Safe Speed Forums

In general, you do not know that carelessness or inattention have occurred until a crash has happened. They are not in any meaningful sense measurable.

The current obsession with numerical speed is a classic illustration of Robert McNamara's famous saying: "Measure what is important, don't make important what you can measure."

_________________
"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

Absolutely. In fact, I wrote something similar but deleted it for lack of clarity before posting.

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

What foolishness - there are several levels "catchall laws" which reflect several levels of risky practises. They can result in long spells in prison for very dangerous driving, or a slap on the wrist for lesser things.

Edit:
On reflection, it is not foolish. I can see that the muddle is due to the difference between a thing being illegal and the chance of being caught. That goes for SafeSpeed's posts as well. Risky and illegal behavior only comes to light when a crash happens, PeterE, but the same risky behavior is still just as illegal as it is when a crash doesn't happen, it just doesn't come to light.

In that respect, speeding is a little like fly tipping - it is common, has a bad impact overall, there is only a slight chance of catching an individual offense, but it is all antisocial and illegal whether one is caught or not.

PS: forgive the American spellings – I have just installed OpenOffice and it has an America dictionary. I'm a Canadian (technically ), so I am allowed!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Once again, there is a muddle. Risky behaviour beyond acceptable driving standards could land you inside. Yet you say first that it is tosh…



and … then you agree with me that careless driving is a specific offence! In the meantime, please pass on to your members at every opportunity the simple requirement they obey the speed laws. You'll be doing them, and yourself, a great favour.

* Edited to remove certain hotheaded remarks that, while not offensive, were undeserved.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Yes, and of course in general, drivers do not know that they are going too fast until they have already run somebody over. Yet your message to drivers is to ignore the limits.

If drivers were reasonable, and indicated they were ready to obey the limits in principle, where they make sense, blah blah blah, I might be swayed, but continued defiance of the law convinces me that the level of maturity, even amongst ‘serious’ drivers, is just not there at present.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Only if the supposed carelessness actually results in adverse consequences. Many accidents result from very slight failures of observation or judgment. If you emerge from a side road, and fail to check your blind spot carefully, if you don't hit anything, it will never be detected. Indeed it is questionable whether an offence has occurred in any meaningful sense of the word. If there happens to be a cyclist in your blind spot, and you hit him, on the other hand, you will almost certainly be charged with careless driving. But no policeman or measuring equipment on earth could approach being able to detect whether you have looked carefully enough, in the absence of hitting anything.

_________________
"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

Yes, see my edit. An act so bad that it is illegal is still equally illegal whether the outcome is a crash or not. It is not the crash that determines the illegality of the act, but the act itself. It think.

And any act that causes substantial unnecessary risk is illegal, as far as I know. It is that type of risk that I refer to, because a small chance always exists of a devastating crash – another reason for limits?

_________________
I stole this .sig

What offence would I be charged with in the UK (and there may well be one, I honestly don't know) if I was caught walking up the center of the outside lane of a dual carriage way, just after midnight wearing black clothing in the rain?

We know it's illegal to eat mince pies on Christmas day. Yet it might as well not be because there's absolutely no enforcement.

So in a very practical and realistic sense you might agree that 'illegality' is the product of the law and law enforcement.

If we enforce when necessary we have an effective package. But we can't do that for million of undetectable careless driving offences. As we've been saying, they are only 'illegal' in the practical sense after the event.

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

Then by implication if one accepts the need for legally binding limits then one has to accept enforcement of said limits if they are to mean anything?

Appropriate enforcement in the public interest is useful and beneficial.

But since we cannot know if a particular enforcement is appropriate and in the public interest without due regard to the immediate conditions, automated enforcment is out of the question.

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

I started a Brainstorming thread to discuss careless and inattentive driving in a broader sense.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5922

I'm hoping that's not going to result in fragmented discussion, and I recommend putting 'careless driving' points in the Brainstorming thread. That's not a requirement - if a reply seems to sit better in here, please feel free.

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

Yes, but the scale, location and means of enforcement need to meet tests of reasonableness, proportionality and overall benefit. There is no point in enforcing the law purely for its own sake, where it is easiest to do so - which all too often is what the scamera partnerships seem to do.

_________________
"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

Most drivers ARE reasonable and DO obey the limits in principle. We just object to swingeing over-reliance on flawed automated enforcement that is incapable of judging driving conditions at any point, unlike an average Trafpol. This in no way means that drivers are lacking in 'maturity' or judgement.

Don't forget that there are many motorways where a safe and sensible driver, with a suitable vehicle, can choose to drive at over 100mph both legally and safely where conditions allow. In Britian, however, the limits are much lower and the same action, while still safe, can result in loss of licence, job and home in that order.

we object to the scenarios where, after a number of accidents on a bend of a slippery road, the "solution" is to lower the speed limit and enforce with a camera instead of re-surfacing the road and improving the warning for the bend. The cost is the same, but one improves safety and the other brings in cash.

The camera being placed nowhere near the problem area , the road surface is still as bad as before ,but now we've got two bad areas - one at the bend -still with no warning ,the other around the camera as people brake madly/check speedos/check mirrors more, and no reason posted as to why a camera exists.

_________________
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 would have thought that anything can only be 'illegal' after the event. Things in the future are not illegal, as far as I know. They are not easy to prove if the thing you have supposed to have done hasn't happened yet!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Of course. What happens to laws that are not enforced? They are ignored and (effectively) cease to be.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I assume you are being deliberately obtuse in failing to recognise the difference between an offence of "speeding", which can be detected at the time, even in the event of no adverse consequences, and an offence of "momentary inattention", which cannot be detected at the time and is only likely to come to light if there are adverse consequences.

To be blunt, you're just trolling again

_________________
"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

Either you misunderstood the point, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

I'm suggesting that the vast majority of careless driving offences committed are undetectable at any time. They do not result in a crash.

A small percentage that do result in a crash can be determined to have taken place after the event. This even applies to the perpetrator - he may be absolutely shocked to find himself in a crash.

You can't say that sort of thing about - say - deliberate acts of theft. There's 'going equipped' and perhaps there's an act of 'breaking and entering' to enable a theft. Or even conspiracy to commit theft.

Anyway, I guess the legal bottom line is that no mens rea is required for a careless driving offence.

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

SNAP!

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