Safe Speed Forums

On motorway patrol the other day, parked at my usual spot one early Tuesday evening, my attention was drawn to an Audi being driven at nearly 100 mph. The road was quiet, conditions good and he was not displaying any aggression.

But 100mph!!!!........

So I sit behind him and monitor his drive.
He uses his lanes correctly, although he could possibly use lane one a bit more often, but no one behind is coming into conflict.
I catch up to 600m behind. Its just past full daylight, but my dipped beams will neatly conceal my identity at this distance.
Ahhh, he's doing 90 to 95, perhaps not as much as I'd originally thought. Nevermind, let's keep going. Aha, he's coming up behind a car in lane three. What's he going to do here?
Mmmm... he's giving him nearly 2 seconds gap and there's obviously no obstruction ahead. But wait, is he flooring it now that he has got past the driver who was in lane three?
Well, he may have added a few mph to get past, but he's back at 90 to 95.
Time to pull up behind this driver, although I haven't quite got to the bridge where I switch off my vascar. What's this?! He's slowing down.
Guess he could have seen me, but despite him slowing down to about 75 I've still got him on average 91.35 mph over 2.5 miles.

Time to get him stopped.

That's it, over you go lad, into the hard shoulder nice and easy, hazards on, tuck in to the left of the hard shoulder, good lad.

Over I go to the car and invite him to sit in mine, which he does.

Conversation is something like;

Q Now then, do you have any idea why I've asked you to stop?

R I'm guessing it's going to be my speed.

Q Do you have any idea what speed you were doing?

R No, Not really, but I was concentrating on the situation around me, driving safely.

Q You were doing an average of 91 mph over 2 and a half miles, perhaps nearer 95 for a significant part of it. You slowed down for the last 600 metres or so of the check.

R I didn't realise you were behind for so long. As soon as I saw you in my mirror I slowed down.

Q Do you feel under any pressure from work to use your driving time to shorten the journey?

R Yes a little, but I have long since decided that a safe approach to driving is the most important aspect. If I can put a few miles per hour on when it's safe to do so, I will. I think most people will.

Q Have you any points on your licence?

R Yes 6, Oh no, only 3, the other three have now expired - (Shows me the licence)

Q How did you get them?

R You guessed it.... speeding.

Q Cameras?

R No, I always spot them and trim my speed, no, it's you boys who catch me unawares.

I then check insurance etc. All in order.






Q Oh, the reason I stopped you......







You've got a tail light out.



R Thanks officer.



Was I right? Was I wrong?

I was mightily impressed by this lad's honesty and awareness of safety while driving. There was nothing about his driving which caused me concern. I'd prefer him to be driving at less than 85, but that's nit picking. I saw other motorists that deserved and got their three points that evening. I don't think this lad deserved it.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Right, as you say an empty m/way, 100 mph is a safe speed in such a circumstance, the vehicle is well capable of it.

He slowed upon approach to other traffic, shows he was not reckless with regard to other road users.

You deserve respect Sir, good call.

_________________
Steve

Ditto. Nice one Ian. I can understand why you tugged him, and if he'd been lippy I imagine you'd have given a ticket after all? But that's probably given the driver a very different impression of the justice system than a scamera would have - ie that you're there to help make the roads better for the rest of us. Wish you were in TVP instead of up there.

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

You were spot on !!!!

It's a shame your being replaced by a binary tool that decides if your safe or not by using a >=number rather than common sense.

I'd love to do your job, I really would, but how much room is there for people/gents like you anymore?

Ah! You were rigjht - we'd have tugged him for the same reason and done the same thing.

Nice one!

_________________
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.

That bloke has influenced lesser drivers to chance thier arm. If I see people going about at a ton, I'll have ago, and if I know that coppers let them off, all the more reason to try it. Only I've taken the pledge to obey the law - almost forgot for a minute there!

PS - if he admitted to being under work pressure, did you advise him to slacken off?

_________________
I stole this .sig

So do you feel that lowest common denominator enforcement is what is necessary.

And you feel that you can state that you always do and always have obeyed the law in every respect, including what you smoke ?

Of course you were right. Take a well deserved pat on the back.

Intelligent policing always knows there's far more to safety than mph.

I'm a little concerned about the mindset that resulted in: " I'd prefer him to be driving at less than 85" I know it's not your fault or your responsibility, but it's extremely common for 100mph in one set of conditions to be FAR safer than 69mph in another set of conditions.

The speed limit tells us almost nothing about the safety of a speed. Equally, the degree of excess over a speed limit tells us next to nothing about the safety of a speed.

And let's NEVER forget that the name of the game is safety.

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

Sounds like good old fashioned traffic policing.

He was driving safely, his speed was no more a danger than his tail light, and a quick chat from you will have done more good than getting a ticket in the post at a later date.

He was pulled, which is exactley what other drivers would of seen

_________________
Steve

I guess all others would have to have been eavesdropping the conversation, or reading this thread to be feeling that way. Most motorists will see him stopped and think that he's being ticketed for speeding. I have reported many under that speed for the offence of speed because they have not exercised the correct disciplines, or the road was too busy, or conditions were cr*p, or having conversed with them, their driving speed was beyond my perception of their abilities.

Most of you know I'm not averse to cameras correctly positioned with reasonable tolerances. I'd have them on our motorways ticketing at 90 or above. Let us deal with the other motorists. I'd also love to have them stopped and spoken to at the time, but that's probably a wish too far.


We had a long and quite interesting conversation after the above conversation finished, and yes we studied the work issue in some depth. He promised to mention the stop to his bosses to put them in the picture about the risks they are placing on their employees licences, and also the added road safety risk of pressurised driving. He was in sales, and felt sure that should he lose his licence, his bosses would employ a driver for him, because of his value to them - although he didn't plan to lose his licence.

I had hoped he might be a safespeed poster. His attitude was about right.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

You should get little SafeSpeed cards to hand out to them.

Mind you, your superiors and your colleagues in the CSCP might not approve of that

_________________
"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

<chuckle>

Just out of interest, would you feel able (or comfortable?) to invite somone along to Safe Speed in such circumstances?

I'd be more than delighted if you did feel able, and interested to hear your reasoning if you didn't...

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

my emboldening

The prime reason for feeling that way is that in my own experience, once accidents happen above those speeds, especially blowouts, or sideswipes, the consequences are more serious and can result in crossover collisions with much increased risk of third party involvement. I accept what you say about the risk associations of speed and different circumstances, and I'm aware that the occurrence of the types of accident I've mentioned are almost infinitessimally small, but they increase with speed. That's why I'd prefer to see the slower speeds. Might be somewhat selfish, as I really do not have to consider the time inconveniences of driving at a speed slightly slower than that which may be perceived as being safe. It hardly affects my lifestyle at all. But if driving at 85 rather than 95 saved two or three lives nationally per annum, I'd consider it a reasonable wish from my perspective.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

and
Teehee
I have spoke to a few about the complex road safety discussions and debate on internet based forums, and have many interesting conversations with my 'customers'. I don't think I've mentioned Safespeed in any conversations, but I would have no problem with it.

Don't know if any of the other Bib have introduced this in their conversations. It would be fun to get a poster on who had been stopped and dealt with by In Gear, Neil or myself

Depending on how appropriately we dealt with them of course

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

So he was around 20mph faster than was legal, and he was let off because he said he thought he was driving safely, and was observed doing so (driving safely) over a 2 mile stretch of open motorway.

Yes, sideswipes are a lot more deadly than people may realise (I blame the movies ) - I once saw a van literally doing cartwheels after having his back corner clipped by a lorry, and he was only doing about 50
But it works both ways. Vehicles are commonly only in very close proximity to one another are when they're passing, and that's when the danger of sideswiping is greatest. But the higher the speed differential the less time is spent in the 'danger' zone. So, is it unreasonable to suggest that driving at 95 rather than 85 just might save more than a handful of lives nationally per annum?
A higher speed probably saved my bacon a few years back - a lorry had a front wheel blowout on a dual carriageway not thirty seconds after I passed him. Had I been doing 89mph instead of 90mph I might have been alongside him at the time.
OK, I know some people will say that had I been doing 70 I would not have reached him yet when his tyre went, but the point is that something like that could happen at any time, and the less time you spend alongside the lorry the less your chance of being there at the wrong time.

Regards
Peter

Spot on - reflects what I started to experience after a couple of speed convictions a few years ago. I started to drive at 70-ish on the motorway and found myself spending more time closer to other vehicles in adjacent lanes and having to take evasive action a few times whereas before this never happened.

Perhaps a crash would be slightly less severe but far more likely to happen!

Obey the law at your peril!

Yep, that's about the size of it. It was getting towards the limit of my discretion and that was the reason for the post. I assume it doesn't meet with your approval Peyote, and I hoped it would generate some criticism.

Could you perhaps identify the greater risk on the motorway between the above example and another I experienced fairly recently where a motorist failed to see that the traffic ahead had stopped for a lane closure bottleneck. The motorist had been travelling at or perhaps slightly over the limit, but had failed to register the roadworks warning signs and the speed limit (50 restriction) advance warning signs. The driver canoned off three other vehicles before coming to rest in the central reserve. Virtually nothing about that driver's previous driving indicated the serious dangerous lack of concentration.
I think in some way or other we have to be realistic, and reward good driver behaviour if it is glaringly evident.
That driver was advised that if he reduced his speed somewhat he would be less likely to attract attention. I did not tell him to drive at 70mph. Why, because I think it is too low for a quiet safe three lane motorway and his work pressures which will still exist once I've gone will lead him to exercise greater risk on other roads which are inherently more dangerous.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

I'm sure I've had this discussion before, but perhaps on CSCP.

I agree that it's a good idea to get past reasonably quickly, but is it not the case that you would be catching and passing more cars at higher speed therefore there would be a similar period of time 'in proximity' aggravated by a faster closing speed hence the greater chance of the SMIDSY sideswipe?

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian