A question for everyone that speeds.

[jellyman]

How many of us out there speed? My guess would be almost all of us at some time or another to a greater or lesser degree.

Of those that do it every time they get into a car, and justify it in their own mind (still the majority I expect) - How many of you would run a red light?!

How about about 3am where you know there's no camera or anyone around, and it would clearly be safe to do so?

I'd be interested to hear from people that answer YES to my firet question, but NO to my last, and their thought processes behind thier decision making.

[SafeSpeed]

Hmmm.

I smell an utterly stupid argument coming up.

The final answer is that the vast majority of folk are happy to respect any law that's worthy of respect.

[jellyman]

I'm not trying to provoke an argument only a discussion - I just raised the issue following a conversation I was having with a friend.

You say you've given your final answer SafeSpeed but you've declined to answer the question I asked?

[Gizmo]

I believe the speed limits should reflect the risk. Different road conditions and different times of the day vary the risk. If the limit is set in order to save money on other safety improvements (e.g. 20 mph on a trunk road), or set low to increase camera income, there is a good chance that many people react in a negative way towards it.

Ask yourself...The more people who are “pigeonholed” as law breakers, the more acceptable law breaking becomes. Is that what we all want?

BTW..The statistics for the cause of casualties late at night or early in the morning are misquoted by Scamera Squads to justify fixed speed cameras.

I NEVER EVER RUN A RED LIGHT!

That is all I will say.

[Gatsobait]

Speeding? In sensibly set limits, very rarely. In arbitrarily low ones, er... not saying.
Jumping a red light? Pretty much never, the only exception being an occasion where the lights had packed up and were stuck on red. That time I judged it to be iffy going straight over as I would normally do there, and as others were doing, and turned left instead when I could see it was safe.
Jumping red lights at 3am? Nope. Seems far too dangerous. I mean, it may look clear right now, but someone else could be approaching the green lights at a higher than normal speed since, as you say, there's noone around and there isn't a camera. I feel the risks of jumping red lights are higher than exceeding an unecessarily low speed limit in ideal conditions. Whether the risks are higher than driving up to the limit in conditions that are far from ideal is something else, but then I don't do that either.

[PeterE]

How many of us out there speed? My guess would be almost all of us at some time or another to a greater or lesser degree.

Of those that do it every time they get into a car, and justify it in their own mind (still the majority I expect) - How many of you would run a red light?!

How about about 3am where you know there's no camera or anyone around, and it would clearly be safe to do so?

I'd be interested to hear from people that answer YES to my firet question, but NO to my last, and their thought processes behind thier decision making.

There's a thread on "Why do drivers speed?" which addresses the question you're raising:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=507

[SafeSpeed]

I'm not trying to provoke an argument only a discussion - I just raised the issue following a conversation I was having with a friend.

You say you've given your final answer SafeSpeed but you've declined to answer the question I asked?

Perhaps you would like to "set out your stall" and avoid the need to go all around the houses?

In other words, let's examine your conclusion before we have to consider what evidence might be useful in support of it (or otherwise).

[basingwerk]

Speeding? ... In arbitrarily low ones, er... not saying.

And you (as an individual) would get to say that a certain limit is arbitrarily low and get to set your own limits. Is that it? What about politics and discussion? No wonder we need speed cameras!

[Gizmo]

What about politics and discussion?

Ah yes politics! Politics = tax = revenue = camera fines.
Nothing to do with road safety then..

[bmwk12]

[quote="jellyman"]How many of us out there speed? My guess would be almost all of us at some time or another to a greater or lesser degree.

Of those that do it every time they get into a car, and justify it in their own mind (still the majority I expect) - How many of you would run a red light?!

Answer is NO to both questions.

However i do speed, this is not intentional, it happens whilst i am concentrating on hazards. I end up 5 to 10 mph over the limit.

This has cost me 9 times in point & fines.

Has it changed my driving style, NO. I continue to keep my attention on hazards ahead, Traffic lights being one of them. Not on my speedometer.

9 convictions, however No accidents.

Their is absolutly no excuse for running a red light, it is a LETHAL mistake, no one should ever believe they are the only person on the road at any time of the day.

[Gatsobait]

basingwerk mate, I'm sure I've explained the sort of situation I'm talking about when I say an arbitrarily low limit. But if your point is that Jellyman doesn't know, then fair enough, I should explain further. I'm talking about roads that have had a speed limt of Xmph for years with no problems but have recently had 10 or 20mph knocked off for no reason. There's a couple of local dual carriageways that used to be NSL and 60 respectively, and are now 60 and 50. There have been absolutely no changes on either road and AFAIK both have a pretty good accident history. It also means in the case of the 50mph dual carriageway drivers are now permitted to drive faster on the adjoining single carriageway road which has remained NSL.

Let me emphasise that I am not necessarily against a downward revision of a speed limit. Say land bordering a 40mph road was developed in a big way - new shops, primary school, old folks home, pub, houses etc - as a result of which there would soon be a greater number of pedestrians about. A downward revision to a 30mph limit seems justified. However, where there have been no such changes and the road's accident record is good reduced limits are arbitrary IMO. Not the best term I could use, perhaps, so I'm open to any alternative you suggest. Stupid? Politically motivated?

[supertramp]

As far as red lights are concerned,here is my input to a thread in the ukpoliceonline forum, where I explained why I did not think it was always dangerous to jump a red light (near bottom of page):
http://www.police-recruitment.com/one2/ ... 4&start=15

---------- text follows ---------

Quote from other contributer>>:
I cant see how running a red light could ever be safe
<<end quote.

If by "safe" we mean "no extra risk", then I must disagree.

There are many light-controlled places where a more than adequate view of the other road users / pedestrians / cyclists / horses / skeelerers / whatever is possible, making it technically possible to assess the situation and make a safe crossing, whether the lights are showing red, amber, green or purple with pink spots!
In several countries the traffic lights switch to "flashing amber" mode late at night, and everyone then just treats the intersection as a non-traffic-light-controlled intersection, safely and efficiently.

I suppose this is another of those "letter of the law" versus "spirit of the law" issues. Traffic lights are normally installed to prevent accidents, so if there is no accident to prevent their "authority" becomes purely technical.

[basingwerk]

Ah yes politics! Politics = tax = revenue = camera fines.
Nothing to do with road safety then..

Hm.. is part of the problem? If, instead of using the word politics, I used 'civilisation' (for no civilisation can be formed without it), would that do? I mean, we meet up and agree to what we want to do, don't we - isn't that what the modern world is? I mean, I really find it hard to understand what you mean? Are you an anarchist? If not, how should we manage conflict over all issues such as health, safety etc. other than with politics? Please explain what you propose? How should it be managed?

[Gizmo]

Ah yes politics! Politics = tax = revenue = camera fines.
Nothing to do with road safety then..

Hm.. is part of the problem? If, instead of using the word politics, I used 'civilisation' (for no civilisation can be formed without it), would that do? I mean, we meet up and agree to what we want to do, don't we - isn't that what the modern world is? I mean, I really find it hard to understand what you mean? Are you an anarchist? If not, how should we manage conflict over all issues such as health, safety etc. other than with politics? Please explain what you propose? How should it be managed?

Sorry but politics has had a bad press in recent years. Thats why so many people don't bother to vote. No one to vote for with any substance. Same sh*t different package.

Politics have been reduced to "who shouts the loudest"...

but then we are off-topic.

[Zamzara]

I have never run a red light and I wouldn't, except in the hypothetical case of some emergency where the greater good clearly demanded it. Waiting at a red light takes no skill and just gives a break from driving for a moment.

Speeding is a different matter, because where the limit is too low for the road it requires great concentration and self-control. To focus 100% on the number on the dial and ignore the road conditions. If any non-drivers have a problem visualising what this feels like, next time you are walking along the pavement, try slowing to 1/2 your natural walking speed and maintain it for your entire journey. It is very tricky and you will feel self-concious. It requires full concious attention to be given to a process that is normally automatic.

When driving that 100% concentration is just not always available, as there are too many other things to be aware of concurrently.

[PeterE]

Hm.. is part of the problem? If, instead of using the word politics, I used 'civilisation' (for no civilisation can be formed without it), would that do? I mean, we meet up and agree to what we want to do, don't we - isn't that what the modern world is? I mean, I really find it hard to understand what you mean? Are you an anarchist? If not, how should we manage conflict over all issues such as health, safety etc. other than with politics? Please explain what you propose? How should it be managed?

But a civilised society needs to recognise that laws require the consent of the governed.

Even if a large majority of elected representatives have voted for it, a law that is broken by a majority of the population is ultimately unworkable, and if serious attempts are made to enforce it, then it will undermine the whole rule of law.

Power is delegated by the people to governments - not the other way round.

[basingwerk]

how should we manage conflict over all issues such as health, safety etc. other than with politics? Sorry but politics has had a bad press in recent years. That’s why so many people don't bother to vote .... politics have been reduced to "who shouts the loudest"... but then we are off-topic.

Politics is the process of collectively making up our minds, and the nation has collectively decided the 30 mph is the limit in towns – if you don’t take part in the process, you don’t get to choose.

How come some people feel that is not good enough for them? The thread is about laws you as an individual choose to obey or flout, in spite of the collective political decision. Surely that is on-topic, especially when that process has yielded dividends, such as a low accident rate comparative to other nations.

But a civilised society needs to recognise that laws require the consent of the governed

Your consent is routinely measured at the ballot box. The parties themselves are democratic to a degree and you could participate in the process if you wanted to. Indeed, by posting here, you are helping to set the consensus, in a way. Yet, up to and until your case is settled one way or the other, the law, settled previously by due process, is that 30 mph is the limit in built up areas, unless otherwise posted. Again, how come some people feel that is not good enough for them? What do you want, the moon on a stick?

[SafeSpeed]

Yet, up to and until your case is settled one way or the other, the law, settled previously by due process, is that 30 mph is the limit in built up areas, unless otherwise posted. Again, how come some people feel that is not good enough for them? What do you want, the moon on a stick?

Some people? How about the vast majority of drivers? 59% were exceeding the 30mph speed limit at sample sites in the last official survey.

Naturally at the next sample site a different sample of 59% are likely to be exceeding the 30mph speed limit. So the number of drivers who never exceed the speed limit could well be vanishingly small. In fact I'd be pretty amazed if it was as large as 1%.

So your "some people" turns out to be something in the order of 99% of drivers. Doesn't that direct us towards completely different arguments?

[edit: Ooops. I wrote 1% when I meant 99%, now fixed]

[Gizmo]

Politics is the process of collectively making up our minds

When was the last time you voted for a law or decision that directly affected you. We get one chance every 4 years or so. Maybe once again at local level.

Don't remember voting for speed cameras
Don't remember voting for ID cards
Don't remember voting to go to war

Democracy…I don’t think so!


It seems to take mass direct action like the poll tax riots of the fuel protests to scare government into listening to the public. Apart from 6 months before election time...

[jellyman]

Some interesting posts.

From a personal point of view I think that limits are rather arbitary figures based on an number or factors, intended to make the risk of travelling on the particular road in question an acceptable level. However these factors may change on an hourly basis, something with limits do not cater for, so it may be dangerous to travel at 20 in a 30 outside a school at 3:30pm but safe to do 40 along that same stretch at 3:30am. This is where part of the problem lies due to differing views on how best to resolve such a situation.

I disagree that to run a red light is always dangerous. It may be so at some sites because special conditions dictate, such as a very closed junction with poor visabiliy of the surrounding roads, however many juctions become signal controlled, after previously being perfecly safe uncontralled juctions just to manage the traffic more effectivly during peak times (eg the day), and may be perfecly safe to negotiate at other times regardless of the colour of the signal.

I would therefore use this analogy to question the motives of certain people who seem to argue disproportionately against certain limits, speed cameras etc saying that is safe to break this limt because.... Speed is only one aspect of number of influencing issues determining road safety.

By the same token however I think that official campains place a disproportionate emphasis on the importance of adhering to the speed limit.