Safe Speed Forums

Pardon? Where do I say his question is moronic? I say driving to the speed limit ignoring road conditions is moronic.

Actually I think his question can't be answered but then that had already been pointed out so I didn't see much point prattling on reapeating what had already been said.


OK, why did he ask it?






Is this directed at me personally or to the board as a whole because I'm having a bit of a problem understanding where you are going with it.

Sorry Homer, not aimed at anyone person, and not restricted to this thread!
I take your point about the moranic quote - which I did not understand at first.

I was looking for a full explanation, because many people read here without ever posting, and we owe it to ourselves to make things as clear as possible - hence my comma in your quote!
I live in a rural area, and day to day commuting is not the same as doing the M25 daily, so I look at others who post for their experiences (such as variable limits) and do need a comprehensive explanation as to how it works - theory AND practice.

Back to my original thought. Stephen is based within easy driving of my location, and I wonder how his location influences his thinking on his question. In an ideal world, it should be possible to drive as fast as is safe, without regard to a set limit - as long as the driver's ability is not compromised by a surprising turn of events.
With no street lighting on rural roads, we get drunks (and not so drunk) pedestrians walking along the white lines at night, because they cannot keep their footing on the unlit footpath, so I dont see quiet roads in the wee small hours as being safe to speed on, but would be prepared to travel at 40 past Ambleside Rugby Club, which is 30 limit, because the road is well lit, wide, and offers no hidden access points for 200 - 300 yards.

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

I am sorry for causing some upset amongst you that was not meant,some of you ask why I ask this question. Well I will tray and give you my honest answer this is my opinion and not one of my force that I work in.

Over the years I have come across many many different people driving all forms of transport,they range from the nicest through to the most unpleasant etc etc. I sometimes find myself in a situation when doing speed checks again I only do them in 30s and built up areas were lots of hazards and pedestrians. Now if it is a fast road ie no complaints from the locals re the speed then I set my limit at 45mph+ I feel that his is more than reasonable,but I sometimes sit at the side of the road being abused verbally by people like yourselfs when I stop them for this speed,some are doing 56mph in a 30mph,I hear everyone reason or excuse if you want to call it that.

I even get the ones with 9+ points on there licence blaming me for them going to loose their -licence-job-house etc. Now you tell me, should I judge each individual on their standard of driving,road lay out etc,to say you get a ticket at 45mph because of a,b,or c and you can get away at 56mph because of d,e,and f. Surely this cant be right I have to set my guidelines and stick to it no matter what, if they are broken this is not policing with impartiality,as I am sure if you were one of the above you might have something to say to me if you found out that I had given you a ticket at 45mph and let your next door neighbour off at 56mph.

I even say to people give me one good reason why I should let you off, if they do then I squash the ticket, but the one that I do all the time is,I ask them if they can answer correctly to me a question from the highway code then they will get off with the offence and guess what, I dont take back many tickets. So,I ask you how can I police a 30mph limit that keeps everyone happy without breaking the law myself,I know I have discretion but even that can only go so far. I could go on all night but I wil wait for some more replies.
Stephen

Only speaking for myself, but no upset caused at all.

Seems fair enough - if I judge a as being safe for 50mph but you disagree and pull me over I accept that I'm likely to lose. Would I be happy? Nope, probably not . But I wouldn't give you or any other copper abuse or sob stories either.

I see where you're coming from with the original question now. Frankly this is another one of those things that makes me glad I don't have your job. I suppose if you've used your judgement to decide that over Xmph (whether X is the limit or not) isn't a good idea where you're doing speed checks then that's that. However, I'd hope that you still stopped drivers who were below that and gave them a ticket and/or lecture if their driving was below your threshold but still poor. As to the possibility of me getting a ticket at 45 and my neighbour getting one at 56, well, again I'd be lying if I said I'd be happy but I don't think it suggests any lack of impartiality on your part if my neighbour was driving well at 56 (e.g. if it was ideal conditions) and I was driving badly at 45 (e.g. wet road, dark, kids about). Surely you'd have enforced the law according to how much risk we were each presenting, which is impartial.

Again, seems fair enough. The point is that you're satisfying yourself that the driver isn't presenting unnecessary risk even when they're above your previously decided threshold as well as the limit. Or not as the case may be. BTW, if they've got a copy of the HC in the car are they allowed to look?

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

I would say if you're only pulling at 45 in a 30, and even then making a judgment as to drivers' reaction before deciding whether to issue a ticket, then it's hard to raise any objection.

Indeed a point often made on this forum is that it is highly desirable that a police officer speaks to drivers at the time of the alleged offence, rather than just sending an NIP in the post.

Having said that, there are some daft speed limits in Warrington, especially the 40 mph on the A56 Walton bypass

_________________
"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

As I said in my first reply - you get to judge the driver by his/her reaction.
Anyone responding as above would seem to have the sort of attitude problem which will lead them into trouble again.
They may also drop you in it by saying the next time "Well PC XXX let me off, why wont you?"

I would definately procede against them because of the attitude.
Are you able to offer a driver training course? If so, it would be the best alternative.

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

I hope no one minds me tacking on to this thread, but I've been pondering the last few days what sort of reponse does a Police Officer look for in order to determine if a ticket should be issued or not? Over the years I've come across some grade one idiots masquerading as an officer, and come across others who were first class and took all the circumstances into account. Three quick stories to illustrate the point, one officer said that I couldn't drive a fully road legal car on the road, ie it had tax, MOT and insurance and the car had no defects - however it wasn't on the Swansea computer (through local vehicle licensing office intransigence), I ignored his advice as I had done everything by the book.
When "producing" my documents at a Police station the officer spotted the number plate on the MOT had been changed by the local vehicle licensing office (and stamped) for a private plate, I was accused of doing it myself and further action would follow, I'm still waiting what a plonker.
Finally, one dark evening I was maintaining a reasonable speed along an A road in Warwickshire, in a left hand drive Spitfire with passenger. The officer comes to what he thought was the drivers side and asked the passenger, "do you know what speed your were driving at?", to which the reply was a priceless "I don't know, but I'm not driving". He then came round to my side after realizing the steering wheel wasn't there, and said "I stopped you because you only have one brake light, but you don't seem to use them very much anyway" and let me go, cheers mate.

Anyway to get back to my point, if you are stopped by the police and you know you have been driving safely but above the limit what is the best response? Do the police still ask the question "do you know why I've stopped you?", a 'yes' response means you have just incriminated yourself, 'no' means you are either a liar or driving without due care and attention. As traffic officers will have heard it all before is it best to something like "whilst a may have been exceeding the limit I believe it was in a safe and responsible manner" or does this get you into the 'clever dick' category? What is the best line of defense at the roadside that impresses you BiBs?

_________________
jaykay in NZ

Drive up and down the stretch of road you are "enforcing" a few times before you start and see what speed you feel is the fastest safe speed for the conditions at that particular time. Surely that's the easiest way to decide?

Of course you can't look at your speedo while doing this.

_________________
Andrew.

I don't believe you have 'caused any upset'. But it takes a decent sort to shoulder responsibility and apologise, and I thank you for that.



I don't really agree with this policy - you'll find a few exceeding safe thresholds in any speed limit zone.



I believe you should ask yourself about the safeness and suitability of the speed for the circumstances.



The bottom line is that equal speed does not mean equal risk. Sometimes 32mph might be murderously fast while on other occassions 60mph may be quite modest in a 30mph zone. You have the ability to make such judgements. So to summarise:

It's not about the number, it's about the risk. The two are very very different.

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

No upset caused, to be honest I was having an off day.

I don't think you can set a single threshold for every 30 zone. I would be quite happy for people to be prosecuted for 31mph past a school in a residential area (not a school at the side of an A road) at times when there are lots of kids around. While the kids are tucked behing their desks then a greater leeway should be allowed.

If the limit is realistic then the usual 10+2 is plenty of leeway. Many 30 zones are not realistic, some set by default, other by idiotic decision makers.


Yes.

But this is one of the main problems with speed cameras. They prosecute absolute offences with no regard for the situation.


Please tell me you don't ask the stopping distances. I really take exception to that one. I couldn't tell you what the highway code suggests might be my stopping distance from 40mph but I can tell you the exact point on the road ahead that I can stop by. Even if I know the figures what use are they unless I have something with me to measure with. I couldn't tell you how far away 100 yards is, if I were to estimate six feet I would be out by at least a foot.


We don't want you to be policing speed limits, we want you to be policing bad driving. The speed limit is something you can use to get an easy prosecution without having to argue over the definition of dangerous driving.

Stick around, read som emore threads and you'll get the idea.

Hear, hear. The Highway Code stopping distances are fundamentally useless to a driver because he cannot stop and tape-measure the road ahead.

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

I've certainly not been offended by Stephen's post.

I am wondering just what response I would give now if stopped by a policeman in a 30 limit and asked "Do you know what the speed limit is here?" followed by "... ands what speed were you doing"

To the former I would likely say "I believe it to be 30, though I have not verified signage validity from an enforcement perspective. " To the latter, if I had observed trhe speedo and seen it at or around 30 mph, I would state that categorically. Had I seen the policeman - which is I would argue very likely, and before he was in a position to assess my numerical speed, I would almost certainly have found time to verify my numerical speed and make any adjustment if required to get it to below 30 if required. If, as is far more likely (given that I'd been pulled and questions of speed are in the offing) I failed to observe the policeman before he was able to get a reading, I would probably say "numerically, sorry, no. I was concentrating on the hazards and hazard density, maintaining progress at a safe pace commensurate rith the conditions". However, inwardly I would be kicking myself for very poor observation.

I would say any speed which is safe.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Mu.

Question cannot be answered as posed.

The only possible answer is c, if I am being asked to disregard the road conditions and say what speed I should be able to drive at in a 30 limit.

Alternatively, if I'm a good citizen, then the answer is 30.

I think it's all fair and well to say that Stephen should be concentrating on bad driving as opposed to enforcing the limit however some of his responsibilities are to enforce the limit, whether we agree with it or not. From an enforcement perspective, there has to surely be a line drawn otherwise every motorist exceeding the limit will use the excuse, "well in my opinion I was driving safely for the conditions", even though they may not have been.

I think that 45 in a 30mph limit is about right, that allows for 15mph above the actual limit prior to getting a pull and IMO allows for indescretions whether it be because the driver was paying attention to the road, or unsure of the limit etc.

The fact that he uses his descretion to a certain degree, even after a pull means that the 'customer' has another chance of 'getting off' a ticket, who can say that about speed cameras?

Of course the above is pretty much academic anyhow, especially seeing as the Police and the home office are intent on utilising equipment that has been proved to provide spurious or inacurate readings of a vehicles speed. We really don't know how many motorists have been within the limit and then prosecuted now do we?

Exactly. It is amazing how many people think its almost their duty to drive AT 30 - even when this would be a foolishly hazardous speed e.g. in many residential streets. This type of stupidity just breeds more stupidity - like 20mph limits.

I will drive at anything between 5 and 45 mph in a 30 limit according to what seems safe.

Although the law allows the police to stop (and prosecute) people driving too fast for the conditions, I hear of more or less NO cases of people being prosecuted for driving "too fast" in 30 limits unless they are exceeding 30. Yet again - a fixation on speed and not safety.

Prof Beard

That's one of the big worries isn't it? I'd hope that Stephen and the other BiBs round here (actually the ones not round here as well ) would pull someone driving badly even if they were not exceeding their pre-determined "tug speed". Or the limit for that matter. Same goes if they see a car coming which looks unroadworthy or otherwise makes the copper's nose twitch. Cue acid lectures, tickets, impounding of really dangerous vehicles and arrests as appropriate. Whereas, and I'm sorry to repeat myself here, all gatsos and talivans will do is take a bloody picture, and even then only if it's over the prosecution threshold, and even then the driver only gets a comparative slap on the wrist some two weeks later, and even then that's only if it wasn't an unregisitered throwaway or stolen.

Like I said before Stephen, no upset caused when you clearly enforce the law with much more sense and impartiality than a Gatso can ever manage. I'm sure you get a lot of uncalled for aggro and abuse from some drivers, but you sound pretty reasonable to me. Those who really care about road safety appreciate the job you do and would prefer there to be more of you on the roads.

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

I can think of stretches of 30mph road where it would be safe to do 80mph because you would still be able to stop in the distance you can guarantee to be clear. And 40mph limits where the same would be true of 100mph.

I will answer the original question.

I think it should be 20% + 2 inclusive, so in a 30mph area, a speeding offence would be given for 38mph.

That is assuming good conditions, clear road and no signs of aggressive driving, i.e. nothing except exceeding the speed limit.

Well,

I have just sent off my latest scamera voucher.

40mph in a 30 limit.

I wasn't aware of the camera, it was a very wide sweeping road with excellent visibility and as the pictures will confirm not a pedestrian to be seen (a fact confirmed by the 20 second video!!). Nobody will convince me that there was any need to prosecute me as I was driving with the appropriate care and attention at all times notwithstanding my breach of a technical regulation. On the other hand had it been a busier time of day with more hazards then as an experienced, competent driver I would have adjusted my speed to that more appropriate for the prevailing conditions.

It clearly cannot have been dangerous because the enforcing authority chose to video my progress rather than intervene.