Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 17:32

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 23:32 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
basingwerk wrote:
A lot of people who have been convicted come to this site to look for answers, and there aren't any, other than driving within the limit.


I admire your unfailing confidence in the law. There those who have been the subject of
* car cloning
* Illegaly positioned cameras
* Illegal road signs
* Incorrectly used detection equipment
* abuse of the legal process

But then this would be beyond you comprehension... :roll:

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 23:45 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6731
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
basingwerk wrote:
I'm trying to help. A lot of people who have been convicted come to this site to look for answers, and there aren't any, other than driving within the limit.

Unless you drive everywhere at 30 mph, loads of roads have speed limits that are not clearly signed, or have many missing repeaters.

Can you be absolutely sure, in unfamiliar territory, that you always know the limit on the road you're driving along?

(I can think of 4 examples within about 3 miles near Runcorn that would confuse anyone)

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 20:21 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
Can you be absolutely sure, in unfamiliar territory, that you always know the limit on the road you're driving along?[/quote]

Of course not. If in doubt, do 30 mph.

PeterE wrote:
I can think of 4 examples within about 3 miles near Runcorn that would confuse anyone


The roads in Runcorn would confuse anyone. Once you are sucked into the system, there is no escape.

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 01, 2004 20:36 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6731
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
basingwerk wrote:
PeterE wrote:
Can you be absolutely sure, in unfamiliar territory, that you always know the limit on the road you're driving along?

Of course not. If in doubt, do 30 mph.

But the question wasn't "can you be sure of avoiding prosecution?" but "can you be sure of what the limit is?"

And it can't be a good thing to have people needlessly crawling along NSL roads at 30 mph because the speed limit has not been adequately signed.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 16:32 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
basingwerk wrote:
Of course not. If in doubt, do 30 mph.

But 30mph might still be too high for the circumstances. To take it to extremes, would you do 30mph if the reason you were unsure of the limit was fog so thick you couldn't see the signs? :P I'm sure you wouldn't, and I'm sure any driver with half a brain wouldn't (though that means that I saw some drivers in the fog last Saturday night with much less than half a brain :shock:). Besides, these days there's 20mph limits to worry about as well. :twisted:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 17:30 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
PeterE wrote:
But the question wasn't "can you be sure of avoiding prosecution?" but "can you be sure of what the limit is?"


One way to ensure that is as follows:

First, a master database is required to contain the master copy of all limits in force on all roads. This would comprehensively cover all the roads in the UK, and would be the source of information on limits in the UK. Procedures for short-term and backup/redundancy arrangements to be ironed out. Existing signage to maintained, for the time being at least, until new system is universal. An operations centre would be required to allow speeds and routes to be added, deleted and amended.

Second, a real-time means of disseminating this data is required, This means satellite or drive by RF or some such technology, alternatively GPS.

Last, all cars to be fitted with both receivers for the data, and warning devices to show when the driver is speeding. I also endorse a transmitter to transmit car coordinates, speed, direction and such like into a master tracking DB but that is another story.

PeterE wrote:
And it can't be a good thing to have people needlessly crawling along NSL roads at 30 mph because the speed limit has not been adequately signed.


The clamour for good signage would grow, and authorities would have to act or face public opprobrium.

(I am basingwerk and I endorse this approach)

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 17:34 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
Gatsobait wrote:
would you do 30mph if the reason you were unsure of the limit was fog so thick you couldn't see the signs?


No. I was thinking of slowing to 30 if I was in a zone where is could be more and I wasn't sure. I'd do less if I needed to, of course.

Gatsobait wrote:
Besides, these days there's 20mph limits to worry about as well. :twisted:


If that is all you have to worry about, you are a lucky man!

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 22:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
Message to basingwerk. Check out pepipoo for many and varied examples of how the law isn't as cut-and-dried as you would like to think it is. See how there is growing evidence and recognition that automated speed detection is flawed (regardless of the safespeed argument) and that the fundamental breaches of human rights that are necessary to create the expedient methods of detection and punishment you favour are in fact unlawful and are being challenged.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 08, 2005 23:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 21:18
Posts: 29
Quote:
Why am I being prosecuted when I was driving safely?

:oops: :oops:
In whose opinion.? :idea: :idea:

OR Svenson, O. (1978). Risks of road transportation in a psychological perspective. Accident Analysis and Prevention,10, 4, 267-280.:

Experience itself can undermine competence, rather than enhance it. Because aversive consequences to particular ways of behaving on the road may occur only infrequently, unsafe behaviour may be surreptitiously shaped and lead the driver into traffic situations that demand more than they are able to deliver.


Lund et al. (1986), found that drivers who participated in an 'enhanced driver training programme' were more likely to pass their test than a control group, but were also significantly more likely to be involved in subsequent accidents. Similarly, Lund and Williams (1985) reviewed 14 controlled evaluations of defensive driving courses and concluded that course attendance provided no consistent evidence for an effect on reduced crash involvement.

We really only have your opinion on whether you were driving safely and as proven above and by the AA and RAC most drivers over estimate their abilities.

Why not argue it in a court - it would be ineteresting to see the outcome :D :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 00:00 
Offline
Suspended
Suspended

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 13:41
Posts: 539
Location: Herts
Quote:
Why not argue it in a court - it would be ineteresting to see the outcome


Completley agree, it may not be sound advice. However i would certainley never accept another fixed penalty.

As normal criminals, i expect to be treated innocent until proven guilty :!:

_________________
Steve


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 05:47 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Ah, good, rational suggestions!

Cunobelin wrote:
OR Svenson, O. (1978). Risks of road transportation in a psychological perspective. Accident Analysis and Prevention,10, 4, 267-280.:

Experience itself can undermine competence, rather than enhance it. Because aversive consequences to particular ways of behaving on the road may occur only infrequently, unsafe behaviour may be surreptitiously shaped and lead the driver into traffic situations that demand more than they are able to deliver.


It's completely clear that they are talking about theoretical possibilities rather than practical norms. The insurance insustries response (in the form of reducing premiums) is sound evidence of the value of experience. There's plenty of supporting science too, but I can't see any need to go and collect references.

Cunobelin wrote:
Lund et al. (1986), found that drivers who participated in an 'enhanced driver training programme' were more likely to pass their test than a control group, but were also significantly more likely to be involved in subsequent accidents. Similarly, Lund and Williams (1985) reviewed 14 controlled evaluations of defensive driving courses and concluded that course attendance provided no consistent evidence for an effect on reduced crash involvement.


With no consistent course standards, content or objectives, it's far from surprising that there were no consistent results. A well known problem is that training that delivers primarilly vehicle handling skills tends to lead to increased accident rates as attendees take advantage of their skills and simply drive into trouble at higher speeds.

But far better alternatives exist. Training in observation, anticipation, risk recognition, risk avoidance, common errors, attitudes and self appraisal have all been demonstrated to deliver excellent results.

Cunobelin wrote:
We really only have your opinion on whether you were driving safely and as proven above and by the AA and RAC most drivers over estimate their abilities.

Why not argue it in a court - it would be ineteresting to see the outcome :D :D


Argue a speeding offence in court on the basis of safe driving? We're not allowed that option. Speeding is an absolute offence, and proof of safety is no defence.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 21:18
Posts: 29
Ah but...

The whole point of any fixed penalty is that there is sufficient evidence ( you were speeding / drunk and disorderly / parked illegally etc) and there is sufficient evidence to testablish guilt in the eyes of the law.

The fixed penalty is in definition just that, you can appeal. Therfore wherre is the oproblem. You HAVE committed an offence, the standard of proof is such that it meets legal requirements. It is merely saving time and money - you have every right t refuse to acept this and appear in court, as with anyone else charged wiwth a crime.

The answer my friend's is dont't speed!

Besides the question still hasn't been answered , in whose opinion was the poster "driving safely"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Oh dear. You started off so well.

Cunobelin wrote:
Ah but...

The whole point of any fixed penalty is that there is sufficient evidence ( you were speeding / drunk and disorderly / parked illegally etc) and there is sufficient evidence to testablish guilt in the eyes of the law.

The fixed penalty is in definition just that, you can appeal. Therfore wherre is the oproblem. You HAVE committed an offence, the standard of proof is such that it meets legal requirements. It is merely saving time and money - you have every right t refuse to acept this and appear in court, as with anyone else charged wiwth a crime.

The answer my friend's is dont't speed!

Besides the question still hasn't been answered , in whose opinion was the poster "driving safely"?


When the speed limit laws were defined there were no radar speedmeters, let alone cameras. I think the technology of the day was an intelligent and sensible Police Officer with a stopwatch.

The speed limit laws have served us well as a very rough guide - a proxy measure - helping to define and discourage inappropriate speeds.

In the last decade (just over) technology has entirely overtaken the purpose of the original law. I doesn't matter one whit if folk go 85mph on the motorway or 40mph in town so long as conditions are suitable, and conditions frequently are suitable.

Have a very careful read of this page:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/why.html

A driver, any driver, must at all times judge his speed to be safe irrespective of the speed limit.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 14:15 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 21:18
Posts: 29
Quote:
A driver, any driver, must at all times judge his speed to be safe irrespective of the speed limit.


Couldn't agree more, but as there are a number of people who fail to do so (hence the number of responsible drivers being "victimised" for failing to comply) and this was the point of the still unanswered questsion "in whose opinion". It is because of this type of attitude that limits were introduced in the first place. Whether these limits are arbitrary or not , this is still not a justification for breaking the law as in these cases - simply because you disagree with that particular law and it's application. The technology simply enables lawbreakers to be identified and dealt with more efficiently.

I am not allowed to burgle your house, but if I do not feel this applies to me would you support my decision, would you also object to a CCTV camera being used as evidence in the prosecution?

If you have a problem with the speed limit, act thewithin the law and seek to change it.... condoning speeding and other traffic offences is not a positive, constructive, or reasonable action.
This could in fact be seen as "incitement" to commit the offence!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 15:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Cunobelin wrote:
Quote:
A driver, any driver, must at all times judge his speed to be safe irrespective of the speed limit.


Couldn't agree more, but as there are a number of people who fail to do so (hence the number of responsible drivers being "victimised" for failing to comply) and this was the point of the still unanswered questsion "in whose opinion". It is because of this type of attitude that limits were introduced in the first place. Whether these limits are arbitrary or not , this is still not a justification for breaking the law as in these cases - simply because you disagree with that particular law and it's application. The technology simply enables lawbreakers to be identified and dealt with more efficiently.

I am not allowed to burgle your house, but if I do not feel this applies to me would you support my decision, would you also object to a CCTV camera being used as evidence in the prosecution?

If you have a problem with the speed limit, act thewithin the law and seek to change it.... condoning speeding and other traffic offences is not a positive, constructive, or reasonable action.
This could in fact be seen as "incitement" to commit the offence!


This is all completely wrong. Speed cameras do not detect inappropriate speed. We do not condone speeding or any other motoring offence.

The technical offence of "speeding" is many times (maybe hundreds or thousands of times) more commonplace than the inappropriate use of speed.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 16:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 21:18
Posts: 29
Why is this incorrect!

That is a bold statement that can be disputed and commonly is!

Whether or not an individual is driving safely or inappropriately (again the important question is as to in whose opinion) is irrelevant.

These limits exist because so many drivers have an overestimated idea of their own abilities and drive fast where it is unacceptable there are speed limits. Locally here we have just introduced traffic calming ( - the speed past the local school at colllection tme was averaging 42 mph (max 54mph) despite the 30mph zone! There is also support from many parents for a local campaign for a speed camera for resident's use.)

I have no doubt all these drivers thought they were driving safely and at an appropriate speed. The fact is that because of them there inow traffic calming to enforce a posted speed limit.

A speed limit is a legal restriction on the activity - travelling faster than this is an offence. Speed, get caught, pay fine - it's simple mathematics.

Quote:
Speed cameras do not detect inappropriate speed


There is a legal limit, (not open to personal interpretation as to whether you will decide to obey it or not) - break the law by exceeding that limit is by definition inappropriate.

Obey the law, and there is no problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 17:31 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Quote:
There is a legal limit, (not open to personal interpretation as to whether you will decide to obey it or not) - break the law by exceeding that limit is by definition inappropriate.


I think this is semantics - and both of you are almost on the same side :wink: . If I may I will split your statement into several - and I will not intentionally take any part of it out of context.

Quote:
There is a legal limit,....
Agreed. The country has a legal limit set by HRH some long long while ago at 70mph.
Quote:
...(not open to personal interpretation.... )
There are strict laws on signage. Often these are violated. There is a great deal elsewhere on the web on this (Pepipoo is the finest example). This I suggest leaves the actual number of the limit open to a tremendous amount of interpretation. It is clear what the law wanted, but if they failed to comply with their own strict signage rules, then they did not make their message clear enough.


Quote:
.... (not open to personal interpretation as to whether you will decide to obey it or not)
It used to be enforced with sensible diligence by sensible boys in blue with a wealth of experience and training in road matters. The camera era has removed this excelent discretion and turned it into a numbers game, removing the discretion on roads where cameras lie (pun/double entendre fully intended).

Quote:
break the law by exceeding that limit is by definition inappropriate.
This is the one I struggle with. Breaking the law by exceeding the limit is illegal. By doing so one is breaking the law :roll: . As a general rule, breaking the law is inappropriate as one is laying oneself open to prosecution. However, life is not so straightforward when strict enforcement of a particular law is not appropriate.

There are VERY few other parallel examples - none that I can think of off the top of my head. Burgling has been cited above I think - it is not a parallel. Burglary is a criminal offence. It is also inappropriate. It would still be inappropriate to burgle even if not in violation of a criminal statute.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 17:59 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6731
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Roger wrote:
There are VERY few other parallel examples - none that I can think of off the top of my head. Burgling has been cited above I think - it is not a parallel. Burglary is a criminal offence. It is also inappropriate. It would still be inappropriate to burgle even if not in violation of a criminal statute.

Although not entirely the same, other examples of "line in the sand" laws are the drink-driving limit and various age restrictions such as the age of consent for sexual intercourse and the minimum age for drinking alcohol on licensed premises.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 18:21 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
PeterE wrote:
Roger wrote:
There are VERY few other parallel examples - none that I can think of off the top of my head. Burgling has been cited above I think - it is not a parallel. Burglary is a criminal offence. It is also inappropriate. It would still be inappropriate to burgle even if not in violation of a criminal statute.

Although not entirely the same, other examples of "line in the sand" laws are the drink-driving limit and various age restrictions such as the age of consent for sexual intercourse and the minimum age for drinking alcohol on licensed premises.


I appreciate the sentiment, Peter. Taking the drink-driving one, I disagree. The most appropriate drink level has been well-proven to be substantially lower than the current one. The most appropriate alcohol level is not dependent upon road type, how far one has to drive or any other conditions. Legal "tolerance" of high alcohol might be greater / less socially unacceptable in a cul-de-sac from one end to another, eg, to transport an invalid, than a trip from London to Brighton, but for either journey the opptimum level is at or near zero. Optimum speed is not so well defined. Nor can it be. No two journeys are the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 09, 2005 19:10 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6731
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Roger wrote:
PeterE wrote:
Roger wrote:
There are VERY few other parallel examples - none that I can think of off the top of my head. Burgling has been cited above I think - it is not a parallel. Burglary is a criminal offence. It is also inappropriate. It would still be inappropriate to burgle even if not in violation of a criminal statute.

Although not entirely the same, other examples of "line in the sand" laws are the drink-driving limit and various age restrictions such as the age of consent for sexual intercourse and the minimum age for drinking alcohol on licensed premises.

I appreciate the sentiment, Peter. Taking the drink-driving one, I disagree. The most appropriate drink level has been well-proven to be substantially lower than the current one. The most appropriate alcohol level is not dependent upon road type, how far one has to drive or any other conditions. Legal "tolerance" of high alcohol might be greater / less socially unacceptable in a cul-de-sac from one end to another, eg, to transport an invalid, than a trip from London to Brighton, but for either journey the opptimum level is at or near zero. Optimum speed is not so well defined. Nor can it be. No two journeys are the same.

I'm well aware the two are not the same - see this page on my website.

I was simply offering examples of laws that define a "line in the sand" in what might appear a grey area between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

There probably is nothing the same as speeding where the line is routinely transgressed by virtually everyone it applies to (can't say I've had the chance of sex with many girls of 15 years and 9 months recently :lol: )

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.293s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]