Safe Speed Forums

Many people want to do 90 on the motorways and are perfectly capable of doing so if it wasn't for fear of prosecution.

Paul Smith commented on another forum that if the limit was raised then the inexperienced would raise their speed to 90 and we dont want this because they will not be able to handle it, therefore there should be sensible enforcement.

As an alternative, how about a two tier system, those who have successfully completed advanced driver training get to do 90 on the motorways and the plebs are stuck at 70

This would encourage people to attend advanced driver training which in itself would be a massive boost to road safety, it would also change the image of the IAM test from something done by nerdy old men in driving gloves into something "cool" and desireable.

Obviously the enforcement climate would have to change somewhat. Gatsos would have to go. Truvelos and front facing talivans could stay. For the majority of cases where the registered keeper is driving their own car, the keepers photograph could be looked up on the DVLA database and compared against the camera pic resulting in the offence being cancelled.

For the cases where a different driver is nominated, again they would have to look up the photograph and compare once they receive the nomination.

The biggest change would be in the police / DVLA infrastructure, police would need a direct read-only link to the DVLA database or the system would become unworkable. Ideally this would be available within the police cars too.

Lastly, there are certain offences for which a ban is too much or where the driver claims hardship due to loss of job, and is on low wages so cannot be given a huge fine, there would be the option of an intermediate level of punishment by revoking their advanced driver status.

Hi Lum. Couple of objections/questions. First and foremost, by saying that Gatsos would have to go but front end snapping devices would stay are you saying that the enforcement of the two tier system would still be reliant on automation rather than trafplods? I believe trafplods are better value for money, plus after more than a decade of scam enforcement we're no better off. In addition checking the snapped photos would be labour intensive, wouldn't it? They don't seem to inclined to check the photos as things stand now, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Secondly, it doesn't necessarily get us away from the current policies of prosecuting for going over a certain number rather than going too fast for the circumstances. Again, BiBs have the experience and training to make a judgement call on whether someone is really going too fast or is speeding but doing so safely. They should be allowed to exercise it.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I agree with you about traffic police vs cameras. You'll note I mentioned maing the photos available from within the police cars via a wireless connection of some sort, however the cameras are not going to disappear overnight so designing the scheme in such a way that they can still be used will make it that much more paletable to the establishment.

I have seen the current film and video process checing in action and it's already quite labour intensive. If the PNC checj stage was replaced with a DVLA check stage then comparing the photographs would not be that much work, though you are right that mistakes would still happen, this is unavoidable.

I'm not suggesting a radical overhaul, if you succeed in getting rid of all the cameras then it may become one, but I beleive this would improve things in the meantime.

Still not convinced by a two tier speed limit system I'm afraid, even with the techy problems sorted out. It just goes against the KISS principle. More importantly (IMO) it goes against the message of always drive at a safe speed for the circumstances.

That said, I'm all in favour of giving some sort of official recognition to IAM or creating an official advanced licence. I just think that that we could come up with better incentives. Top of the list for most people is likely to be money - tell 'em IAM will save them more than it costs, as well as make them a better driver, then they'll probably go for it. Unfortunately, in our experience at least, the reverse is true. My wife used to use certain insurers who recognised her IAM pass and gave her a discount. That changed when I started getting cheaper quotes for a higher group car on a bog standard license by shopping around more. She rates the training, but has long since left the IAM.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

But as I'm sure you're aware, there are a number of conditions that decide the safe speed for the circumstances and one of them is the driver's level of experience.

I'm saying that they can up the limits as a sign of trusting drivers who have proven they have some competence (Lets face it, the L test is rubbish) because I dont think you'll ever get discretionary enforcement back these days, too many people gunning to sue the police for discrimination (and still a small minority of bent coppers. I have respect for a lot of them, but you only need a couple of bad apples to cause real problems for innocent people)

You don't get this by taking an advanced driving test....

I have driven over one million safe miles on a standard driving test. I have driven in every conceivable weather condition, every type of car in most European countries and North America. I have no penalty points.

So am I less competent than a 21 year old with an advanced drivers ticket?

Sorry but a bit of paper does not make you an "experienced" driver.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Well, perhaps a better test would need to be developed. I know people who have been driving for 40 years and are shit. There is always going to have to be some kind of testing and it will never be perfect*. This is supposed to be about improving things, not a magic solution to fix everything.

* I work in IT and have spend far too much time cleaning up after clueless MCSEs on double my salary, so I know exactly what you're on about.

I don't wish any disrespect to Gizmo here (honest mate), but his perception of his own abilities sums up the problem of this two-tier system.
Once this elitist system (as it would almost certainly be viewed from 'below') was in place, there would be a barrage of complaining from those who claimed they didn't have the time, money, inclination or whatever to take the test themselves, yet who feel they are just as capable as those who have. And you won't convince them otherwise I'm positive.

I'm with Gizmo on this one... If he's driven a million accident-free miles, he's safe and obviously competent. The problem with assessing "advanced" driving is that it is essentially subjective on the part of the assessor and the organisation that sets the "rules". I too have done in the region of a million miles and the only accidents I've been involved in were when I had the misfortune to be stationary at traffic lights and was punted in the back by someone unable to stop - twice.. I can assure you that I'm a damn-site more competent than "a 21-year-old with a certificate" - some many moons ago I was considered competent enough to teach very "advanced (cough)" techniques to some of the "outer-reaches" of Her Majesty's Constabulary... But I strongly doubt that I would "pass" the IAM test.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

But that argument is absurd when taken to it's logical extension.

How would you feel about someone being on the road with no driving licence at all, though they have been driving for years and never had a crash.

IAM test may not be the correct test, but at least some test of motorway competence will be needed.

Not if you take it in Norwich or Aberdeen, it won't be

If we are to have differential licences I would prefer power limits to higher speed limits.

And the motorway speed limit is perhaps the one that least annoys me on a day-to-day basis (even though I commute 20-odd miles on a motorway).

I would much prefer more liberty on all the 30s that used to be 40s, and 40s and 50s that used to be NSLs. But that isn't so easy to arrange.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Assuming that he's replying to me...


I wouldn't get particularly hot under the collar about it. If someone has been driving for a long time and never had an accident, they are ipso facto, a safe driver. Whether they're licensed or not doesn't alter the facts of the case.

My late father never took a driving test, yet in a motoring life of somewhere in the region of two million miles, driving everything from motorbikes to trucks including during the "blackout" in WW2, he never, ever, even scratched a car, let alone had an accident - and he wasn't one to toddle along well below the limit either!

I'll make it very clear at this juncture that I'm not advocating driving without a licence... There is a necessity for those let loose on the road to have displayed a certain degree of competence - by passing a driving test, rudimentary though it is. What passing a test doesn't ensure is that the driver in question is going to be safe. My Aunt passed her driving test, at the age of 50+, at the 12th attempt... She's a licensed "competent" driver in the eyes of the law... In my eyes, she's possibly the worst driver in Western Europe.


The IAM certainly have one, apparently proven, way of doing things - but it's not the only way. I don't mean to knock the IAM, I just don't agree with, or practise, some of the methods that they appear, somewhat dogmatically, to espouse.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

They could just have been very very lucky

You seem to agree with me that some test of competence is needed before being let loose on the roads, and that the basic test does not really establish all that much really.

In Northern Ireland you are restricted to 30mph for the first year, which is a reasonable idea, but you could just pass your test then not drive for a year. I cannot think of any way that does not involve some form of testing.

I agree with the poster who suggested a power of car based system (I assume this would work similar to the bike one) but if the speed limits are still set at 60 and 70 it's not going to acheive much gain (apart from keeping the newbie drivers into low power cars)

So how about, after taking a test in a car with, say, 100bhp or more, you are then allowed to drive a car a with that level of power and NSL is restored to it's original meaning and a bit more flexability is allowed for the others.

The point about artificailly low speed limits is valid, but a separate issue that I'm not even trying to address here.

It is NSL and formerly NSL roads that most bother me, and I include motorways in this. I also think that a lot of people would be prepared to accept lower speed limits in town (which is what the NIMBY brigade want) if they got faster NSLs in exchange. It would certainly make my trips a lot quicker and safer!

If they're that lucky, could they pick out some lottery numbers for me?


I'd guess that the 30mph for the first year law is one much more honoured in the breach than the observance thereof..

As to "advanced" testing, actually it's a good idea - I was just indulging in a mild degree of Devil's Advocacy - my question / criticism of the idea is that if you're going to test people who are supposedly experienced, are you going to be formulaic about the "correct" way to drive, or are you going to be less prescriptive and simply examine the way someone drives with sole regard to how safely they do it - if you see what I'm getting at?

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Well, I do have some issues with the IAM, sometimes they seem like they have their gospel written in the 1940s and dont want to update it. For example I do not see any problem wth changing down during braking in most crcumstances.

Perhaps some of the test could be done bike-style with a car or bike following and observing to ensure impartiality of driving style, and looking at what they acheive as opposed to how they go about it. Things they would look for could include maintaning a safe distance from the car in front, being able to take corners on an SC A-road without wandering across the centre line (I see many people, often old men in Mk1 Rover 200s who fail to do this at 40), correct use of lanes on the motorway, brisk, sensible overtaking and much more that I can't be bothered thinking about right now.

Victoria had a lower limit for drivers during their first 3 years for a long time. It was an unmitigated pain in the ass.

The "NSL" limit here is 60mph and the "P" platers were only allowed to drive at 50mph. Not much different to an LGV really and almost as much of a pain to drivers stuck behind them.

We now have a power to weight ratio limit on drivers during their first 3 years (a Subaru WRX is almost exactly on the limit) but they are allowed to travel at the same speeds as everyone else.

It may not be perfect but it's certainly better than limiting their speed!

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

There you go then. As I said, you're not going to convince the more experienced drivers that they are less worthy of being permitted to drive at a higher speed than someone who has actually demonstrated their competence to a recognised body.
Those who can't, won't, can't be bothered to take the advanced test will conjour up a plethora excuses (busy life, no time, etc etc) and then claim discrimination.

I'm not totally against the idea of some form of test of competency to allow someone to drive at higher speeds, what I am against is that the test should be highly prescriptive of how you actually perform the mechanics of driving rather than what you achieve by performing them.

I've said elsewhere that I consider myself perfectly competent to drive quickly - I base this estimation on the fact that I used to be a professional racing driver, have taught high-performance driving, and done some "unorthodox" teaching for police drivers... Yet I'd almost certainly fail an IAM test... I change down when I'm slowing down, heel-and-toe and don't always shuffle the wheel - not one of those apparently "critical" operations has anything to do with whether my observation skills and anticipation are up to driving quickly - 1 million accident-free miles would tend to suggest that they are perfectly up-to-scratch, and I guess that there are a lot of other drivers in the same boat.

Someone suggested the idea of a "remotely" observed test of what you do on the road rather than how you do it.. Not a bad idea at all.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev