Safe Speed Forums

I would like to ask all of you motorists this question.

What speed do you think that you should be able to drive at in a 30mph limit before you get prosecuted,forget about things like,time of day dry road, no pedestrians etc,concentrate on the actual speed limit.

Stephen

At about 30mph +/-20 or so.


I don't think you can. If 40 is safe then I'd hope you BiBs would give me about 11mph leeway. But if I drive at 29 when it's patently unsafe to do so then I deserve a ticket. It's that simple. Actually I deserve a lecture about my driving off you or IanH or In Gear, which is just as well as I wouldn't actually get a ticket. Sorry, I know that isn't answering your question. If you're asking what is a fair prosecution threshold then I'd say where we are now is as good as any other arbitrarily chosen formula. Or perhaps it's just no worse. The concern I have is that any such formula always leaves a gaping hole for driving at an inappropriate speed below the limit.

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

hi

I would have to insist that prosecution should be in the interests of the public at large, and the penalty imposed proportionally to the danger presented.
Many 30 mph limits are wholly inappropriate or unecessary, while others are essential.

Maybe a speed limit ombudsman, with the power to judge on the necessity of limits could be the answer - with the power raise, or LOWER them if proved appropriate.
Here is one I would do away with - however since you cannot see the left hand lollipop, few take notice anyhow!

It's a 20 mph limit at Waterhead near Ambleside, and is universally derided, even in the national press!!

I dont know why use isn't made of tagging Dangerous Driving onto a speeding charge where it is appropriate.
In fact you could place an obligation on a driver to drive SAFELY, and take away speed limits altogether, and use D.D. to prosecute ALL "transgressions"

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

OK, let's put it in another context. If you weren't on speed duty, in other words you weren't purely checking speed and you were following in an unmarked car, what out of the following would you deem to be the greater danger.

1. Motorist travelling @35-40mph in 30 limit, no kids, no animals, no driveways etc,just lamposts, approaches stretch of parked cars on the left, slows down to 10-20mph, row of shops, kid runs out behind parked cars, driver seeing the kid brakes in time. After parked cars, driver speeds up to between 30-40mph, no obstructions because the driver has either anticipated them or is looking out for them etc. Enters NSL drives at 50-60, approaches a corner, 30 limit after the corner with a scamera van just after the sign, driver slams on brakes, doesn't care who's behind because license = work = money = living = life.

2. Motorist travelling @30mph in 30 limit, no kids, no animals, no driveways etc, just lamposts, driver looks behind at another motorist right up the tailpipe, no cars in front, driver approaches parked cars on the left, maintains 30mph driver misses the shops, the kids playing ball and the driveways, driver is safe because he/she is within the speed limit. Kid runs across road, driver is checking odomoter, kid gets hit, kid dies but the driver maintains that he/she was within the limit so was driving safely, the kid should have looked where he/she was going.

Kid1: 1980's ball goes out into the road, kid runs after it, stops, remembers the green cross code, lives

Kid2: 2000 ball goes out into the road, kid runs after it, doesn't know bugger all, dies.

Here is one limit 20 mph - and the vehicles are clearly exceeding way beyond ACPO guidelines - but in my opinion, perfectly safely, AS THEY DID BEFORE THE LIMIT WAS LOWERED without cause for concern!


CLICK the thumbnail to see the video

The 20 mph lolipop is in the hedge in front of the parked cars!! Not one of the passing cars slows to 20 mph. This is where somebody reported a motorist for sticking to the limit!!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I'd say 10% + 2mph ie 36 mph would be where you pulled someone. It would largely depend on the type of driver. If they otherwise seemed attentive and responsded well to hazards then they could be ignored. If they were showing signs of impatience or distraction then I'd pull them in lower. Any on mobile phones would be pulled even if they were travelling at 5mph

You can usually stay within +10% of any limit without looking at your speedo that often. The problems arise when the limit for the road is unnaturally low or when limits change where there doesn't seem to be a reason ie wide nsl road goes into a 30 a long time before the built up area starts. Unless the road was a dual carriageway then I'd say 45 would be better as urban dual carriageways shouldn't be less than 40 mph in my opinion.

If the person drives like a clot then any speed could be considered for a stiff talking to

The speed limit is irrelevant (to a point).

You know as well as I do that in order to progress safely from A to B, you have no choice but to take in a whole host of factors including (but not limited to) road conditions, road layout, street furniture, pedestrian activity, etc.

I could show you a "30" road where I live, where anybody travelling at more than 10mph would have to be certified insane. Likewise, I can also show you plenty of "30" roads where 40mph would be wholly acceptable.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Always aim to keep at or below 30. Won't claim to be 100% successful, but confident i keep it within 1 or 2 mph over.

When i started taking an interest in advanced driving about 15 years ago i read many articles, all had one common theme - stick to 30/40, but in NSL use your discretion.

As for level to be prosecuted at, that all depends on the manner of driving, if 35 is safe for the conditions then by all means pull them over and just warn them but why prosecute? Driving at 25mph doesn't make you safe if it too fast for the conditions. Of course this is the major flaw of speed cameras. Proper policing is needed, the benefits are long term but the cost is higher - road safety policy these days is led by short term views of balance sheets and budgets.

Problem is that unnecessary 30/40 limits are appearing as councils like to be seen to be doing something about accidents, even though most accidents would still happen regardless of any limit. After all if someone is not paying attention to the road ahead they will still not see the kid run out.

This is a very important question, but it's a question that has no answer. We have to learn from the fact that no adequate answer is possible and adapt our approach.

The process of prosecution is intended to punish riak-causing behaviours. As such it should be educational. It must send a message about risk. Unfortunately there's no fixed relationship between speed-over-the-limit and risk.

Therefore the right threshold for prosecution is when, in the opinion of a police officer, the speed in excess of the speed limit is also inappropriate and risky in the immediate circumstances.

Take 3 cases of 40mph in a .

1. Urban dual carriageway. 5am. Bright daylight. Deserted. NSL zone 200 yards ahead. No junctions. Guard rails on both sides. Straight. As close to a zero hazard environment as you could wish.

2. Normally busy urban arterial road. Single carriageway. Wide road, wide pavements. Well streetlit. No parked vehicles. School on left, but it's 3am and the place is deserted.

3. As number 2 except is now 8:45am. Car are parked and there are kids all over the place going to school.

Now let's say you're going through these zones in a marked job car in an emergency. I'm guessing you would find yourself doing something like:

1. 80mph
2. 65mph
3. 15mph

30mph speed limits just aren't created equal...

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

Sounds like just the sort of moronic driving over emphasis on the speed limit promotes.

It makes no sense to try to answer the question you've posed. The selection of a 'safe speed' necessarily takes account of all the factors you've asked us to ignore (and other you haven't mentioned).

Suppose I asked this question:

What degree of physical force is it acceptable for one person to use against another? Forget about things like self-defence, armed combat, sport, law enforcement, parent/child etc, concentrate on the actual degree of force used.

Paul's first and last comments quoted above get right to the heart of the problem. It seems to me that for speed limits to command some respect, they have to have some relevance to the location and circumstances. However they are only ever going to be blunt instruments of law enforcement if they are applied rigidly. What infuriates commonsense drivers (who incidentally, I believe are the majority) is the fact that speed limits seem in so many instances seem to be set totally arbitrarily. I know of an instance where an urban dual carrigeway has two sets of traffic lights, a bus station and a supermarket, all accessed from it and a limit of 40mph. ½ mile beyond, the hazards are gone and the speed limit is 30mph. It is patently untrue that speed limits are set in any orderly manner.
Without wanting to drift too far off Stephen's topic, surely modern technology is capable of providing for variable speed limits. These some to work well on the M25, though I must admit that I am only an occasional user of that road. We ought at least to be exploring the possibility elsewhere particularly on urban roads. The law enforcement agencies urgently need to get the majority of road users onside.

GW

I dont think Stephen's question is moronic.
Nobody has questioned why he asked it, and nothing in posts I have seen suggests he is grinding a particular axe.
However, the answers posed offer a degree of insight into the personalities of the respondants!
Paul, with his measured response, with detailed explanation is one approach - indicative of his usual manner, while ridiculing the question might be taken as a lack of understanding.
I am aware when I made a personal attack on the character of a SCP manager that some see it as offensive, while those that know me know that it is a direct response to the manner of the individual concerned, and has a purpose other than being merely insulting!!
I hope you all take my comments on board, and that it might help you if you meet Stephen or a colleague at the side of the road!!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I'll try to answer the question. It is how I have treated it all along.

One thing I was not asked to forget about was presence of human law enforcement. If I observe its presence, and am not on a life-or-death mission, I will pay due deference to the limit and add the limit to the numerous other orderings that may well be keeping me already beliw the limit.

If there are no BiB in the area, I will be at whatever speed is right taking account of all conditions, but paying only heads-up attention to speed limits per se, particularly if it is a road I know very well. That does NOT mean I will necessarily be exceeding the limit in such cases. Around here limits are reasonably sensibly set and, particularly in day time, are coincidental to what I term "my Safe Speed".

I therefore suggest that if a BiB observes me exceeding the speed limit - and I'm not talking gunning me from half a mile away here, I mean following or watching me fly past a junction he is approaching, then I rightly deserve to be pulled and perhaps prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit - and it serves me right for bad observation.

Variable speed limits have some value in improving average traffic speeds on congested motorways but they're not, imo, a viable road safety tool. A safe speed can NEVER be an arbitrary number, even if that number varies with traffic density or other external conditions. Only individual drivers can determine whether any given speed is 'safe'.

I agree with Observer here. I used to think a variable speed limit would be the bees knees. However, the more I think about it the more such a situation will encourage even more concentration on numbers and correspondingly even less on hazards.

I agree with Ernest regarding querying why the question was put and its true purpose. So Steven, can you give us some background thoughts?

It may be that I have misunderstood and that the question really is "What do you think is a reasonable tolerance above a 30mph limit before prosecution?"

However, I suspect I am wrong and there is more behind it than that.

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

There is one chap on the ABD who is really keen on variable speed limits, but, for the reasons given above, I tend to think they are a seriously bad idea except where used specifically to smooth out congestion on motorways and similar roads.

_________________
"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

I do agree that a safe speed does not derive from an arbitrary number. The problem is that, in the real world, I fear we are always going to have arbitrary numbers. If variable speed limits are impractical (and I think you may well be right on this) then how do we get some commonsense applied into the way speed limits are set? At present, some of the limits are just plain daft!

GW