Safe Speed Forums

We cannot know the outcome, sure, but we can and do know when driving at the legal limit (or any other speed, for that matter) would increase the risk level to beyond an acceptable limit.
Nothing in life is without risk - even when sleeping in your bed you're not entirely safe. The trick is to manage the risk so that it's at a level we feel happy with.
Drivers manage the risk all the time by observing hazards and potential hazards and adjusting speed, positioning etc to minimise the risk.

<Edited due to logical mishap!>

_________________
I stole this .sig

Perhaps more people should consider the earlier Ezekiel.



Even back then, those that proclaimed to being doing the work of Law and Order were not adverse to lies, misintepretation, oppression and robbery.

If the spirit is intended to reduce accidents, deaths and injuries, then it might be questioned as to whether the current administration is more akin to the corrupt people of Jerusalem that chapter 38 is talking about destroying.


Enough of this, otherwise I might fall into a troll trap - let's at least keep to road saftey as a topic....

When you say ‘legal limit’, I’m assuming you mean the lesser of the speed limit and the maximum safe speed for the conditions (although you could mean the speed limit itself?) The speed limit (which, with these definitions, is the highest the legal limit could be) can be less than the maximum safe speed for the conditions, and it often is slightly less. And it is often more than the legal limit, for example in congested streets. I think there is nothing disagreeable about that.

It is easy to define and determine the speed limit, but the maximum safe speed for the conditions, which can be more or less than the legal limit, is more difficult because it is subjective and depends on variable driver skill levels as well as changeable and static conditions. The legal limit (above which you would be guilty of dangerous or careless driving, or mere speeding) is, in some circumstances, dependant on the top speed limit, and in some circumstances (i.e. when it would be unsafe to travel at the speed limit), it is dependant on the maximum safe speed for the conditions. Again, surely there is nothing disagreeable about any of that that.

The disagreement comes about when, in your (the driver’s) judgement, the speed limit is less than the maximum safe speed for the conditions. This happens when the legal limit is capped by the speed limit, not by the maximum safe speed for the conditions.

I cannot agree with you because the maximum safe speed for the conditions is nebulous and subjective, and thus it is highly variable from place to place, time to time, driver to driver, car to car. That is a monster sized matrix. By removing the speed limit cap on the legal limit entirely on all roads, it would be logically inescapable that the legal limit would be defined entirely and only by the maximum safe speed for the conditions, which would be very expensive to police. From a cost/effectiveness perspective, it is much cheaper and more effective to do what has been done - place realistic (but not necessarily ideal) absolute top limits on stretches of roads and ask drivers to abide by those simple rules, applying small but staged penalties when they do not. I believe that disagreement and conflict can be mitigated by proper consultation processes for the setting of those limits and by a more reasonable fit between severity and punishment, but at the end of the day, we want failing drivers to stop driving. I also believe that it is the duty of drivers, once the limits are set, to try their best to abide by those rules for the common good. It is not a lot to ask.



I can’t argue with that, not am I necessarily averse to higher limits where appropriate.

_________________
I stole this .sig

But surely, unlike ancient times, the democratic system is supposed to provide a conflict resolution process via parliament and the law. I can understand a person who wishes to change a law for greater benefit, but turning a blind eye simply diminishes the effectiveness of all laws, because I can ignore some laws some of the time just because I feel like it.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Many laws are governed by a question of degree. I wouldn't expect to be prosecuted for taking a pencil or a paperclip home from work, yet the act of theft may well be the same as far greater crimes.

The law doesn't have common sense. We have to trust the Police to apply common sense to the prosecution process. It's a system that has always worked extremely well, and we need it desperately.

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

Nor would I. If Joe the teenager is slightly over the limit at a low risk place and time, and Bill the retired bank manger is driving wildly, then Bill should have the book thrown at him, and Joe should just be warned. Because the cameras cannot tell the qualitative difference between Bill's behaviour and Joe's behaviour, the penalty must veer on the liberal side. In some cases, I do think milder treatment is in order, £60 and points being a bit heavy (reason: I believe that flashing speed limit feedback signs are acceptable to motorists because they don't contain a threat. Unfortunately, a hard core ignore them entirely, especially at periods of high risk, i.e. rush hour, so some penalty is better). But why add points for just a couple of mph? Furthermore, to be lenient to drivers, attempts are made to site cameras at known hazard areas. Thus, the overall assumption should be that speeding is trivial, even though not all of it is.



We do indeed. Cameras are good for obvious or minor, possibly trivial offences such as speeding, where the punishment should be mild, perhaps a simple direct notification to the offenders insurance company should be registered, with no points added at all. Some of the more serious cases (wild driving, drunks etc.) have to be dealt with by coppers.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Calling Basingwerk!

Someone has stolen your password and is making sensible posts in an effort to undermine your reputation as resident troll.

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

I've only made 1240 trollish posts, but you have made 3790, so the resident troll mantel is not mine

Look, after my smash with a careless teenage driver last year, I admit it has been a haul. I can now say that I don't hate tailgaters and gratuitous speeders, although I abhor the effect they have collectively on the road system. Good people do not have to sacrifice much time to set a good example to the yobs. Yes it's a bit boring - I'll have to live with that.

_________________
I stole this .sig

BW,

Although a relative newcomer to these forums, one thing is very obvious - they need to have people playing devils advocate.

Without somebody challenging the Safe Speed arguments the campaign is not able to give balanced arguments and would not necessarily consider all sides of the issue.

As Safe Speed is campaigning for a genuinely balanced and even approach to road safety your contributions are very useful despite being bl**dy annoying and pigheaded at times.

Rewolf

I did say, "or any other speed, for that matter".
Besides, don't you think you just may be obfuscating the issue a bit with your new definition of a legal limit? Only the speed limit is a legal limit - other limits do not have the force of law so cannot be said to be 'legal'
You cannot be prosecuted for doing an unsafe speed below the speed limit per se - you can only be prosecuted for dangerous driving, or similar, and you can be prosecuted for these things regardless of your speed.




But drivers, by and large, do not need policing in order to drive at a safe speed - they are pretty good at it, evidenced by the fact that most of them go an entire lifetime without crashing.
And the few who don't drive at safe speeds won't let speed limits slow them down anyway. And a good trafpol presence on the roads is far more effective at weeding out that few than a whole forest of scameras would be.

Cheers
Peter

The moderator 'as a sense of yoomer!

'E's right, though.

_________________
'The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal, regardless of the letter of statute'

Rioman, Herts

I knew I should have gone to church on Sunday.... now I've got computer programmers quoting scripture at me on my favourite site!!!

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

I don't think so – there is nothing new here and I think it is useful to promote the notions of -

1) the SPEED LIMIT, which is the absolute top speed,

2) the MAXIMUM SPEED THAT IS NOT CARELESS, RECKLESS OR DANGEROUS (i.e. safe enough), and varies tremendously from place to place, driver to driver, car to car and time to time, and is only loosely related to the SPEED LIMIT.

3) The LEGAL MAX, which is the lesser of the SPEED LIMIT and the MAXIMUM SPEED THAT IS NOT CARELESS. This is logical because, if your speed is more than the SPEED LIMIT, it is not legal by definition, and if it is more than the MAXIMUM SPEED THAT IS NOT CARELESS, it is not legal because it is unsafe.

In fact, I'd say a great deal of the obfuscation created at this site by both sides is because we have NOT set these terms earlier, obvious as they are.



There are two categories of those who do not crash much - those who drive well, and those who are lucky. The ones who drive well do not need policing in order to drive at a safe speed. The ones who are (temporarily?) lucky are playing a random number game with good odds over a one-off journey but which will (usually) catch them out in the end at great cost. They need to be told straight – stop being stupid! Do good drivers outnumber drivers who are temporarily lucky? How many close shaves have you had?

It goes without saying that these are not binary states - there is a spectrum between the extremities of good driving at one end, and lucky bastards at the other, and only the most libertarian amongst us (i.e. cranks) would not accept that people who recklessly speed in the 30 zone (because they are in a hurry!) are chancing it and deserve to be told straight.



I have absolutely no problem at all with more coppers, as long as they are funded properly - "offender pays" is one method of funding that I don't have a problem with, as you know!

_________________
I stole this .sig