Safe Speed Forums

Thought I would just post the important bit.

Presumably though - there will be the "POLICE Speed Enforcement/Monitoring" signs which we put up on our patch of the A1(M) along with the SLOW DOWN on our "dodgier" urbans. As for our rurals..

You would need a lot a cameras - all of which would work out more expensive than real police in the reality of capital expenditure and labour/admin costs - along with the police wasting resources tracking down those daft enough to fib or concoct wild stories to get out of the fine. If this goes on for those earning their first three points - I do have to wonder about further stupidity on the part of some.

But then 15 mph above the lolly in this area never earned the FPN around here. Press or rather those pro-cams accuse us of "not doing much for road safety because we have a low FPN return." Err.. we have a higher than normal return for prosecuting for much more serious traffic offences - and 15 mph above the lolly in a 30mph zone would earn the hapless driver copped by us into a pit filled with poo!




So why not reduce the points for blippers down to two points and a lower fine down to the originally proposed £40 - if all this is really about bringing us in line with France and Germany and increasing the fixed fine correspondingly along with incremental points as appears to be the case on the mainland continent.

But all the same - we have been draconian with those who try our patience in the past and will continue to be so.




True. Mostly driver error at slip roads and lane changes. Too many just never look around them

We do seem to come back to fails in COAST skills on the part of all who have a collision - including police officers when they also have collisions whether on duty or not on duty

COAST .. alas .. requires the constant attention .. Too many become complacent.




Where most of us do our daily business... in the towns.. on the roads where we live.

Driving and even cycling at an appropriate speed matters in these areas and we have always leaned hard on those who blat along.

Having said that - we have been known to prosecute the person at the speed limit.. but still too fast for the actual condition - under the "inconsiderate driving" charge

Back then to professional judgement of a properly trained professional who can at least try to prevent and try to educate then




I would not like to hedge bets on that on our patch though

We usually stop for a word at above whatever our threshold may be .. and I am not saying as I do not want folks to start "testing us"



Indeed - from the stats - I would appear to be correct in constantly hammering COAST on here.


Yes... I think we offer a decent professional judgement up here. Our public do not engage in bashing us over much anyway (Apart from certain pro-s/camera folk who think we are "soft" but know little about the deeper hard strength in our "policing by consent approach" here.



Which was a little daft - but then we could have issued these points on silly 1-2 mph blips as they do in Switzerland (Ahh.. that's why the prefers to be over here .. )




I agree with this opinion.






What? FPN for CARELESS We keep our roads safer by really hitting the careless twazak harder .... but having said that - we will offer those who are careless a "get out of fine" card - by offering DIS to them all the same.




Oh and "toughen the regime for drink driving?"

Well.. It's a regular "campaign of the month" here already. And still they .. take that chance

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Groan.



Another example of guilty until proved innocent. This FPN stuff to reduce court costs just undermines justice.

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

All of this just shows how thick and stupid the Press, the AA, and RAC are, and how mendacious and devious are the politicians. This is absolutely nothing to do with more severe penalties because speeding at the excess speeds mentioned was always a summons offence with an appearance in front of the Bench, and not subject to fixed penalties. No, it is everything to do with making it much easier and cheaper to collect the cash, but you wont hear that from the lips of this devious minister.

The fixed penalty system for motoring was originally intended for minor, lower motoring offences, but has now been extended so as to essentially close off the courts from any involvement in virtually all motoring offences, just as was done with parking. If the offences mentioned are so serious as to warrant the additional points, surely the magistrates are already handing them out, so why the change ?

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

who like to sell papers.


Beware an off topic ant on my part . If you do not wish to read a rant .. skim over for now

But somehow my RANTING does underpin your comment as to the PRESS!

As you know - they - the PRESS - tried to make out we were "bad lads" in July when some idiot car thief (let's be blunt and say it as it is) decided to do a runner on us - by ramming the central reserve and crossing into the opposite carriageway.

Then there was the biker who refused to stop.. and even though colleagues in Manchester tried their level best to stop him safely - he .. ended up dead with accusations galore of "hounded to death"


Not to mention the 100 mph cops in Lancs (who I will admit in public were plain STUPID and CPS does not EVER decide to charge ANY PERSON with "DANGEROUS" unless they are relatively sure of winning through in court. We usually go for the lesser charge of CARELESS for which we have always a better chance of conviction - even if we know .. deep down.. that the person behaved DANGEROUSLY.

But yesterday.. in the Waily ... I read of the 100 mph cop who killed a woman at twice the speed lolly in a 30 mph zone. Errrr.... I do not know about when or how or WHY he hit the alleged 100 mph .. but 2 x 30 =60 mph. Now I know that's bad driving .. but it's still 40 mph LESS than the headline


I fully admit that I do not condone such behaviour. I joined the UK Police Force (with the Met initially) at a time when it was drilled into me as a raw recruit that whatever I did on or off duty reflected on my employer .. the POLICE.. and as an officer I had and HAVE an obligation to conduct my lifestyle as befits a professional person charged with upholding justice and the law.



Both organisations try to be apolitical and they perhaps try to appease their members




The politicians play to whoever they think may vote for them

Since when has a politician been "honest" with the public and not been playing for votes. and personal popularity?




True. Here .. we have offered a verbal FPN at above the normal threshold - but that is always down to each individual professional's judgement of what was actually observed in the road condition as prevailed at the time. - COUGH! It really does sometimes depend on what we - based on that certain professional drilling - will concede as warranting just a little leeway - but we will note the that driver's details and woe betide him if we do cop him again


Conversely we have charged folk with driving too slowly and we have also charged folk for careless or inconsiderate driving when "legal to the lolly"



Still say it has more to do with EU in reality though

I and my colleagues will have issues with Fixed on the spot fines for careless driving though as we happen to think such driving actually does KILL or harm folksd out there




Indeed. Magistrates and higher courts can either dismiss the case or issue penalties at three points upwards - with higher fines plus court costs. :roll;

Cut off for offer at FPN was normally at 15 mph above the lolly for prat areas. Durham and N Yorks do it "their way" - which we think fair and just ... and SAFETY -led. You may not then be so safe at a lower margin if we think - from a professional stance - that it was not a wise choice If on a road empty apart from the tempted hooner and the police car.."attitude test" plays a part .. and acceptance of COAST .. . along with "professional judgement" - but again you are up against the actual individual and how he or she sees the situation


But we do at least try to be fair .. and offer folk dignity and a sense of fair played out justice all the same.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

As long as pedestrians/kids continue to behave like this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7598674.stm

And there are crazy people out there like this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7636577.stm

There will be deaths on the road no matter how many points they dish out.

The first video shows multiple students of a school completely ignoring any basic road safety knowledge (notice the two using the road instead of pavement initially) until one eventually pays the price. I wonder how many of those around him learned from that day?

---

They need to have a serious re-focus of efforts from speeding to driver quality and pedestrian awareness. Bring back the Green Cross Code, stop blaming motorists for all incidents and make the practical driving exam tougher - enough of this crappy theory/video testing stuff.

Regardless of where I travel in the UK (except maybe North Wales, but I have no inclination to go there), I have always driven with the "maximum figure" of 80mph in mind (conditions permitting of course) without having to worry about getting nicked for it.
I think anything more than 80mph and plod may start to get a little excitable.

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

This is getting rather silly and the ensuing results will be worrying.

I forsee:

A spiralling Social Security bill when even more drivers lose their licences/jobs/homes and perhaps families

An entire army of bailiffs being needed to collect unpaid fines

An increase in those driving whilst disqualified

More and more cloned/altered numberplates

Serious attacks on traffic/enforcement officers ramping up when they attempt to issue tickets/penalties

A considerable increase in the prison population of this nation

More vandalism on the instruments of torture ie. cameras and perhaps even camera vans

A continuing breakdown of the police/public relationship - perhaps to the point where the police are no longer able to leave the station without being armoured/armed

Finally - A total breakdown of law and order once folks are denied the fundamental right to travel legitimately

What's that I hear you say?.......It can't happen here in good old Blighty....................really..?

I commute between Stockport and Cheshire via the A34 bypass. The speed limit on this rural dual carriageway is 50 when it should sensibly be 70. Apart from whilst passing one Gatso in each direction, I would estimate that the average speed is around 65. Many people drive faster than this. This idea would work wonders for congestion reduction I guess, since most people would lose their licence within days, but I'm far from clear how it would lead to "safer" driving.

_________________
Brian

My stars man, it's ILLEGAL to break the speed limit; it's not a "legitimate" way to travel.

Do you really want to defend people travelling at over 45 in a 30? Seriously?

Weepy, why do you have this unhealthy obsession with speed?

I'll ask you another question, why do you defend people who travel dangerously on our roads?

Because I and my loved ones use the roads, on which there is an incredible amount of carnage day in day out, and I think if people slow down and give themselves more more time to make driving decisions (as well as not going so fast int he first place if there ever is a coming together) there wil be less carnage.

I notice you ignored the important bit, but my hopes weren't high, never mind, here goes:

Me and mine do too, but the carnage has nothing to do with speed, as proved by govt. stats year in year out.

Space gives time, not speed. If I were to travel 2ft from the bumper of a car doing 30 I would have less time to react than if I were 300ft from a car doing 100mph. So once again speed is not a factor, not tailgaiting is a factor.

You actively encourage the increase in carnage on the road by supporting the arbitrary automatic enforcement of trivial offences. In doing so the numbers of traffic police who detect real crimes are reduced. Thus I say it again, why do you defend people who travel dangerously on our roads?

[edit spelling]

I think what you need to consider is speed is responsible for 12% of accidents if everybody drove at an appropriate speed there would be 12% of 3000 lives saved. = 360 lives. Which on the surface makes a very compelling argument for ruthlessly enforcing speed limits.

The problem is however that 2/3 of those 360 lives are taken by people driving at an inappropriate speed within the speed limit. Which means total compliance within the speed limit would probably save around a 120 lives a year.

The 120 lives you save must be a good thing but there is a huge but! What steps are being taken to save the other 2880 lives? Don't they deserve to be saved? The number of people dying on the roads as a result of this fixation with speed is a national scandal.

Enforcement is not with out consequences for society either. If you ban people within 2 transgressions it means a percentage of those banned are going to operate outside the law. Sure some will accept the ban with good grace and heed the law, but the inconvenience will mean some will push the law and until they receive a custodial sentence.

While they are pushing their luck driving outside the law they don't need insurance for starters, possibly no MOT and no Tax and they are likely to have even less regard for traffic laws which makes them statistically far more dangerous than people within the law.

Also it’s a numbers game if you push it too far it will simply become very difficult to maintain the rule of law as there won't be enough custodial places. Then what do you do? Plus you've inadvertently turned a lesser offence into a whole array of serious offences.

These new digital systems provide blanket coverage in some areas and even people here are unaware of how they are going operate. I know one stretch of road which is going to be covered and if enforced to the limit will result in 10,000s of tickets a day. Will it save 1 life on this stretch? I seriously doubt it as the speed limit is already too set to low and hardly anyone observes it and even so there are very few accidents. It does however present an opportunity to generate a lot of revenue.

[quote="gpmgroup



I think what you need to consider is speed is responsible for 12% of accidents

[/quote]


Can you please reveal your source ---- or SHUT UP

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Sure I can dig the figures out. In the meantime perhaps you would be kind enough to offer a figure or a % range you feel is more likely to be correct as you clearly have taken great exception to my post.

I am curious do you personally think the figure is too low or too high and by how much?

yOU QUOTED 12% - JUSTIFY IT

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I will no worries but I need to get the base stats because I wouldn't want to give derived figures

In the meantime I'm curious to see what an experienced Gold member like yourself thinks the figure might be?

Come on - it will be interesting to compare the figures? Or if you don't feel comfortable giving a figure in public shoot me to a link to some stats that shows my figures are wrong

I was hoping an esteemed Gold member with almost 6000 post was going to offer something constructive....

I can not find the website with the source of the original figures from which my calculations were derived. I will search again and when I get chance I will add these figures and calculations and to my soon to be launched website http://www.collision.info

In the mean time here are 2 derived figures one from each side of the figures I gave. Given all 3 result have not quoted a decimal place, the implied level of precision shows I believe all 3 results have a high correlation and therefore evidence convergent validity.

The figures I gave were 12% of accidents caused by inappropriate speed which led to 4% given by 2/3 of the 12% being caused by inappropriate speed within the speed limit rather than exceeding the speed limit.

So here are two article you may wish to read which give 5% and 3% derived figures respectively. Slightly above and below my 4% figure

(I've highlight the points to help you find the points where 5% is mentioned)
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:0xGE ... cd=1&gl=uk

The 3% is shown in the large table
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... hines.html
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/10/ ... 33x696.jpg (A image of the table by itself)

Given the sources of each of these figures perhaps you can be a little more accepting of their derived figures.