Safe Speed Forums

No, let's campaign for both! What's wrong with having sensibly chosen speed limits enforced with discretion? Why should this law be singled out for "zero tolerance" when it is so evident that it is counter productive to do so?

It is against the law to drop litter, and I think most right-thinking citizens would agree with that principle (myself included). Now if some lout deliberately and flagrantly throws a chocolate bar wrapper on the pavement I'd be happy to see them booked for it. But what if the same person puts it in a waste bin only for it to be blown away by the wind 5 seconds after he's walked away? Should a CCTV camera pick that up and issue him with the exact same fine just because "it's against the law". What about the parents of a toddler who spills a dollop of his ice-cream cone on the grass in the park? Same applies?

It would pretty soon reach a stage where most people had convictions for littering, even though most of them had no criminal intent. Everyone would get so paranoid about dropping litter that any possible societal benefits from the law would be outweighed by the nagging worry in everyone's of getting an irrelevant and unfair prosecution.

Well that's just the way we enforce speed limits these days.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

But any speed limit by definition is always going to be a line in the sand drawn in a grey area between safe and dangerous behaviour. It does not define safety, it only defines legality. Therefore it needs to be enforced with discretion, and I don't think that confuses anyone.

If we set the "absolute top limit" as a speed that it could never be safe to exceed in any conceivable circumstances, then virtually everywhere it would be much higher than it is now. What would it be on a motorway, 150 mph? 200 mph? That would send drivers a useless and confusing message.

We can draw a parallel with the age of consent law. The vast majority of people would accept this is as a necessary protection against vulnerable children being exploited by predatory adults. But, on the other hand, it is rarely if ever used to prosecute boys of sixteen years and one month for having sex with girls of fifteen years and eleven months. If this happened, it would be generally perceived as grossly unreasonable. Perhaps you think it would be a good idea?

_________________
"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

Why yes of course, however I tend to agree with Basingwerk on this. Drivers should try to obey the law and in this sense we mean the speed limit. They should also recognise when its important to reduce their speed within that constaint.



I think this is a crucial point. Society today has changed out of all recognition to that of 25 years ago. The attitudes, respect, beliefs etc etc of todays population would be unrecognisable to those living in, say, teh 1970s. Perhaps the loss of the downward trend in road fatalities is as much to do with the vastly different demographics of todays driver population as it is with the change in emphasis on road safety issues?

Is this the same Rigpig who said he'd just become a born-again biker and would need to learn the locations of the local Gatsos?

Are you going to try to obey the law on your new Honda?

What people choose to do as individuals is down to their own personal morality. But it is a fact that the vast majority of drivers do not make any serious attempt to adhere to speed limits on a consistent basis.

What is at issue is not whether they are bad people for doing so, but whether it is desirable and effective in terms of public policy to promote much greater adherence to speed limits by means of automated enforcement.

_________________
"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

And what about the lawmakers keeping to their end of the bargain and not reducing the limits when there's no clear justification for doing so? If you want drivers to respect the limits, the limit setting process has to be seen to be worthy of respect.




Ooh, so does that mean you'd support a higher limit when motorway traffic density was on a par with that of the 60's? Many's the time I've driven home from London along the M4 around midnight without there being more than a handful of vehicles visible ahead of me or in my mirrors behind me - there are even numerous times when there are NO other vehicles visible on my side of the central reservation.

For sure, I'd not suggest attempting 80-90MPH along the same stretch of road during peak traffic flow periods would be wise, or even practical, but there are plenty of times when the traffic density IS low enough to support higher than NSL speeds.




But that's not really what Paul, myself, or many of his other supporters, are campaigning for. Sure, I'd be happy enough to see the police turning a blind eye to infringments of some current limits, where those limits are insanely low for the road in question, but I'm not advocating a general abolition of speed enforcement. Enforce limits that are sensible, and do so taking the conditions of each case into account - don't just tar every single driver who steps, however momentarily, over the line with the same brush.

So, basically, scrap the speed cameras that offer no real safety improvement to the stretch of road in question, bring traffic police numbers back up to at least the level they were at pre-decline, and start doing something about ALL aspects of road safety instead of picking off the easy targets who aren't necessarily even the unsafe drivers.

In the last month I can't recall a single incident where my safety bubble was threatened by another speeding driver. I DO recall several incidents where other drivers have drifted into my lane without looking, or pulled out of a side road straight into my path despite them having clear line of sight with my car. If I'd been less alert in all cases, or driving a car with poorer braking ability in some, these could have turned into accidents. Yet none of these other drivers actions would be picked up by the forests of "safety" cameras. Meanwhile, if I take my eyes off the speedo for a few seconds whilst heading south on the A1 through Archway, I know I'll be collecting 3 points and be 60 quid worse off - it's a 30MPH limit which is impossible to stick to unless I keep my foot on the brake all the way down the hill past the camera. So the way to improve safety at this spot is to encourage drivers to take their eyes off the road for a prolonged period (the road markings associated with the camera stretch for quite a way) whilst they're heading straight towards a traffic-light controlled junction... excuse me if I fail to see how a setup like this could earn the respect of any sensible driver. And I notice with no small amount of cynicism that, whilst this camera site is bi-directional, every time I've passed it the camera has always been facing downhill where it stands a better chance of snapping someone who's been caught out by the steepness of the hill.

If that were the only example of poor camera siting combined with a lower-than-would-seem-appropriate limit across the entire country then fair enough, it wouldn't be a cause for complaint. But it's not. It's just one of many. Too many.

Politically answered – missing almost every point, but I won’t push it if youre not up to it.

My main problem with you Mr Smith is that you like to make your disciples feel that they can display better driving by exceeding the speed limit. If we put enforcement aside for one minute, your dogma would drive their speeds up and up and up because of perceived (often imagined) skill enhancement, and because they only die every few thousand years, they would feel they are doing a good job. Theyre wrong, of course, they simply want to get from a to b three minutes quicker!
The government has set the limits. I’m almost entirely happy with them. They are there for numerous reasons many of which you cant or don’t recognise because of your self centred ideology.
I’m entirely unhappy about people taking the p*ss not adhering to speed limits around me and mine. Will you slow down for me Mr Smith? The law of my country demands that you do.

_________________
Drive in haste, repent at leisure.

The only sign is a departure from a graph (deaths against miles travelled) which includes data from 1950. If the data of only the last 20 years is included, the departure from the graph occurs before the mass introduction of cameras. Don't forget that until 1996, there were only a few hundred cameras in the country, yet the curves (which appears to be the main plank SafeSpeed's case) alters abruptly in 1993, making it much less clearly linked to cameras. It is not evident that strict enforcement is counter productive.



No, it is not illegal for the wind to blow litter out of bins.



Throw the book at 'em, I say!

_________________
I stole this .sig

But there's a big problem here - people are different as well as circumstances. The folk that really need speed limits as guides are the inexperienced and occasional drivers. These people should normally be travelling more slowly than average because of their under-developed hazard perception. If we raised speed limits - say for example the motorway speed limit - then we would be sending entirely the wrong message to the road users who need the speed limit most.

My point is this: It's pointless prosecuting normal responsible motorists using speed safely and appropriately. But speed limits (roughly) as they are are an important safety system for the inexperienced. Therefore we should distinguish between cases of dangerous speeding and safe and appropriate speeding. That's more or less what we had until the silly season, and it helped to give us the safest roads in the World.

More policies that take account of the real world and actually work, please!

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

Ok, so to complete the analogy, the depositer of the litter is now sent a notice in which he is required to incriminate himself, and it is up to him to somehow prove what really happened. Oh and if he wants to see the evidence that proves his innocence he has to go to court in order to obtain it, and face the risk that an unsympathetic beak will just do him anyway.

That certainly seems to be the stance you are taking with respect to motoring.

If this is the future I despair.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

r11co Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004
Chicken and Egg! These people want their roads back. They are entitled to their village life and an element of tranquillity. You would demand it in your residential street. I demand it.
NIMBY Attitudes here I’m afraid!


I have my own beliefs about road safety enforcement. I believe GATSO is crap. I think new camera developments some of which are up and running, will pave the way to better enforcement strategy
As for making money for the Government. Stuff and nonsense. Ask Gordon Brown what he’s made on cameras this year, would it be 50 million, 100 million. I doubt it. Then ask him what tax he has lost by trimming the tax on fuel in the recent fuel crisis.
He could get an extra quid out of us each year like taking candy off a baby. That’d equate to what the government make out of cameras each year.
It’s such an insignificant figure, it's irrelevant. But you make such a song and dance about it.

Meanwhil BiB are being given more time and manpower to target issues of social importance (including bad and illegal driving).

_________________
Drive in haste, repent at leisure.

SafeSpeed Posted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:09 am Post subject:

I’ll stuff the 85th percentile figure for the M6 toll under your nose if and when I find it. I hope it doesn’t embarrass you too much!

I’m intrigued by the 85th/90th percentile. The above graph in the thread must have data sources. Can you tell me what they are, and what actual factual rather than theoretical work shows the validity of the theory that 85th/90th percentile speeds are IN FACT the safest speeds, ie. researched data showing that 85th percentile speed on the motorway is IN FACT safer than 65mph on the motorway.

_________________
Drive in haste, repent at leisure.

You entirely miss the point.
Not all Rottweilers are dangerous, but everyone has a right to feel intimidated by them. That is why we ask for them to be kept under control.

I don’t trust you at the speeds significantly over the limit, and unless youre the blue moon speeder who limits his motorway overtakes to within 15mph closing speed, I have every right not to trust you. And the law is on my side, thank god.

You’ll also be the blue moon speeder who restrains himself to 2 or 3 seconds behind the car he’s following in the fast lane, in order not to intimidate. It just doesn’t happen mate!

You of course will have a sticker on your back window saying ‘It’s OK, I know what I’m doing’!

_________________
Drive in haste, repent at leisure.

Much as I sympathise with any person who has personal experience of such crashes, with respect, your experiences are not relevant to the set of circumstances set out by Mr Smith. In neither case was the driver doing 30mph, nor is there any suggestion that he/she believed that the faster speed was safe.

His reliance on these questionable soundbites are an indication that much of his dogma is unfounded, based on supposition, intellectual theory where counter theories are every bit as relevant, but ridiculously dissed by the man, purely to feed his need for speed.

He doesn’t care how many are killed every year to give him his three minutes.

This is the real story. It’s selfishness pure and simple.

_________________
Drive in haste, repent at leisure.

I know of schools in my area (30mph limit) for which the 85th percentile speed at school times is well in excess of that limit. It’s a disgrace isn’t it, but your ladyfriend's speed would be welcome in that particular street to reduce the average speed. The speed vans are there regularly. Rightly so!

Don’t accept the point of your little anecdote.

_________________
Drive in haste, repent at leisure.

Many laws are based on hard acceptable limits. Your emissions, your tyre depth, the slack in your steering, the alcohol in your blood, your speed, your noise level etc.



Very little in life is absolutely safe, so the community has collectively decided on absolute top limits to provide a reasonable compromise, on the averages, between acceptable progress and acceptable danger, which you, as an individual, must stay within. That is commonplace, so what are you making a fuss about?



There is something special in this respect about speed - any speed above zero can be dangerous, so there is no grey layer between safe and dangerous behaviour – legally, it’s all grey except for speeds over the absolute top speed, which is BLACK.



Let’s make sure by setting you an exercise . Please describe, in one or two sentences that the average driver understands, the discretion you recommend, over and above the simple rule ‘You MUST NOT exceed the maximum speed limits for the road and for your vehicle’. Be aware that this must define, to all drivers, exactly what is and is not acceptable to the law without ambiguity.

_________________
I stole this .sig

The discretion is in the enforcement, not in defining which behaviour is or isn't technically illegal.

I note you snipped the bit about the age of consent.

Do you believe it would be desirable to enforce that without regard to the circumstances - as the authorities certainly do not at present?

_________________
"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

But unless the road through the village is a private one, owned by the villagers themselves, then it's NOT their road, is it... And assuming this is the main road through the village we're on about, then any expectation of tranquility from people living next to it is absurd. If you live next to what is the main road for that area - regardless of whether the road is a multi-lane urban motorway or a single carriageway country lane through the middle of Somesmallhamletinthemiddleofnowhere - you shouldn't expect peace and tranquility, nor demand that all the motorists who may have no choice but to use that stretch of road to get from A to B should suffer a purely NIMBYesque speed limit if there is no good safety/engineering case to be made for a reduction.




Or better still, why not ask him what he's saved thanks to the cameras this year. How many millions of pounds didn't have to be spent on maintaining traffic policing at pre-camera levels, or on unemployment benefits thanks to the jobs created by the camera partnerships? It doesn't matter whether income increases or expenditure decreases thanks to cameras - either way there is a net financial benefit for the government.




Really? I wish someone would let Thames Valley and the Met know about this... there really doesn't seem to be any noticeable improvement in the areas they cover - gang/yob culture continues to make certain areas off-limits out of daylight hours (and sometimes even in daylight) to anyone who isn't suicidal, small-scale theft, vandalism and other anti-social activities which have an immediate impact on the apparent well-being of an area don't seem to be reducing at all, and as for examples of dangerous (but under the speed limit) driving, just spend half an hour on the roads and you'll be having fantasies about driving an unmarked police car, being able to switch on the blues, and pull over all the numpties you'll see.

Sorry, but from where I (and many others) see things, the reduction in speed enforcement duties HASN'T been met with a corresponding increase in policing of other illegal activities.

You do like to change discussions relating to general driving practice into questioning my own personal driving don't you?

But FYI, yes I will try to obey the speed limits. The bit about the Gatso locations in the other post should have been qualified with the 'winky man smiley', I forgot. It was a throw away line.

As a 'first time around' biker I found out only too well what happens when you don't obey the speed limits. 10 points on your license and a magistate staring at you over a pair of half-moon spectacles warning you of the consequences of any further transgressions



And this relates back to the second part of my other post above. I suggest that 20 odd years ago people would have had a greater tendency to view obeyence of the speed limit as a responsibility they should consider and respect. The fact that, as you observe, people today don't is possibly why death on the road has not fallen so rapidly over recent years?

I don't think speed limit compliance was any greater 20 years ago than it is now, except in the sense that there were far fewer unreasonable limits.

It was, of course, much better on NSL roads before December 1965

_________________
"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

I'm no better off. Using your standard, I'll never know where I stand legally.



I don't know about that - at least they don't kill people.

_________________
I stole this .sig