Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Nov 10, 2025 03:31

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Discussion Forums » Speed, Safety, Driving and The Law

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 17 of 18
  [ 359 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
lizard
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 15:44
Posts: 25
johnsher wrote:
lizard wrote:
Someone who drifts from 70 up to 72 won't even get flashed; someone who exceeds by a vast amount will be prosecuted.

not yet anyway... take a look at Victoria where they've reduced the threshold to 2mph. Then there's the errors from the various devices used to "prove" that you're speeding.


Yeah, it wouldn't take Freeman to knock that over in court. A 2mph threshold is ludicrous and I would fully expect anyone done for 1 or 2mph over to challenge it in court.

lizard wrote:
Quote:
However, the law has to legislate for the boy racers who would take advantage of a change in the law to speed through towns at 70+.

ignoring that they can do that now if they really want to, the law already has provision for them - either dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention would cover that.

A policeman following you can pull you over and tell you you're an idiot. A camera can't calculate your speed with 100% accuracy nor tell if it's dangerous nor stop you from continuing your dangerous activities.


This is true. Also careless driving.

Perhaps boy racers is a bit of an exaggeration because as you rightly say, someone who is really driving dangerously should be pulled over.

I think the people I'm talking about are those who have recently passed their test, think they're the bees knees with their new car, but in reality are not as good as they think they are, and lack the experience that tells them when they are going too fast for the conditions - or even, if they follow the speed of the safe and experienced, lack the experience to know when a hazard becomes likely and to put themselves on red alert.

You can't legislate solely for the safe and experienced, you have to legislate to include people who can't be trusted to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
civil engineer
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:23 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
Come on.

The only reason there is an offence of speeding and that it's an absolute offence is that it gives the power to the police.

IMHO there should be no speeding offences only careless/dangerous driving where the speed should be proven to be innapropriate.

The speeding offences allow the police to decide whether to persue the matter onr not safe in the knowledge that there is no need to prove mens rea etc.

The law would have been intended to make a policeman's job easier and allow him/her to exercise their judgement. I doubt very much that automated and absolute enforcement was envisaged at the time of it's drafting.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
pogo
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:31 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
lizard wrote:
The law has to work like that. Most people don't thieve, but the Theft Act still exists, it's there for the lowest common denominator.

So you'd be happy for the full weight of the Theft Act to be applied to people who take a few paperclips or a biro home from the office? It's an equivalent sanction. Indeed, you could say it was less so, as drivers drift over the limit by mistake and get done, it's a concious decision to take the paperclips.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
SafeSpeed
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
lizard wrote:
You can't legislate solely for the safe and experienced, you have to legislate to include people who can't be trusted to walk and chew gum at the same time.


I couldn't agree more. It isn't the legislation that's causing all the trouble, it's the enforcement practice. Have a look at this old Safe Speed page: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html

In the past a Police Officer HAD TO make a judgement about wether a prosecution was worthwhile in every single case. That system served us very well indeed.

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
Jub Jub
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:33 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:13
Posts: 319
SafeSpeed wrote:
Jub Jub wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Linking back to the C+ discussion:

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topi ... ichpage=44

Cunobelin on C+ wrote:

THis I can never understand -

What is wrong with targetting drivers?

If there is somewhere where drivers are breaking the law and you target that area, surely it is good practice?

To suggest that you should not put speed cameras or mobile units where the drivers are speeding is a bit like suggesting that Police with experience of serial killers shouldn't go near Ipswich!

This is what annoys me most with SafeSpeed and Press stories as above - why are we so against law enforcement?


It's fairly tragic that they form their opinions about us without having even the most basic understanding of our case. For the benefit of C+ readers and lurkers the answer is as follows:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with targetting drivers who cause danger. That's what we want too.

But, and it's a very big but, any slice we take through the road safety data shows that there's an awful lot of 'speeding' out there that doesn't cause danger. One simple example is that DfT says that around 60% of vehicles are 'speeding' at sample sites, while only 5% of crashes involve a speeding vehicle.

Now the real road safety battleground is road users minds, and virtually nowhere else. Actions speak louder than words, and where it really matters - in the daily experience (and hence the minds) of road users - speed cameras are (say) 95% of the experience of road safety policy.

Thus speed cameras cause a gross distortion of safety priority in the minds of road users. Effectively we're misdirecting the most important road safety resource of all. By applying (say) 95% of the effort to 5% of the problem we're missing the opportunity to land resources on the real problems.

Road safety policy MUST be well aligned with real causes of danger, because when it isn't we squander life saving resources.


A lovely speech. That completely avoids the question.

What is wrong with targetting drivers who break the current laws?

Perhaps you need to read the 'lovely speech' again. Why not paste it to C+ for discussion?

Jub Jub wrote:
Oh, and while you're at it, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question over on the dark side.

I am not going to assist you in your warped quest to slur my character.


1) Do it yourself.

2) Guilty by your silence. The evidence is there and the onus is on you to prove otherwise. It is clearly there for all to see, so it makes no difference to me at all if you don't explain yourself.


Last edited by Jub Jub on Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:36, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
lizard
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 15:44
Posts: 25
That's an interesting analogy, but I don't think the "full weight" of the law is thrown at those who drift over the limit. I thought <5mph over and there was no action, and then levels of punishment according to the excess speed.

If an employer did prosecute an employee for stealing paperclips they would probably get a caution or a FPN (yes, you can get those for offences other than speeding now).
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Jub Jub
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:35 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:13
Posts: 319
johnsher wrote:
Jub Jub wrote:
A lovely speech. That completely avoids the question.
What is wrong with targetting drivers who break the current laws?



One problem is the black & white application of the law. As it stands at the moment there is absolutely no difference between somebody who accidentally exceeds the limit for a split second and someone who drives like a complete nutter. You've already admitted in this thread that you drift over the limit on the odd occassion. Would you be happy to lose your licence for that?


There is a difference. There is an allowance made for those who accidentally exceeds the limit for a split second. And besides, I wouldn't lose my license, and I would be completely responsible for my actions.
Top
 Profile  
 
lizard
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:42 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 15:44
Posts: 25
SafeSpeed wrote:
lizard wrote:
You can't legislate solely for the safe and experienced, you have to legislate to include people who can't be trusted to walk and chew gum at the same time.


I couldn't agree more. It isn't the legislation that's causing all the trouble, it's the enforcement practice. Have a look at this old Safe Speed page: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html

In the past a Police Officer HAD TO make a judgement about wether a prosecution was worthwhile in every single case. That system served us very well indeed.


Gosh, I think I'm agreeing with you. :o

Now a member of the CPS has to make a judgement about whether a prosecution is worthwhile in every single case. The difference is that it won't be that clerk who has to attend court and explain to an irate judge exactly what he thought he was doing when he decided that it was worth pursuing a minor offence. Also, the CPS have targets of successful prosecutions where the police never did, so if they round up and prosecute speeding drivers, drug addicts, shoplifters, people with mental health problems (a favourite for 'threatening words and behaviour'), ASBO breaches and so on, then their success rate goes up.

I still think cameras can have a role to play as they're not mutually exclusive with extra police. End to end cameras like they have in France could also be useful in the enforcement part.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
pogo
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:44 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
lizard wrote:
That's an interesting analogy, but I don't think the "full weight" of the law is thrown at those who drift over the limit. I thought <5mph over and there was no action, and then levels of punishment according to the excess speed.

It's supposed to be limit + 10% + 2mph, so 35 in a 30, 46 in a 40 etc... However, it very easy briefly to do 35 in a 30, especially as an unrepresentative proportion of cameras seem to be positioned on down-gradients.

lizard wrote:
If an employer did prosecute an employee for stealing paperclips they would probably get a caution or a FPN (yes, you can get those for offences other than speeding now).

I know, I read "Bystander", the blog of a JP.

But, by and large, the "full weight" is thrown at a motorist who makes a brief error. £60 and 1/4 of your license is a heavy penalty for what is essentially an administrative offence. Do it 4 times in 3 years and you can be out of a job, home, marriage... Reading "Bystander" tends to indicate that for non-motoring petty offences you have to get well into double-figures before the bench will do anything even vaguely "draconian".

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
lizard
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 15:44
Posts: 25
pogo wrote:
I know, I read "Bystander", the blog of a JP.

But, by and large, the "full weight" is thrown at a motorist who makes a brief error. £60 and 1/4 of your license is a heavy penalty for what is essentially an administrative offence. Do it 4 times in 3 years and you can be out of a job, home, marriage... Reading "Bystander" tends to indicate that for non-motoring petty offences you have to get well into double-figures before the bench will do anything even vaguely "draconian".


Hmmmm, it should be a one off though shurely? Exceed the limit by 10% +2mph 4 times in 3 years and perhaps your observation is too poor for you to be on the roads?

With non-motoring petty offences you generally still get a criminal record, which you don't with driving offences. The order is generally caution - fine - fine - CPO - probation - CPO - prison. A first fine would be £40 - 60 plus about £100 costs but they go up pretty quickly. I know which I'd prefer.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
civil engineer
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:50 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
So Jub Jub your point is that the law is the law and regardless of it's effectiveness or the effectivemness of it's application there should be 100% compliance or the consequences should be faced?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
SafeSpeed
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
lizard wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
lizard wrote:
You can't legislate solely for the safe and experienced, you have to legislate to include people who can't be trusted to walk and chew gum at the same time.


I couldn't agree more. It isn't the legislation that's causing all the trouble, it's the enforcement practice. Have a look at this old Safe Speed page: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html

In the past a Police Officer HAD TO make a judgement about wether a prosecution was worthwhile in every single case. That system served us very well indeed.


Gosh, I think I'm agreeing with you. :o

Now a member of the CPS has to make a judgement about whether a prosecution is worthwhile in every single case.


Except the CPS prosecute virtually every speeding case with 'complete' evidence. That's what they are asked to do.

When the Police made the judgement the prosecution never started until a Police officer decided it was worthwhile. And speeders have always been plentyful. All the decent cops would pick who to prosecute on the basis of observing risky driving. It's this crucial 'danger test' that used to make the speed limit laws worthy of respect and the absence of it that makes them ridiculous and misleading.

We're being asked to expend very substantial and important resources in driving LEGALLY instead of SAFELY. Unfortunately they are the same resources.

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
lizard
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 19:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 15:44
Posts: 25
I suppose my question would be what's wrong with driving legally AND safely?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
pogo
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 20:00 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
lizard wrote:
Hmmmm, it should be a one off though shurely? Exceed the limit by 10% +2mph 4 times in 3 years and perhaps your observation is too poor for you to be on the roads?

Some people do a lot of miles. In 4 years a professional driver could easily do over a quarter of a million miles, and that's an error rate of once every 60,000 miles...

lizard wrote:
With non-motoring petty offences you generally still get a criminal record, which you don't with driving offences.

True. But doers it make that much difference if you're out of a job?

lizard wrote:
The order is generally caution - fine - fine - CPO - probation - CPO - prison. A first fine would be £40 - 60 plus about £100 costs but they go up pretty quickly. I know which I'd prefer.

It's not the money... It's the danger of losing your licence. Courts jumpt through a lot of hoops before they seriously contemplate removing someone's liberty or livelyhood. For a motorist it can be four bangs of a rubber stamp and you're out on your ear...

I'd be a little less "anti" if I thought that camera enforcement actually achieved anything other than keeping a load of CSP employees off the street. Over 2 million lots of points issued every year and toss-all improvement in accident stats.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
SafeSpeed
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 20:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
lizard wrote:
I suppose my question would be what's wrong with driving legally AND safely?


People are NOT doing it and never have. DfT says 60% of vehicles are speeding at sample sites on most road types.

The authorities have to decide if it's worth addressing, and if it is, what means of addressing it will make the roads safer.

Unfortunately they have failed in that duty by following a 'it's the law' path of least resistence - they never made a proper decision. Doubly unfortunately, we now know it was the wrong path. The cure has been FAR worse than the disease.

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
Graeme
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 21:16 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 09:13
Posts: 771
mpaton2004 wrote:
Graeme wrote:
This really came home to me driving up the M42m with the dozens of camera gantries on it. I was in the flow of traffic and of course it's dangerous NOT to go at the speed of the flow, which was right on the limit of 50. I was EXTREMELY concious of having to watch my speedo in case I drifted over into "criminal" territory. I felt a lot less safe than I do normally. They can be a very serious distraction.


I thought those cameras were all dummies and only the M25 ATM cameras were live?

I drove both sections last night on my way to Heathrow. One thing that caught my attention was the use of the NSL sign on the gantries which is an inverse of the physical sign. Is that an approved sign?


They're not dummies but I don't think they're type approved although I think they might be on when there's restrictions in place.

I think dummies or switched off cameras are as bad as live ones, the psychological effect is the same & you never really know if they're live or not.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Parrot of Doom
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 23:51 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 23:56
Posts: 252
Location: Manchester
Can't any of you see that Jub Jub aka Mister Paul is just trolling for effect? He keeps linking to this page so his acolytes on C+ can have a laugh at everybody's expense.

The facts are quite simple Jub Jub. Speed cameras exist to make money and create jobs for people. They don't do anything other than take pictures for evidence.

Instead of berating Paul's efforts, why don't you try proving the case for speed cameras? Why don't you try and demonstrate a link between speeding and road traffic accidents, and then tell us why this link would be more important than the 95% of other crashes?

I tell you what, in your "the law is the law and all laws must be applied equally" mind, lets take the 100-strong team off the murders in Ipswich, and re-assign them to litter patrol. Because littering is illegal, littering can produce fines, the fines can then be used to pay for more police. Young women will still get murdered, but hey, at least those litterers are being penalised for breaking the law.


This thread started off quite well, but I knew from the start that it would degenerate into a load of bollocks - which it has.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
lizard
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 00:14 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 15:44
Posts: 25
SafeSpeed wrote:
lizard wrote:
I suppose my question would be what's wrong with driving legally AND safely?


People are NOT doing it and never have. DfT says 60% of vehicles are speeding at sample sites on most road types.

The authorities have to decide if it's worth addressing, and if it is, what means of addressing it will make the roads safer.

Unfortunately they have failed in that duty by following a 'it's the law' path of least resistence - they never made a proper decision. Doubly unfortunately, we now know it was the wrong path. The cure has been FAR worse than the disease.


So taking into account what you - and Pogo - have said about people not obeying the law regardless of cameras, that cameras achieve nothing and may make things worse, what would you propose as a road safety campaigner to encourage people to drive safely and legally?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
SafeSpeed
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 01:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
lizard wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
lizard wrote:
I suppose my question would be what's wrong with driving legally AND safely?


People are NOT doing it and never have. DfT says 60% of vehicles are speeding at sample sites on most road types.

The authorities have to decide if it's worth addressing, and if it is, what means of addressing it will make the roads safer.

Unfortunately they have failed in that duty by following a 'it's the law' path of least resistence - they never made a proper decision. Doubly unfortunately, we now know it was the wrong path. The cure has been FAR worse than the disease.


So taking into account what you - and Pogo - have said about people not obeying the law regardless of cameras, that cameras achieve nothing and may make things worse, what would you propose as a road safety campaigner to encourage people to drive safely and legally?


There's a manifesto: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/manifesto.html

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
johnsher
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 01:18 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
lizard wrote:
So taking into account what you - and Pogo - have said about people not obeying the law regardless of cameras, that cameras achieve nothing and may make things worse, what would you propose as a road safety campaigner to encourage people to drive safely and legally?

hammering COAST into people would be a good start - some may need repeated application. One thing I've noticed is that as your observation improves your speed in marginal situations diminishes substantially. This is especially noticeable when riding to/from work as the idiots (the ones on bikes in this situation) can easily show themselves by belting past at "no chance in hell if that pedestrian about to step out from between stationary traffic decides not to look" speeds.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 17 of 18
  [ 359 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

Board index » Discussion Forums » Speed, Safety, Driving and The Law

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.087s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]