Safe Speed Forums

This has been touched upon in other threads but I believe it is worthy of rehearsal here.

Exceeding a speed limit is a fundamentally different type of offence to a crime like burglary, for example. The Government have tried hard to equate the two in the public's mind and demonise those caught by cameras but have basically failed.

The speed of your car is a continuum from below the posted limit to above. Thus, you can "drift" into an illegal act with no intent or malice. I can't see how you can "drift" into climbing through someone's window at night without deliberate intent. This illustrates the flaw in the Government's thinking on speeding and the ruthless automated enforcement for no good safety related reason.

The wrong question is being asked. Instead of "Was the car over the limit?" the issue should be "Was it dangerous?" This would go a long way to satisfy the complaint that limits are being set inappropriately low in a lot of places.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Someone once put this very eloquently on this forum, but I've never been able to locate the quote. Basically, theft is an absolute moral offence – it is always wrong, regardless of the amount or the circumstances. There is no right anywhere to nick "just a little bit". Speeding, on the other hand, is an offence of degree. Driving a car in a forward direction per se is not wrong – for it to be a legal offence depends on both the absolute speed and the location.

_________________
"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

You make a very good point about the moral basis of the offence. Driving dangerously (whether or not this involves exceeding a speed limit) could be held to be morally unacceptable.

Maybe this distinction could be used to divide motoring offences into two categories. Ones considered morally wrong might be punishable by points or a ban while "technical" offences might result in only fines being imposed. This would probably answer the perceived injustice of the proverbial "3 points for 35mph" situation.

Do you think many people would go to court to challenge alleged speeding offences if no points were at stake?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I could get us all off topic by saying I'm sure I could think of instances on the cusp, but...

I agree with malcolmw entirely. One thing I have been posting on the 'HMG Your Freedom' website is the single word "intent" in reply to people who want to know why those convicted of death by careless driving aren't treated like murderers by the courts.

My personal opionion is that punishment should take no, or less, account of consequences and more account of intent. Nobody sets out to cause a road accident by doing 35 in a 30 limit. Anyone who carries a weapon into a nightclub has bad outcomes in mind.

There is, of course, the concept of recklessness as well. If you overtake on blind bends or choose to drive when twice the legal alcohol limit, you may not have any intent to cause death or injury to others, but you are behaving in a way that obviously greatly increases the chances of that happening – you are indifferent to the consequences of your actions.

_________________
"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

Before you guys go too far down this fantastic journey your fundamental premise is incorrect at the outset. The Government, DfT to be exact, have never equated speeding with burglary as you suggest here. They have said that they wish to make speeding as unacceptable as drink-driving. Some in DfT have also added as unacceptable as not wearing a seat belt but the official line is that referring to drink-driving.

Carry on...over-and-out!

Mrs Spence http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=23017 certainly goes as far as to equate exceeding the speed limit with vandalism

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

My point is not invalidated by your assertion as I was trying to make a general comparison by using the word "like" in front of "burglary". As JTB notes above, the issue is intent.

In any event, I would expect that the vast majority of people would consider drink driving MUCH more serious than exceeding a speed limit and probably morally indefensible.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Could we please make a distiction, as we make distinction between "exceeding the speed limit" and speeding, between drink driving and drunken driving?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Different situation, drinking will impair your driving well before you are drunk.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

I still think that calling a driver who has had a small glass of wine a"drunken driver",with all the emotional overtones of that phrase, is inappropriate.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Sorry, I meant in the sense that a drink driver is usually taken to be over the limit as measured by a machine and a drunken driver is one who has been drinking and is clearly incapable of operating a vehicle safely. In the first case at some point their driving will be significantly impaired though they may not appear to be drunk.

It depends if you want to define a drink driver as one whom has had any alcohol before driving or perhaps having impaired driving ability due to drink even below the limit.

I still do not think it is a good comparison with speeding in the sense that a drivers speed in relation to a safe speed will vary during a drive, however, ignoring metabolic processes, the safety impairment due to drink will be continuous.

In case it is not obvious I am not arguing against you as much as working through it with you.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

In case it is not obvious I am not arguing against you as much as working through it with you.[/quote]
Yes I can see that

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I didn't really want to get involved in this pointless debate however you have invited a response here.

Mrs. Spence is a Chief Constable and plays no part in the Government of the country; as I understand it there is a special arrangement to ensure Chief Constables do not do so.

Having said that there is no part in the article you refer to that links Government intent to link speeding with offences, you the OP or Mrs. Spence have mentioned.

Before it goes too far the false premise, in my opinion needed to be highlighted. There is also another false premised in this thread and that is that public attitude is against the speed enforcement system; half a dozen members of a few websites and a few conservative MP's and journo's the public does not make.

Here's another, "alienating the police", in general not so. Isolated incidents perhaps, but general public alienation, not a chance; you are way off.

Any-road-up...carry on

Lets see then-

Taking "drunken driver" to mean one that is a safety risk due to alcohol irrespective of the limit or the normal definition of drunken and "drink driver" as one that is over the limit but not unsafe.

You probably could equate drunken with too fast for the conditions and drink with over the limit.

I do not think that is how most people would define drink and drunk though.


Back towards the OT, if you want to compare speeding with another offence I would say exposing yourself in a public place is similar (not sure what the actual offence is called though). Doing it is only really a problem if someone else is around to be affected by it or if you give yourself frostbite or hypothermia and use up hospital and police resources.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Not a good example. The Sexual Offences Act of 2003 removed the old term "Indecent Exposure" as defined in the 1956 Act. It doesn't mention public nudity and only applies only to "aggressive genital exposure with intent to shock those who want not to see the genitals". So it isn't offence unless someone is offended.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

E
Then perhaps it is good comparison for how exceeding the speed limit should be treated. If it is not going to affect anyone then it is not an offence.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

It is not offend anyone rather than not affect anyone. Do you really think that you could find a stretch of road where someone wouldn't be offended by your speeding. Members of rake would flock to be offended.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I usually go for the "does the tree exist if no one is there to see it" approach. If someone deliberately seeks out experiences to take offence at their sanity is questionable.

You are now trying to make the two offences the same rather than similar and use the conjunction of the words offend and offence to imply a relationship which does not apply to both.

By exposing themselves wilfully with the intent to cause offense the perpetrator commits the offence.

With speeding it would not be causing offense but endangerment which is the offence, so I would have to deliberately or carelessly endanger the Brakies/Brakers/Brakites/Brakettes.

Given my observations would alert me to the presence of a hazard providing they were not concealing themselves with intent to cause a hazard, to whit people who have no clue how to behave/drive on a road, I would no doubt be travelling at well under the speed limit in their proximity. If they chose to deliberately leap out from concealment into my path then my only problem should be seeking redress from their estate. Before you say it, in areas with a high probability of people or vehicles being able to emerge from concealment I would be highly unlikely to be breaking the speed limit, however if they get the timing right then being driven over by a ton of car is going to be bad for their health at any speed.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

It's also strange, that the vast majority of drivers (80plus%) I believe, admit to exceeding speed limits at some time, so maybe not so many are in favour of speed limit enforcement, as you would like to believe.

As for driving over the alcohol limit and exceeding a speed limit the acts are totally different.

If you choose to drive home from the pub, over the alcohol limit, you are commiting that offence for the entire journey, whether it be 100yards or fifty miles. Any other person that you encounter on your journey will meet you at that state and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

If , on the other hand, you decide to exceed the speed limt, you are doing that for only the time and distance that YOU feel is safe to do so. If you then meet a crowd of pedestrians, sheep, a broken down vehicle, fallen treeetc.etc. in the road ahead, you have the ability to modify your driving at the time, which is something that is impossible when you take into account your drink consumption level.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.