on the speed limit so the point is all rather moot anyway!

Now I see where you are coming from. I look at it from a slightly different angle; we, as individuals, do not get to choose which laws we obey completely and which ones we allow a modicum of latitude. By all means people should question why a limit is in place (as per your example) because as you rightly point out, the mantra and doctrine surrounding limits has been hijacked by people with an agenda.

However, the system has for years allowed a certain latitude with regards to limits (10% plus 2, officer discretion, stepped punishment levels etc) but there is an increasing number of drivers who feel it is there right to treat speed limits with complete disdain, thereby increasing the margins by which the limits are exceeded/law broken.

 

[E55BOF]

"Originally Posted by cb1965
It's to do with revenue raising and controlling the population and nothing more. Anyone who waffles on about road safety and all that garbage should be campaigning for an end to driving full stop or they should STFU as who are they to decide what the levels of acceptable risk are on the road (for that is what a speed limit defines in essence... don't kid yourself otherwise)."

Which begs the question, who do YOU suggest should 'decide what the levels of acceptable risk are on the road'? Whom are they to use as the baseline? You? Me? Pontoneer? ChrisA? Maureen Rees from Driving School?

 

[219]

..... there is an increasing number of drivers who feel it is there right to treat speed limits with complete disdain, thereby increasing the margins by which the limits are exceeded/law broken.

This , I think is the problem , and not just speeding but all manner of behaviour on the roads : there seems to be ever more people who just don't care how their driving impacts others .

Various measures have been tried , and I think this 'zero tolerance' initiative is just the latest , not so much to catch those who drift marginally over a limit but to leave those who wilfully go further that there will be no margin for 'getting off' .

 

[st13phil]

...the mantra and doctrine surrounding limits has been hijacked by people with an agenda.

...but there is an increasing number of drivers who feel it is there right to treat speed limits with complete disdain, thereby increasing the margins by which the limits are exceeded/law broken.

My view is that you have pretty accurately described cause and effect in those two statements.

The prevalence (and continued introduction) of ever lower inappropriate speed limits increases the level of contempt for all limits that many now display.

It's instructive that many lower limit proposals in the Oxfordshire area have been opposed by the Police on the grounds that lower limits are not warranted and that the road characteristics aren't conducive to natural compliance with a lower limit, yet the politicians with an agenda go ahead anyway.

I travel on a single-carriageway B-road every day. It's a good quality road with long stretches where there are no turnings or entrances, the road is plenty wide enough for two artic's to pass with ease and for the most part it has good sight lines. It's perfectly safe to navigate most of it at 60mph (or more), but there have been a few single vehicle RTC's on it where, frankly, the driver must have either been asleep or travelling far in excess of the posted limit. Oxford County Council's "solution" was to lower the speed limit to 50mph which has achieved precisely nothing except to criminalise the perfectly reasonable and prudent actions of the majority of traffic using that road. In my experience limit compliance levels on that road are extremely low, with the odd vehicle that does travel within the posted limit creating long queues and risky frustration overtakes.

Another triumph for those with an agenda...

 

[martyz]

View attachment 52074

Appears they mean business.

 

[tec]

It's instructive that many lower limit proposals in the Oxfordshire area have been opposed by the Police on the grounds that lower limits are not warranted and that the road characteristics aren't conducive to natural compliance with a lower limit, yet the politicians with an agenda go ahead anyway.

It's actually the councillors that push for the speed reductions, not the politicians.

It was the Conservative politicians that decided that motorways in England do not require vigorous policing as they are the safest roads, and that is why we have the Highways Agency now do all the mopping up work if required, and it is very rare to see a Police vehicle driving on the motorway north of Oxford.
It also frees up the police to tackle proper crime.

 

[st13phil]

It's actually the councillors that push for the speed reductions, not the politicians.

Sorry, I thought councillors were elected politicians

You're right though, it is local councillors who are responsible.