Safe Speed Forums

I have the data read out from a Hampshire mobile camera tape and it does broadly show that 80-90 % were just over the prosecution threshold with two drivers about 10-20 over the limit. However many of the zaps may well have been the same motorist as this chap got the rider I was interested 4 times during one pass of the camera.

In answer to weepej , we are both making assumptions but If there was 100% compliance with the posted limit driving would be boring, So boring that some drivers would lose concentration. (me included). I believe it is a total fallacy that ksi's would fall in number or severity. The worst accidents are where drivers totally ignore sensible driving speeds or when drivers are not paying attention to the road at all.

100 % compliance would not happen and more frustration overtakes would take place.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Destroyed? Well only in the sense that if they were removed officially they may be disposed of.

There are two ways to challenge a theory, by proof and by disproof. Given you raised the question and are biased towards cameras I am asking you to show evidence to disprove the theory.

Given that -



No proof provided from this site would be acceptable to you despite that most data that would be used would come from external sources such as government and camera partnerships. Therefore the logical challenge is for you to provide a disproof of the theory.

If your posts are to be treated with any respect on here you should be prepared to put in some work. If you are simply spouting based on propaganda or your own emotionally biased opinions then do not expect to gain any credibility with me.

As a pointer why not do a search and find some news reports of accidents occurring at disabled camera sites where the accident cause can be linked to excess speed.

Remember disproving a theory is usually much easier than proving it so you are getting the easier option.

The ONLY way to reduce accidents on the roads to zero is to TOTALLY remove ALL vehicles from the roads. All.
The casualties in BUS accidents in 2005 was:
Deaths 9
Serious injuries 354
Slight injuries 7557

So if we ban cars, and increase buses, the accidents will also increase.
And what do we do about the goods vehicles ?
I believe there was a trl (then trrl) which, alarmingly, discovered that drivers adhering to the posted limit had 3 times more accidents. Doubtless it is now offline.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

Could this be because drivers who adhere to the speed limit (and who do not have points on the licence) do so because they lack confidence? And are poor drivers?

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Not according to the insurers.

It would mean that the more speeding points you have, the better you are at driving. There is no insurance company (not a single one) that reduces the rate for those with many speeding convictions. They don't do it because it doesn't make a profit.

Conversely (or aggravatingly!), are drivers who get pinged by speed cameras unable to observe the large yellow boxes stuck on poles, and preceded by warning signs? And are they unable to remember the location of a camera on subsequent passes?

Does the lack of these abilities cause them to be over confident, and perhaps poorer drivers?

No, that's just a bit of fun to get us going on a Monday morning! But there are many insurance companies that increase the rate for those with many points. This shows that they associate such drivers with more risk.

Insurance companies have decided that SP30 points on your licence are far less of an indicator of poor driving than age, location, type of car, occupation, Thats why I can insure may car for £150 fully comp. I am not loaded because I have points at all.

My insurance would go up more if I worked in tellivision than if I got 3 speeding convictions. Maybe we should ban all TV presenters from driving?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Hear hear! It USED to be the case that "points meant premium hikes" but those were the days when trafpols only prosecuted people who they felt were speeding under circumstances and by amounts that made them dangerous - so the corelation between points and likelihood of accidents was much better. These days, insurers are starting to realise that this relationship is no longer as valid. Of course they DO load premiums for high numbers of points but I can't think of any insurer that takes any account of three points for an SP30 and an increasing number don't mind six! If anything, it's perfect proof that when pure risk (rather than politics) is allowed free reign, we see the true extent of the misinformation peddled by the government for what it is!

So it looks as if no-one can find an insurance company that gives you a discount when you have more speeding points. Yet that should happen if ThatsNews is right when he suggests that confident speeders are safer than timid law abiders.

So why is that companies charge confident speeders the same or even more than timid law-abiding drivers? May I dare to suggest that the insurers are wiser than ThatsNews, or would that provoke an avalanche of bile?

VC, would you struggle with the concept that just because one thing isn't true, doesn't automatically mean that the converse is true?

The answer might be, VC, that they haven't the time to work out which is which.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

No.

ThatsNews has posited that drivers who adhere to the speed limit lack confidence and are poor drivers. My response is that insurers would therefore penalise law-abiders, but the evidence suggests they do not - they are (at worst) neutral or (sometimes) biased in favour of those without points, as Mole has admitted.

They are certainly never biased against people with clean licenses. So the assertion that drivers who adhere to the speed limit lack confidence and are poor drivers isn’t borne out by the insurers, is it, RobinXe?

Now, I’m not suggesting (yet!) that “if law-abiders are not penalised, then speeders must be”. So it is pointless to divert things with this “true, false, converse” malarkey. But if we get into an area where a formal discussion on the “implies” operator is required, I’m happy to use this definition:

Yes. There is hysteresis in the assessment of information, and the response. How much time do you think will elapse before insurers start rewarding people for having more points on their license? I reckon hell would freeze over first, but that’s just my point of view.

It could come to pass that insurers ignore certain types of points, as Mole suggests, but I doubt they’d give you a discount. Their profits (of many millions , or billions, of pounds) depends on the best assessment of risk that they can make, and they’d be very interested in any reverse correlation. So far, no luck, as far as I know.

So the very worst we can say about law-abiding drivers is that they are no worse than speeders, in general. And the best we can say is that law-abiding drivers are safer than speeders. So, in short, the law-abiders are a better bet.

Ah yes - how's the 20 year-old Panda going these days anton? (Just kidding)


Now then, I mentioned Swinton yonks ago who were leading the way on this matter...

"Insurance companies are now stating that penalty points that have been accrued through speeding will no longer affect the cost of vehicle insurance premium"

http://www.onlystop.com/news/200707/pen ... miums.html

So there! Thank you and good night

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

How about this for a theory?

Drivers with points vs risk

1) Poor driver that speeds inappropriately - High/bad risk
2) Average driver that speeds safely most of the time - Standard risk
3) Advanced driver that speeds only when safe - Low/good risk


Now in the past when insurance companies loaded premiums for speeding offences their statistics must have shown that the drivers in group 1 outweighed those in group 3. As insurance companies are tending not to load premiums their stats must be showing a balance or even a bias towards group 3.

It seems extremely unlikely that any insurance company is going to offer a discount for getting points given how easy they are to obtain.

On the subject of margin - didn't camera operator post a set of statistics from a day 'in the van' a while back, showing that most of his pings were only just over the limit?

On the subject of insurance. I can vary my premium significantly simply by selecting different occupations (all of which actually DO apply to me). For example, if I put my occupation as Design engineer, or mechanical engineer, the quote would be lower than if I put Agricultural engineer (no longer actually applies) or vehicle engineer.

Also, statisticly I am a lower risk because I'm female. BUT I KNOW that if I come across someone who's dawdling or being overly hesitant it's likely that its a woman. Unfortunately accident and points records don't actually have that accurate a bearing on someone's driving ability, yet they are the only things that the insurers really have to work with.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

That's my recollection too Sixy


I didn't know that. What's someone's profession got to do with it. (Uh?) Some of the worst drivers I've come across have been in a Rolls or the like.


Well, that's big of you to say in this PC world. My friend, (woman), has wound her window down on occasions and shouted across "It's women like you who give women like me a bad name!" She's a kinda alpha woman, if there is such a thing

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Oh yeah, I always fiddle around with the various occupations that approximate mine and Mrs Theboy's until the quote is minimised.

Despite our jobs being very different, "contracts manager" seems to aptly describe both.... and get a cheap quote!

So what's the best occupation to have then? Bomb disposal or test pilot perhaps? (likely to be a low road user).

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Its not un-PC if it's true, is it?

And you're friend is right!!!

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Yet they get cheaper insurance because women represent less risk than blokes do. Could these traits be related to that?