Safe Speed Forums

Drivers caught breaking the speed limit buy 2 or 3 miles may get offered a SAC instead of prosecution. Somebody doing say 15MPH over the limit gets a summons, 3 points or more and a fine. The guy/women doing just a few miles over the limit due to a momentary lapse in concentration and who by and large obeys the speed limit is thought to need SAC and is most certainly not offered one.
The guy/woman who almost certainly knows he’s exceeding the speed limit on the road isn’t thought to need a SAC and is not offered one. IMO it’s the guy who shows completely disregard to the law and speed limits imposed who needs a SAC more than the guy/woman who drifted slightly above the speed limit.
Now I might be missing something here but can somebody explain to me why drifting few miles over the speed limit appears to be considered so bad as to require a SAC while the guy/woman who zooms around with complete disregard to speed limits isn’t?

_________________
Flash.
(Everybody is entitled to my opinion)

Only SCP can offer SAC courses. Our cam van team (who are trafpol ) can only offer when on that duty. If on normal patrol - they can offer DIS if they believe the person would benefit. Records show that plenty are offered both of these around here

I understand from the blurb on most SCP sites that they cut off at 35 mph (with the exception of Lancs who did update theirs to 10%+5 across the entire speed range - but are allegedly in some bother over the zero tolerance policy they had some time ago per another set of threads in the News section of this messageboard) For all that though - my understanding is that the Lancs course is at least thorough at 6 hours - 3 hours of COAST theory and 3 hours driving ) The issue there is not then the course - but the initial inviting at at a 35 mph cut off in 2002 which led to alleged investigations into their logic per the series of newpaper links within the thread in "News".






We can and do very often charge the serious blatter with a bit more than "speeding" - but it does rather depend on what the professional trafpol actually saw and a judged professionally based on the actual conditions. Usually - our uniformed officer can either issue a normal FPN or Summons. They can offer a DIS if they think of more benefit in their opinions. In all cases - our teams will explain the reason for their decision and discuss the standard of driving in polite, and firmly professional terms. No shouting!

Sadly though - SCP just take the photos .. process them and little other than bitter anger seems to be the outcome Plus the wide boys you speak of - well they know how to manipulate these cams...

_________________
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.

SACs are usually offered at speeds that wouldn't normally have got you done in the first place.

It's all about the money...

I cannot really comment .. I think overall this area plays it fair. I do get impression though that some areas do indeed over-egg the cake mix.

_________________
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.

I think that offering SACs to people who are a few miles over the limit is a tacit admition that they were not causing harm and don't deserve a punishment. But the simple dressing down by a police officer which would be more than adequate doesn't generate any income.

_________________
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

But Durham don't have a Safety Camera Team!

The candidates are maybe in need of some education that could be by a course or by police officer as you state but one gives an extended explanation and helful guide at the cost to the educated the other is a non-illuminating slap on the wrist at potentially a great cost to everyone.
Can you cost out the resource to treat say 50,000 drivers a year on a one-to-one basis by police officer?

I was actually thinking of the dressing down being given by the officer at the time he stopped the vehicle. But of course we are talking about camera prosecutions so that isn't appropriate. But I can't agree, having been on the end of them a couple of times, that a talking to by a traffic office isn't illuminating.

_________________
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

Trying asking the same about speed cameras - but instead assuming the tech providers/SCP PR staff hadn't hoodwinked the politicians/public about their effectiveness so not securing their cost recovery – you know, those nasty, awkward little effects like RTTM, long-term trends, bias on selection…

One of these enforcement methods merely detects only one type of technical infringement (which is independent of risk); the other detects and immediately halts all manner of anti-social, risky, inconsiderate and illegal behaviour - which aren't limited to driving offences, and don't lie about the effectiveness of their work!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Well I attended my SAC and I have to say it was quite good and I learnt a number of things. So all in all £60 SAC and no points was a licence saver for me. I did get to have a brief chat with one of the guys who was running the course and asked him a few questions. The gist of it and his his answer went something like this.

ME. The majority of people on this course are those who have strayed slightly over the speed limit they were not knowingly speeding and as you have said have been unlucky. IMO its those doing 15 MPH and more over the speed limit in 30mph zones that the police should be offering this course to.

Him. The police consider those doing those kind of speeds to be a "lost cause" and beyond educating.
(Now I find that a rather bizarre answer and totally unexpected)

ME. But those knowingly speeding IMO should be shown the errors of their ways and need to know they can't drive at such speeds and told the consequences of their actions in areas which are dangerous to do such high speeds.
HIM. They should be prosecuted and not have the chance of this course.

ME. No I mean by all mean fine them and give them points etc but put them on this course ( or something similar)
HIM. It would cost too much and there would lack of resources and venues.
ME. But THEY would be made to pay for the course like I have and as for lack of res courses and venues I fail to see that.

At that point the conversation ended and I got the distinct impression he didn't wish to continue with the discussion. Now make of the above what you will. However I found his excuses and reasoning rather flimsy to say the least.

_________________
Flash.
(Everybody is entitled to my opinion)

In my opinion sending some one on a speed awareness course is saying "We know that your behaviour was not dangerous and you do not deserve punishment. But in the current political climate we cannot just let you off."

_________________
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

Or to put it another way:

"We know that your behaviour was not dangerous and you do not deserve punishment.

But give us £60 anyway."

Is it not dangerous?

If the limit was observed with 100% compliance and the KSIs dropped isn't everybody that exceeds the limit in some part responsible for the extra KSIs?

Driving two or three mph over the speed limit is not usually dangerous. It can be in some circumstances - just as driving two or three mph below the speed limit can be dangerous - and I would expect the driver to be prosecuted rather than offered a SAC.



And if my Aunt had balls she would be my Uncle.

_________________
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

No. You've convoluted the infringements with the dangerous.
There's exceeding a needlessly low limit (i.e. in a manner considered reasonably predictable), and there's exceeding a limit where to do so genuinely is dangerous.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I just don't see how you can take single drivers into consideration though. The whole road's got to be looked at as a system.

We know drivers who are confronted with a hazourdous situation might avoid it, they might not. The might nots increase with higher average speeds (given the same hazard density).

Typical sophistry! I was talking about the difference between infringements and dangerous; why must those obsessed with speed always mix the two?
You might as well have said that commuters on motorways are no effectively different from joyriders in residential areas

To spell it out for you: if the limit was observed with 100% compliance and the KSIs dropped (assuming a valid and direct cause and effect), it shows that at least some of those who exceed the limit is in some part responsible for the extra KSIs; however, others who did the same but in a safe manner aren't - in short: some, but not "everybody"!
Your logical steps dictates there can be no safe manner to exceed the limit, which given the setting of many is clearly an absurd notion (motorways for example). Before you argue that, you're going to have to accept you're in the minority with that one (by the general population, not by the population of this forum).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I don't buy that you see. Some drivers might always be caught out by a bad situation, but we all make mistakes, don't look when we should, make assumptions, and frankly anybody could drive into a situation where the only result can be a collision of some sort.

So ANY driver driving along that road could be caught out by a hazardous situation given the right circumstances.

Your argument fails due to the issue of driver arousal.
Driver arousal (stimulation) falls where the limit is set needlessly low; driver awareness falls then they are less stimulated; driver error (your 'mistakes') increases when drivers are less aware - do you disagree with these logical steps?

Are commuters on motorways really no different from joyriders in residential areas? Should these two really be grouped together?

If A is a subset of Y and B is a subset of Y, and B results with Z, does A necessarily result with Z?

If everyone checked properly with 100% compliance that no one could cycle into their car door which they are about to open and the KSIs dropped, isn't everybody that opens a car door in some part responsible for the extra KSIs?
(Reductio ad absurdum)

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Well, yes. It's illegal to open a car door into the path of an oncoming vehicle, the more people do it the more dooring incidents there will be, so participating with the fling the door open brigade means you've a higher potential to add to the casualty figures. You might not door anybody in your entire door flinging career, but that doesn't mean you didn't have the potential to do so, you play a part in the system that causes the extra casualties.

Same with speed, the faster you travel along any given road the more potential you have to whack somebody else/more damage you will cause if you do whack somebody else. You might not whack somebody else in a million years, but you have increased your potential to do so, and hence played your part in the system that is overall more hazourdous.