Safe Speed Forums

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Can you imagine the conversation –

P: “Excuse me sir, but I have reason to believe that you possess a copy of the Highway Code, and I have observed you driving within the speed limit. What have you got to say for yourself?”

D: “It’s a fair cop, officer - I own up. I have read section 103, and since then I have not exceeded the maximum speed limits for the road and for my vehicle! I need my car for work!”

P: “OK – I’ll let you go with a warning this time, but if I catch you under the speed limit around here again, you’ll spend the night in a cell. Now buzz off!”



They had many years to set safe speeds, but people basically ignored the limit.



There are many reasons for wanting to scrap cameras, and most are related to car obsessions and a belief that the elite do not have to conform to rules of conduct. Only now, of course, they do!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Have you learned nothing in the time that you have spent with us? Or are you just doing the twisty turny trolly thing again?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

From the sublime to the ridiculous

I wonder if there wasn't an element of vindictiveness in the individual who dutifully informed the police with some vague suspicion when he/she frustratingly encoutered a vehicle being driven at or below the speed limit?

Things are bad when coppers waste our taxes responding to frustrated testosterone-men who tell tales on law abiding drivers out of malice.



That's right - there is nothing twisted in the way I have laid it out - it sounds like exactly what happened!

_________________
I stole this .sig

It's often the case that a complaint of manner of driving is often contributed to by the informant's own carelessness or frustration. A sequence of independent complaints are much more credible than only one (obviously).

If we get a complaint about manner of driving we'll always look for said vehicle, (other exigencies permitting). If the opportunity arises, we'd obtain first hand evidence of the manner of driving initially reported, then stop the vehicle and attempt to establish what the driver's account is.

But basingwerk has made me think about something that I have not fully examined before. Which is that although I have not measured it accurately, I'm pretty sure that my interest in a person who is driving at a speed which is inappropriately slow for the circumstances will yield much better results (in the sense of casualty causing driving offences - drink/ drugs/ inattention/ tiredness related / disqual/ untested), than the driver who is driving at an appropriate (yet illegal) speed for the circumstances. I'd say that the ratio would be in the region of 10 to one, and would be higher if the 10% was not almost entirely the prima facie evidence of inappropriate (excessive) speed for the circumstances.

It is a fairly obvious observation, but it does highlight the difference between (hopefully) the sophisticated trafpol response and the fairly one dimensional 'speed = danger' policy which is frighteningly easy to enforce, but in broad strokes offers no road safety benefit.



Nice strawman mate!
But I hope I've answered your concern. We're fairly thin on the ground these days, and we'll usually try to look for driving styles which are likely to cause problems. We'll always try to make use of the manner of driving complaints offered by members of the public. They don't always get it right, but I'm happy to work with the percentage success I get from these complaints.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Lot of roads with inappropriate speed limits. We have one here which is NSL single - has [i] houses, a shop and a school and Nope - not a village but in urban area - and the 30 mph speed limit which it runs into is less built up...

Entire road network needs an audit and a reset of speed limits - some are too high and some ludicrously too low.



We seem to do OK without 'em... Oddly enough - most of the people around here drive around at a safe speed too....

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I think I have had this conversation before with you, basingmate - I endorse Ian's view as well.

We are more attracted to the driver who drives too carefully and appears nervous. This can be down to a number of reasons - usually person has been drinking or drugging - and suspects he or she is possibly just above the legal limit. OR - they are tired. OR - they have no documents and think we will not stop them if they are 5 mph below the limit...OR they have robbed someone or something and th proceeds are in the car....routine stuff like this actually detect real criminals. It does not follow that criminals are speeding from A to B - and if they are .... how does an NIP to a false address 14 days later solve anything?

As said - we at the whole picture here and intelligent road policing depends on spotting the driver who looks like he may have a problme and be in need of advice in the first instance - and punishment if necessary.

Durham does not have a good record only in road safety enforcement - but we have a pleasing showing in other crime detections as well - and we are hoping our next CC follows the fine example of our current boss.

Hope this also answers your question.

Now come on - you know Ian and self work hard and deserve our jobs!

(He thinks we're dinosaurs.....Ian He said this when I first joined! Said I needed to be replaced by a droid or "summat " at the time... Then grudgingly admitted I deserved to be allowed to earn enough to eat.... )

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I agree – look for the informant's vehicle as well! That did not happen here. Were there lots of complaints about the bloke who drove at 18 mph in the 20 zone? What did they say to the dispatcher – “For God’s sake, get over here quick! You must save us from a wild madman who has gone totally beserk - he's driving 2 mph under the speed limit”?



But in this case, the result was poor. It takes time to adjust to a new situation. New technology means that speed limits are stronger than they were. Drivers are beginning to adapt their style to that strength. New figures on this site suggest that less convictions are occurring, even though cameras are increasing (albeit at a slower rate). So what gives - perhaps less speeding is occurring? We KNOW that less fatalities are occurring. Are these things are aligned?

_________________
I stole this .sig

I blame the “frustrated testosterone-men” who called 999 about the heinous crime of driving 2 mph under the limit, not the policeman who answered the call. Some blokes just need neutering, seriously.



We only have limited ability to cope with this nonsense. People making 999 calls because they have soap in their eyes, or because someone is driving slightly under the speed limit etc. have to be told straight!




Yes, policemen need to eat. I’m just testing to make sure we get value for money. You well-trained fellows have easily passed the test, no sweat at all. Old basingwerk can’t put a dent in you! I just can’t quite believe that people would phone 999 when a guy in front goes 1 or 2 miles per hour less than the limit! You gotta admit, it’s a funny thing, that is.

_________________
I stole this .sig

You have again reminded me why I do not get involved with long drawn out threads where every 2nd or third post is yours BW, you really do twist what is said. You have taken a situation which Mark, the informant and I know about, and have changed it into something which DID NOT HAPPEN! Why?

My own rudimentary understanding of the human psyche is such that the vast majority of people who are committing offences such as drink/drug driving, disqual, uninsured, will not draw attention to themselves by contacting the police about someone else's bad driving. It may be, and it regularly happens, that we recontact the original informant, either in person or by telephone to further clarify the situation. It may be that there is some aspect of the informant's driving which he neds to be spoken to about. Having spoken to Mark, there was no evidence of this, therefore it was not required. Mark identified that due to the 'understandably cautious' nature of his driving, a bit of a tailback had developed and understood how this driving could have been misconstrued as something else.


As with many of our checks.

Poor result = good result.

The most common complaint is down to driver tiredness. Often the presence of a police vehicle causes the identified tired driver to 'perk up' his driving a little, so we often do not witness the poor driving which has caused the original complaint. Often we do, and driver either ends up summonsed for section 3 RTA or gets appropriate advice.


Most people don't inhabit the topsy turvey land of Basingworld. I can only presume you are trying to say that we should accept a 12 year adjustment of driving style and resultant change of fatality trend to take on board the modern threat of unintelligent speed enforcement. Paul has provided a good analysis of the loss of trend against the growth in camera prosections over the last 12 years. He has provided a stout explanation as to why that trend has been kick started this year (2004), and if you look at some of the individual counties' fatality stats, it reinforces Pauls theory.

We really don't want people to be too scared of speed limits that it affects their C.O.A.S.T. driving behaviour.


Thanks for the compliment

All I'd say to you is, try the A591 out of Ambleside, and the 20mph limit. At 20 miles per hour you really feel that you are driving far too slowly.
You might then understand where I'm coming from. It is not a general thing. We would not chase after someone doing 28mph through town or 65mph on the motorway and consequently suspect them to be drugged or unlicenced. It is specific driving behaviour related to specific locations at certain times of the day and days of the week which gives us AND Joe Public the nous to think that a certain style of driving deserves our attention.
It's INTELLIGENT and DYNAMIC, and that is the whole point.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Seconded.



He's all heart really




I wish he would try that 20 mph on the A591... does my head in when I drive it..

Ian and IG are both correct - it is a style of driving which alerts a good cop to a danger. I doubt very much if Ian would pull me for 18 mph at say 2 pm in Ambleside in the summer when ramblers are a- ramb-o-ling everywhere - but he may be a bit suspicious at a different time of the day - say chucking out time at the pub or end of any known happy hour and I drove at 15-18 mph here and then 25 mph in the 30 mph zone and so one trhought the variety on the A591....

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

There is a possibility here which has not been discussed.
The driver who reported the slow driving may not have been aware that he was in a 20 mph limit.

Think: You have just driven from the centre of Ambleside, where tourists seem keen to jump under your wheels, and the road twists and turns through the centre. Then you make your way past Hayes Garden Centre - straight road, good visibility, but beset with drivers looking for the right entrance to the car park. Then you approach the Waterhead Hotel - all the while at 30 miles per hour almost up to the junction, wide road, high walls, wide pavement..... and a as you approach the outskirts of the village.... a 20 mph limit materialises. Your in a queue of cars, and as the lead car slows, you are watching the bumper of the car in front... and fail to see a 20 mph lollipop in one of the most ridiculous locations. Suddenly you realise the car at the front is driving slowly and cautiously without any evidence of a hazard. The 30 limit is at the point where you have a glimpse of the lake - you may well miss the 30 lollipop too as you look at the view, and still "this idiot" is driving moronically for the circumstances, so you get your wife to phone the police to get him tested.
No malice intended, just concern for the drivers behaviour.

Basingwerk, unless you have driven that stretch of road, you cannot understand why following the posted limit would get you judged as possibly under the influence - especially if it were a young driver. Do we know Mark's age?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Fair comment, but it does beg the question, why is the limit 20mph?

Probably so some prat at the local Scamerati can stick a talivan there and indulge in a little bit of legitimate Sunday afternoon theft?

It wont be a talivan - there's nowhere to put it!
It's basically so that Cumbria County Council can say they did their bit to protect cyclists on a narrow road.

The road is not even wide enough for two lanes and two cycle lanes, but they put them in anyway.
Since you cannot pass a cyclist and an oncoming car, you have to wait behind the cyclist as they make their way to the junction ahead.... which is what we did BEFORE they put the stupid lanes there!!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

What cyclists? I don't see any
Must be something like the M4 bus lane - you never see any buses in it

Cheers
Peter

Look at the oncoming cycle lane.

Would you like to ride a bike along it while a bus passed you in oncoming traffic??
My pepper mill works in the same fashion!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

So to "protect cyclists", everyone has to drive down that stretch of road at 20 mph whether or not a cyclist is there??????

Or is it to cover the cyclists' arses because 90% of them don't have any lights and can't be seen - Hey let's make the limit 20 mph and inconvenience motorists because a handfull of cyclists don't obey the law???? (meaning actually have enough brain cells to consider their omission's compromising effect on their own safety).

It's the whole cry-wolf scenario again. 99% of people will ignore the limit because it's been set incredibly inappropriately (further bringing the setting speed limits into disrepute), or it's abused by the Talivan Scamerati for cash generation purposes, or it's reverently referred to (and never exceeded) by the 0.2% of the population which like to think they never, ever break the law and want to ad-nausium tell us all what homocidal maniacs we all are for wanting to get around.