Safe Speed Forums

Hi,

Im currently writing an essay on The Social Construction of Speeding. Namely I will be writing about how speed has been socially constructed to be inherently dangerous. One such example I will use is the perceived threshold of 100mph, i.e. as I have read here, if a person is caught travelling more than 100mph they get an instant ban due to the severity of the offence. Is there any particualr rule or regulation or even case-law that this is from?

Also any sources that you think would be useful generally would be great (got the usual suspects, pistonheads, peeipoo, ABD).

Thanks,

Ben

It's a guideline (now superseded) published by the Magistrates' Association. The current threshold for a recommended immediate disqualification is 26mph above the prevailing speed limit.

That's an interesting essay. I'd like to see it when it's finished. You'll find a great deal of material on the main web site.

What's it for? Let me guess - you're a sociology student?

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

Thanks, pity its superseded now though my point still stands, 100mph is always seen as more dangerous than 99mph (if the driving conditions are good).

I'm a Human Geography student I'm afraid, doing a module on The Social Construction of Environmental Risk. Having trouble at the moment balancing my thoughts so I dont sound like some mental speed freak in the essay!

Ben

The sort of speed that defines risk is relative to circumstances.

The sort of speed that the law measures is absolute.

Road safety depends on drivers setting appropriate speeds relative to the circumstances. Absolute speed is largely unimportant.

Have a look at: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/againstcameras.doc

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

It's a nice round number, with the "wicked" '60s connotations of "doing the ton" - a speed only attainable in those days by a very few high-performance cars, driven by irresponsible "playboys". 160.93 kilometres per hour doesn't quite do it..

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

"Ton up boys" as I recall were largely motorcyclists, and I'd guess the expression became widespread in the late 1950s.

I also think that ordinary large saloons were easily capable of 100mph by about the mid 1960s. Think Zodiac Mk III for example - I just checked. Top speed 100mph, launched in 1962: http://www.motorbase.com/vehicle/by-id/1288/

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

The most recent one is the 2 ton boys....Thankfully there are still only a handful of bikes capable of that kind of speed....

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

may I suggest a survey, asking people what they think of those who exceed 100mph, why they think that, how does it differ from 99mph, how does it differ from 70moh etc etc

all perception stuff then try and match against reality.

but unlike cars that can do that speed they're affordable for most people.



A point on topic. I think the title says a lot about your views. Why "speeding over 100mph" and not "driving over 100mph"?

Because whether travelling at that speed is safe of not (and I happen to think it is when the conditions are suitable, i.e low traffic, good visibilty, well maintatined car), the law says that if one is driving above 70mph then you are speeding. Therefore I will be looking at how the offence of speeding can be said to be socially constructed.

Ben

Who are you answering Ben? I can't make it out...

Allow me to recommend the 'Quote' button.

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

I wouldn't call that "easily"... Far more likely to have been achieved with a strong wind behind it and slightly down hill - but would look good on the advertising. Manufacturer's figures for power and speed in those happy days were about as accurate as DfT statistics today.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

me when I asked why speeding and not driving.



well that depends where you are driving doesn't it? 80mph is legal in many places. Some areas have no limits at all.

Is it a "social" or a "political" construct? The original 70 limit was nothing better than a knee-jerk political response to an atypical set of accidents. It has always, in my opinion, been a standard politician's "must be seen to be doing something (however inneffective)" response.

Speed per se has not in itself been shown to be dangerous, but it's easy to measure, and therefore easy to criminalise on the grounds of "doing something for road safety". Was it Adlai Stephenson who said "we should seek to measure that which is important, not make important that which we can measure"? - which appears to be the present core of "road safety".

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Einstein said something similar: "Not everything that can be measured counts; not everything that counts can be measured".

He knew a thing or two (but obviously not as much as management consultants).

I wrote a lengthy(ish) piece some while ago about the boundary (for purposes of speeding offences) between criminal and non-criminal behaviour. The literalist view is that speeding is a (so called) absolute offence (correctly a 'strict liability' offence) so any speeding event is contrary to law ("the law is the law"). However, it is an inescapable fact that ~95% of the driving population exceeds the speed limit at some time or times and a further inescapable fact that ~10 million (very conservative estimate) speeding events occur every day (~3.5 billion per annum).

It is, to my mind, preposterous to assert that 95% of the driving population are criminals or that an event which happens 10 million times a day is a criminal event. Therefore, I conclude by application of logic that the true boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour is not the speed of a vehicle per se but whether any particular driver speeds so flagrantly or frequently that he is detected by enforcement action (what else can it be). This understanding helps to put a proper perspective on the importance of speed limit compliance.

If that proposition is correct, and I think it is, then the orders of magnitude increase we have seen in the scope and scale of speed enforcement activity has, in effect, re-defined the boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour. This shows us that the authorities have massively shifted the goalposts and accounts for what I think is a rising groundswell of anger and resentment that many people feel about speed enforcement but are unable to rationalise because of the common "literal" interpretation.

i hesitate to respond to this, as i'm not really sure what my thinking is.

as an advanced driver, and trained test driver with some experience of high speed.. and hence having done the vehicle & tyre checks and risk-assesments that go with it.

i struggle to see much greater than 100mph being safe on any public road. i dont think this is just a nice round number, or one which has been socialogically ingrained. maybe 120mph would be my top limit.

i don't think you want to be passing _any_ traffic at much more than 50mph differential speed.
even if you have an immaculate vehicle, unless you have control of the surface & debris 100mph seems a limit beyond which you struggle to mitigate for any event out of your control.

gotta run.. back later

100mph is not big deal in a modern car, it just sounds fast. Ohh you naughty man you were doing 100 miles per hours, here have a bus ticket.

100 mph in which car though? Who was driving it? Where's it being driven? People talk of speed differentials. The general pace in many lane 3's is about 85mph so some body cruising past at 100 is only 15 mph different than the pace, which is 15 mph different than the law.

How does 100 mph in a Focus feel compared to driving an escort? Similar cars from the same manucturer, just from a different era.

thats a refinement issue, yes 100 probably is quieter, more comfortable, easier in a focus than an escort. and a focus is probably safer in the event of an accident at speed. all this means is people are more likely to feel ok about going faster.

whilst cars have come on, have the roads really come very far?
drivers and traffic aside the same things are still around that could cause an accident: surface, debris, tyre damage. whether you're in a more refined focus or an escort you still get the same severity of crash, where kinetic energy goes up with the square of speed.

Hang on just a minute there. Surely there is MUCH less risk when PASSING (within say 3 or 4 feet) someone with the quoted speed differential of 50mph than what happens 10 of thousands of times a day on B roads, LEGAL CLOSING speeds of upto 120mph within 2' of each other with wheels raising a dust cloud from the verges. Doesn't phase most poeple (including myself) in the slightest. (A LOT of 'back roads' round here) As an advanced driver etc. Surely you must appreciate the need for spatial awareness, closing, passing & merging speed judgements which are all honed skills, driving to the prevailing conditions, and a need to believe that every other driver on the road is not trying to kill you!

As for the average family Focus/Escort - neither vehicle was really designed with 100/110mph in mind, and that's reflected in the price, handling & specification. Roads have improved, with newer grippy & easier draining surfaces. Debris, has & always will be there. But I'd rather hit a chunk of rubber in my omega than in a cinquecento!....

Crashes - Kinetic energy, yes it has to go somewhere. Crumple zones, deformable sections etc.

A staged limit, 100mph say for over 25's, with 3 or more years experience wouldn't work - no way to police it. Unless the ANPR could be put to use logging nominated car/driver combinations, but that's getting into almost PepiPoo territory!

I believe it would be self policing. Much the way that NSL is on B roads. Competent & confident driver with cars/bikes suited to the job would frequent the upper speed. Whereas the more timid, would do what they've been doing for years, dawdling along.
I hear great cries re: Boys Racers in wholly unsuitable cars, conditions & burberry attire dying on every turn & killing innocent motorists. They do that anyway, and legislation will never stop it, only actual police on the ground.

Rant over.